PWQs

[muscleman]

Re: Re: PWQs

"When are we sure that the meaning of a question is clear? Obviously if and only if we are able to exactly describe the conditions in which it is possible to answer yes, or, respectively, the conditions in which it is necessary to answer with a no. The meaning of a question is thus defined only through the specification of those conditions...
The definition of the circumstances under which a statement is true is perfectly equivalent to the definition of its meaning.
... a statement has a meaning if and only if the fact that it is true makes a verifiable difference.
(M. Schlick, 'Positivismus und Realismus' in Erkenntnis, 3, 1932).
Metaphysical statements are thus forbidden: they are meaningless. Also the traditional philosophy is indeed meaningless, and the only role of philosophy is the clarification of the meaning of statements. "



Now, Mr Elephant, where is the verifiable difference?

Thats the problem why ppl become atheists, because they cant think for themselves but need a book to be refferred to..

A book is fine, as long as u dont put so much faith and effort to believing it is a "FACT", without asking other ppl in which who disagrees with your book, so u can learn both ways..

I am here in the skeptic forum, posted all my arguments because I want to learn both sides, Im not like the narrow minded cult, but the response I get is "your a troll"..LOL

Ossai is a "PERFECT" example of the brainwashed cult member. Making his own definitions, FALSELY accusing me, then ignores points and move on.


Lucifuge, welcome to atheism, listed among the "freaky beliefs", among the list other than atheism is UFO, chupacabra, non-life can create life, Koran is a peacefull religion, etc.

 

[Peskanov]

UCE;

----
quote:
The body is also part of PWQ. If you drill a hole in your head you can see your own brain in a mirror. But the body also exists in the noumenon, and the part of the body called the brain is closely correlated to the mind itself.
----

I think you have not understood my point.
In your model, there is a 2 ways information interface between the individual conscience and what you call "the mind".
Like a computer game, your model implies and entity (the Mind <=> the computer) generating PWQ, and a second entity (the mind <=> a program ) controlling one of the parts of this PWQ.
In a computer game, agents can be controlled by the computer or the external user. If you can look inside the system, the examination of the agent controlled internally will show a closed circuit of information, while the externally controlled one would led to a misterious source of information, bringing complex, unpredictable data: the joystick hardware register!

And you already pointed how could this interface work in you model, although maybe it was in other thread. You said the mind could overcome probable brain outputs. Are you aware that this source of information is as visible and present as any other?
I claim that in your model there is information entering the PWQ system which is external to the definition of this system,and that as long as this system shows coherent itself, the source must be detectable in it.

Again, in other others words: You are assuming the information circuit relevant to our actions comming from PWQ can NOT be closed.
That is your assumption, which theorically could be shown false (locally in time as a minimum).

 

[Guest]

Luci

"When are we sure that the meaning of a question is clear? Obviously if and only if we are able to exactly describe the conditions in which it is possible to answer yes, or, respectively, the conditions in which it is necessary to answer with a no. The meaning of a question is thus defined only through the specification of those conditions...
The definition of the circumstances under which a statement is true is perfectly equivalent to the definition of its meaning.
... a statement has a meaning if and only if the fact that it is true makes a verifiable difference.
(M. Schlick, 'Positivismus und Realismus' in Erkenntnis, 3, 1932).
Metaphysical statements are thus forbidden: they are meaningless. Also the traditional philosophy is indeed meaningless, and the only role of philosophy is the clarification of the meaning of statements. "

Now, Mr Elephant, where is the verifiable difference?

Can you translate this into English for me, and explain what it has to do with this thread?



Peskanov :

I think you have not understood my point.

Quite likely.

In your model, there is a 2 ways information interface between the individual conscience and what you call "the mind".

I assume you mean "consciousness".

And yes, there is a mental connection between all aspects of Mind, including our own.

Like a computer game, your model implies and entity (the Mind <=> the computer) generating PWQ, and a second entity (the mind <=> a program ) controlling one of the parts of this PWQ.
In a computer game, agents can be controlled by the computer or the external user. If you can look inside the system, the examination of the agent controlled internally will show a closed circuit of information, while the externally controlled one would led to a misterious source of information, bringing complex, unpredictable data: the joystick hardware register!

