Cause-and-Effect. Is Causality necessarily true?

  • Thread starter Mentat
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Causality
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of causality and its validity in various scenarios. It is brought up in the thread, "I think therefore I am," by user Manuel_Silvio, and the question of whether everything we believe is caused by something we did is explored. Examples, such as flipping a coin and slapping someone, are used to illustrate how causality may not always be true and how quantum mechanics challenges traditional notions of cause and effect. The conversation ends with a discussion about the need for more than just a correlation of occurrences to establish causality.
  • #36
Originally posted by drag
Because they don't have one, unless it is
self-referential of course...:wink:

Is this inductive or deductive reasoning?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Welcome to PF Opiner !

Well, you are correct about this issue
being far from settled. What I did say
is that regardless of the interpretation
the currently accepted theory of QM does not
allow for classical determinism and hence
classical causality. Not just due to the
HUP and wave-particle duality but also due to
lack of individuality - identity (and perhaps
other principles I'm a bit too tired to
remember right now, sorry).

Live long and prosper.

And yet all of the things you mention allow for the existence of an "observer", which would exist as a separate entity to that which is "observed".
 
  • #38
Originally posted by Mentat
And yet all of the things you mention allow
for the existence of an "observer", which
would exist as a separate entity to that which
is "observed".
No, QM does not allow for such separation.
 
  • #39
Originally posted by Mentat
Is this inductive or deductive reasoning?
It is a simple scientific fact, for now.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by drag
No, QM does not allow for such separation.

Have you forgotten Schrodinger's Cat entirely? The state remains undertermined, until observed.
 
  • #41
Originally posted by drag
It is a simple scientific fact, for now.

You aren't answering my question.

Besides, since when is it a scientific fact that all things that are "basic", are undefinable? This may (emphasis on the "may") be philosophically true, but that doesn't mean that it is a scientific fact.
 
  • #42
Originally posted by Mentat
Have you forgotten Schrodinger's Cat entirely?
The state remains undertermined, until observed.
In which case you yourself are in a superposition
of states. Though, I heard that modern experiments
have shown that WF collapse is quite delicate.
In addition you can not possibly be objective
or a separate observer where particles have
no identity. Basicly, according to QM you can
not define any distinct particles and the
only time you know they are somewhere (without
knowing which) is when you, supposedly, observe them.
So, I could have a free electron in my body
exchanged with a free electron from the keyboard
and it will seemingly be the same electron
as it interacts with other particles in my body.
In fact, it is meaningless to say that this electron
belongs to my body and that one belongs to the
table - I have no possible way of knowing this for
certain. It's just a liekly assumption.

To sum up - QM forbids the observer/observed
separation, period.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #43
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
You aren't answering my question.
I can not define science - observation as being
either an inductive or a deductive process,
'cause I got no idea. :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
Besides, since when is it a scientific fact that all
things that are "basic", are undefinable? This may
(emphasis on the "may") be philosophically
true, but that doesn't mean that it is a
scientific fact.
I was referring to SPECIFIC basic entities in science.
Further more, there were just 8 words in my relevant
message and it appears that you did not read the
last 2. :wink:

Peace and long life.
 
  • #44
Originally posted by drag
In which case you yourself are in a superposition
of states. Though, I heard that modern experiments
have shown that WF collapse is quite delicate.
In addition you can not possibly be objective
or a separate observer where particles have
no identity. Basicly, according to QM you can
not define any distinct particles and the
only time you know they are somewhere (without
knowing which) is when you, supposedly, observe them.
So, I could have a free electron in my body
exchanged with a free electron from the keyboard
and it will seemingly be the same electron
as it interacts with other particles in my body.
In fact, it is meaningless to say that this electron
belongs to my body and that one belongs to the
table - I have no possible way of knowing this for
certain. It's just a liekly assumption.

To sum up - QM forbids the observer/observed
separation, period.

Live long and prosper.

Still wrong, as QM does allow for there to be individiual particles, it just doesn't allow you to describe their position (or any other part of their current state) accurately. However, when you get to large, complex, beings - like humans - you get the distinction between observer and the observed, even though the large, complex, being's position is not perfectly definable either.
 
  • #45
Originally posted by drag
I can not define science - observation as being
either an inductive or a deductive process,
'cause I got no idea. :wink:

I'm not talking about Science, I'm talking about things that are "basic". You said that they are all undefinable. I asked how you knew that, and you responded, "Because they don't have [a definition], unless it is self-referential of course...". I asked you if this was inductive (meaning that you had actually tried to define every single "basic" entity, and found that this was true in all cases) or deductive (meaning that you had followed logical premises to this conclusion) reasoning.

I was referring to SPECIFIC basic entities in science.
Further more, there were just 8 words in my relevant
message and it appears that you did not read the
last 2. :wink:

I read it, but I disagree, as I don't think it is a fact now, or that it has ever been.
 
  • #46
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
Still wrong, as QM does allow for there to be
individiual particles, it just doesn't allow
you to describe their position (or any other
part of their current state) accurately.
However, when you get to large, complex,
beings - like humans - you get the distinction
between observer and the observed, even though
the large, complex, being's position is not
perfectly definable either.
Look, I will not continue to argue this
point because I am no expert in the field
and hence do not have the knowledge to do
this with full accuracy and validity as you
would probably prefer. I do, however, know
that QM is said not to allow observer/observed
separation for the general reasons I explained above.
For more details you could pose a question
to the real experts in one of the physics forums.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by drag
Greetings Mentat !

Look, I will not continue to argue this
point because I am no expert in the field
and hence do not have the knowledge to do
this with full accuracy and validity as you
would probably prefer. I do, however, know
that QM is said not to allow observer/observed
separation