And you already pointed how could this interface work in you model, although maybe it was in other thread. You said the mind could overcome probable brain outputs. Are you aware that this source of information is as visible and present as any other?

Did I say that? I don't remember saying that. And I'm not really understanding your point....

I claim that in your model there is information entering the PWQ system which is external to the definition of this system,and that as long as this system shows coherent itself, the source must be detectable in it.

Je ne comprends pas. Maybe we have a language problem here, but I'm not following you at all. Information entering from where? What does "and that as long as this system shows coherent itself" mean? and how can "the source must be detectable in it." be resolved with "I claim that in your model there is information entering the PWQ ".

You seem to be claiming two different things which contradict each other, then highlighting it as a problem with my metaphysics, but I don't understand why you are claiming either of the things you are claiming.

Again, in other others words: You are assuming the information circuit relevant to our actions comming from PWQ can NOT be closed.

The WHOLE SYSTEM is open. It is Infinite. We've been there before....

Peskanov - I think we must be talking at cross-purposes - I think there must be something you think I am suggesting that I'm not suggesting. I just don't understand your post.

Geoff.

 

[Peskanov]

UCE, sorry I didn't explain it clearly...
If you think about how information travels in your model, maybe you will understand my post better. Anyway, I will re-read your posts again to see if I am understanding your model correctly and I will remake my message.

 

[Guest]

UCE, sorry I didn't explain it clearly...
If you think about how information travels in your model, maybe you will understand my post better. Anyway, I will re-read your posts again to see if I am understanding your model correctly and I will remake my message.

Information all travels via the metamind.

 

[Win]

UCE:

What was I aiming at? Just this.

The distinction between "physical world qualia" and "internal state qualia" is artificial. A quale is a quale is a quale.

If you begin with qualia as the only certain existant, then go about trying to explain things, eventually you reach the point where you have to ask: What's the relationship between the existence of qualia and the content of qualia?

It doesn't matter whether you frame that question in terms of "physical world qualia" or the physical world. Your formulation just changes the terms in the question, but leaves us no nearer an answer.

 

[Guest]

UCE:

What was I aiming at? Just this.

The distinction between "physical world qualia" and "internal state qualia" is artificial. A quale is a quale is a quale.

If you begin with qualia as the only certain existant, then go about trying to explain things, eventually you reach the point where you have to ask: What's the relationship between the existence of qualia and the content of qualia?

It doesn't matter whether you frame that question in terms of "physical world qualia" or the physical world. Your formulation just changes the terms in the question, but leaves us no nearer an answer.

Doesn't it?

I am just pointing out that TLOP are a model of the behaviour of a certain class of qualia. Which question are you suggesting I'm no closer to answering?

I still don't really understand what you are getting at. What makes you think I can't answer the question about the relationship between the existence and content? What does this have to do with what I am actually saying? I get the feeling you are trying to debunk something I'm not claiming.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Re: Re: Re: PWQs

Thats the problem why ppl become atheists, because they cant think for themselves but need a book to be refferred to..

A book is fine, as long as u dont put so much faith and effort to believing it is a "FACT", without asking other ppl in which who disagrees with your book, so u can learn both ways..

I am here in the skeptic forum, posted all my arguments because I want to learn both sides, Im not like the narrow minded cult, but the response I get is "your a troll"..LOL

Ossai is a "PERFECT" example of the brainwashed cult member. Making his own definitions, FALSELY accusing me, then ignores points and move on.


Lucifuge, welcome to atheism, listed among the "freaky beliefs", among the list other than atheism is UFO, chupacabra, non-life can create life, Koran is a peacefull religion, etc.

All of this coming from a moron who believes in Pope Infalibility, Enciclics and Marian Dogma. Give me a break! If you are interested in the subject, see my answer to UCE.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What is the metamind?

~~ Paul

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Re: Re: PWQs

Luci



Can you translate this into English for me, and explain what it has to do with this thread?

Of course Geoff.

Let's suppose you are right and Stimpy is wrong. What would be a verifiable difference we can objetively test and wich can't be true if Stimpy is right? Is there ANY? Because if no, then your post has no meaning.

"The definition of the circumstances under which a statement is true is perfectly equivalent to the definition of its meaning.
... a statement has a meaning if and only if the fact that it is true makes a verifiable difference. "

Is there any verifiable difference?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: A puzzled kat writes...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not interactions with an objective reality. Rather consitutes an objective reality. This objective reality is simply a consensus of subjectivity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think what you mean is that the 'objective' part is simply the consensus of subjectivity. I don't think you really mean that the consensus constitutes reality? Or do you?

The reason I ask is this. If you want to divide your mental events into PWQ's and internally generated Q's, I would ask... What is generating the PWQ's?

Consensus? ?

Ok, I'm going to expand a bit here. Please take note because it is pretty profound stuff.

In our sensory perceptions of the world it is quite clear that our actual visual experiences are not determined by the images on the retina as everyone seemingly naively supposes. Perceptual illusions illustrate this nicely. You've heard of the necker cube? It's the series of lines drawn on a flat plane which we in our western culture perceive as a cube http://www.yorku.ca/eye/necker.htm
However, the results of experiments on members of a number of African tribes whose culture does not include the custom of depicting 3-dimensional objects by 2-dimensional perspective drawings, indicate that the member of those tribes would see the
"necker cube" as simply a 2-dimensional array of lines. Interesting to note here is that when I look at a necker cube, I cannot but see it as a cube, although whether I see its under surface or top surface will keep instantaneously changing.

It must not be thought that this applies only to perceptual illusions. What observers see, the subjective experiences that they undergo, when viewing an object and scene is not determined solely by the images on their retinas but depends also on the experience, knowledge, expectations and general inner state of the observer.

Take our familiar visual experience of immediately perceiving a 3-dimensional world. All that hits our retina are a series of shapes and differing colors. We construe this as a 3 dimensional world in a similar manner that we see the necker cube as a 3 dimensional object.

Just to clear up a possible misunderstanding. It may be thought by some people that differing people see the same thing, but interpret what they see differently. I absolutely disagree with this. This is because reality is constituted by our very perceptual experiences and in turn, as explained, our perceptual experiences are determined to a large extent by our inner state, knowledge or expectations. Another way of stating this is our perceptual experiences are to a very great extent influenced by an implicit theoretical interpretation of reality and by necessity it is not possible to have an atheoretical intepretation of reality (everything one can ever perceive is through a lens of some implicitly held theory). Therefore reality really is literally different for us and for african tribes. We see a cube they don't. Therefore for us there really does exist a cube, for them there really is no cube there!

Also take note that obviously I am not claiming that reality is wholly determined by our inner state. We cannot just see absolutely anything. What we perceptually see, and therefore what is real, is moulded by the mind, not created ex nihilo. And that which is moulded is the information entering our senses. My own view is that what we perceptually experience is a kind of collaboration between our finite minds and the infinite Mind, although the apparent separateness of minds (all minds) is ultimately illusionary.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't understand. There is absolutely no problem with supposing that reality is objective even if one is an idealist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Did you read the sentence where he said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assumption that reality is objective is a necessary assumption of the scientific method. It is also an assumption of Idealism

bolded by me

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Of course he knows there is no problem with supposing reality is objective for an Idealist! He even says it is necessary!

{SHRUGS}

So this time he directly contradicts himself in the very same post. Stimpy always conradicts himself, it's just that he normally doesn't do it in the same post.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
One set represents the external world and the other set represents qualia which are generated internally. A case of a former would be a family of our PWQ's which we label a particular table. Now if we both viewed this table from the same distance away and from the same perspective we would experience very similar PWQ's. On the other hand my experiencing a particular emotion of some kind is something you would ned to infer from my bodily behaviour. So basically PWQ's constitute an objective external world, where as other mental events generated wholly internally are irreducibly subjective. For example no-one else can literally experience my pain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul
This is a strong argument for a real external world. Tables appear similar to many people because they are both forming subjective images of the same external object. Fear is different (is it really?) because it is predominantly internally generated.

However, first things first. Is the sameness of our views of the table really all that much greater than the sameness of our fears? We seem to be able to talk about fear with one another and understand what we're talking about just fine.

~~ Paul [/B]

The point about PWQ's is that they have a location, they are sufficiently similar amongst different people that families of PWQ's can be defined ostensively, they can be measured, and my measurement will be the same as anyone elses measurement etc. Seems very obvious to me that they are utterly different from wholly internally generated qualia.

 

[Win]

UCE:

Which question are you suggesting I'm no closer to answering?

This one:

What's the relationship between the existence of qualia and the content of qualia?

One way to ask this question is: How do qualia arise from the physical? Another way is: What distinguishes "physical world qualia" from "internal state qualia?" Another is: What about qualia connects it to the concepts of necessity and being?

Simply according qualia status as the primary existant doesn't get us any closer to answering the question.

 

[Guest]

What is the metamind?

~~ Paul

Berkeley lived in a time where, as a Bishop, he was forced to use the term "The Mind of God", for fear of upsetting "the powers that were", i.e. the church. The term 'Metamind' comes from Peter Lloyd who finds himself in a position where he wants to avoid using this term for rather similar reasons, "the powers that be" now being materialistic philosophy.

The Metamind is a higher mind, of which ours are derived. The noumenon (the physical world in its true form) exists within the metamind. It is supported by the Metamind. This scheme replaces a self-existing self-supporting material reality with information stored in a higher mental realm.


Luci

Let's suppose you are right and Stimpy is wrong. What would be a verifiable difference we can objetively test and wich can't be true if Stimpy is right? Is there ANY? Because if no, then your post has no meaning.

You mean it has no meaning in terms of materialistic science. Your above statement depends on the assumption that anything not objectively verifiable by the scientific method has no meaning.

"The definition of the circumstances under which a statement is true is perfectly equivalent to the definition of its meaning.
... a statement has a meaning if and only if the fact that it is true makes a verifiable difference. "

Is there any verifiable difference?

The difference is metaphysical, not physical. It makes an enormous difference to ones outlook on the possibility of the existence of paranormal phenomena or meaning in religion. There are no objectively verifiable differences because both schemes result in the same (normal) behaviour in the physical world - the realm of objective study. But in terms of metaphysics it makes the difference between

1) all paranormalism and all religion being utterly non-existent and meaningless

and

2) The possibility of making sense of recurrent themes throughout the history of religion, and providing explanations for the vast amounts of anecdotal evidence surround so-called 'paranormal' phenomena.

This is a crucial difference. So long as you are an ontological materialist you don't really have to experiment to find out whether paranormal phenomena exist, and you don't need to investigate religion and philosophy - because your metaphysical model has already rendered both of these things devoid of meaning. That isn't because the are actually devoid of meaning - it is because you have chosen a metaphysical model which renders them meaningless. This choice then causes serious bias amongst the so-called skeptics because they already "know" they are right. Even though they are wrong.

 

[Guest]

Win :

this one

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the relationship between the existence of qualia and the content of qualia?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I didn't ask that question.....

You did!

I might have asked it in a previous thread, but I didn't ask it in this one.

One way to ask this question is: How do qualia arise from the physical? Another way is: What distinguishes "physical world qualia" from "internal state qualia?" Another is: What about qualia connects it to the concepts of necessity and being?

Simply according qualia status as the primary existant doesn't get us any closer to answering the question.

I am examining the relationship between the laws of physics and qualia representing the physical world. You are asking a different question.

"the question" you are asking isn't the one I am trying to answer.

I am asking "What is it the laws of physics are a model of?"

None of the three formulations of question you have posted are actually the question I am actually asking.

 

[slimshady2357]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A puzzled kat writes...

My own view is that what we perceptually experience is a kind of collaboration between our finite minds and the infinite Mind, although the apparent separateness of minds (all minds) is ultimately illusionary.

Thanks, that's all you needed to say. The rest I already know you believe.

You may have stated this before, if so, I missed it.

Oh, and text sucks sometimes, so to be clear, I'm not dismissing what you said Just acknowledging your answer.

Adam

 

[Win]

UCE:

And what I'm saying is that the question: What is "the relationship between the laws of physics and qualia representing the physical world"

just boils down to

What's the relationship between the existence of qualia and the content of qualia?

Not trying to pull your chain, I promise.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: A puzzled kat writes...

Hi Ian



I'm going to seem like a troll for the way I keep banging on about meaning--sorry! On the one hand I can accept the existence of the physical world as illustrated by physics'n'stuff. On the other, I carnt experience it directly because my experience is mediated by language. Without language my world is literally meaningless, a chaotic jumble of sensation with no understanding of what those sensations are.

Hmmmm, that's interesting. I remember a few years back when I was doing my degree the tutor saying this and everyone in the class agreeing with her apart from me! Although to be honest me disagreeing with everyone was scarcely a rare occurence! LOL Anyway, I still find this statement ludicrous. Sorry!

So this is where I kinda fall over with the separation of sensory impression and emotional state qualia and to some extent even with the separation between internal mental states and the external physical world. My PWQs are wholly internally generated because they depend on the meanings I've learnt to attribute to them.

Surely not. Otherwise that would mean my mind is the genesis of what I perceive to be the external world! Do you really wish to maintain PWQ's are wholly generated? Shaped and moulded yes, but not wholly generated!

 

[Guest]

Win

And what I'm saying is that the question: What is "the relationship between the laws of physics and qualia representing the physical world"

just boils down to

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the relationship between the existence of qualia and the content of qualia?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does it?

Why?

It seems to me you are complicating something that is actually very simple. It's simple because the relationship between PWQs and the laws of physics is very simple. We experience PWQs. We create a mathematical model called TLOP which describes their behaviour. Simple. Why complicate it?

Not trying to pull your chain, I promise.

Sorry...didn't think you would be....but this thread seems to have contained a lot of people making posts that must have seemed relevant to them, but to me seemed to be attempts to change the question to something else that the poster in question was happier answering. And I found several of them quite hard to understand as well as feeling them to be irrelevant.

Fact : We have qualia
Fact : Some of those qualia are representations of a physical world that appears to behave in a predictable, logical manner.
Fact : we have invented something called the laws of physics which describe this predictable behaviour.

STOP.

What is wrong with my facts?
Why can't we STOP there?
Why does everybody want to go....but...but...but...and try to smear marmalade all over my simple argument...

 

[BillyTK]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A puzzled kat writes...

Hi Ian, thanks for taking time to reply.

Hmmmm, that's interesting. I remember a few years back when I was doing my degree the tutor saying this and everyone in the class agreeing with her apart from me! Although to be honest me disagreeing with everyone was scarcely a rare occurence! LOL Anyway, I still find this statement ludicrous. Sorry!

Could you outline your reasons for finding it ludicrous?

Surely not. Otherwise that would mean my mind is the genesis of what I perceive to be the external world! Do you really wish to maintain PWQ's are wholly generated? Shaped and moulded yes, but not wholly generated!

Well no--your mind isn't the genesis of what you perceive to be the outside world. For instance, the Necker cube example your presented earlier; our perception of it depends on the cultural meanings we learn to attribute to it, and these meanings precede the individual; you're not born with the "thing" that makes you see the Necker cube as a cube; you learn it.

Also as you explain, our sense perceptions are not the same as the stimuli which causes those perceptions. I might be making an error here in misunderstanding what PWQs are, but my understanding is that PWQs arise as a result of our sensory perceptions, not as a result of the real-world stimuli. So PWQs must be wholly internally generated, in response to the sensory perceptions acting in combination with other factors such as the meanings we possess.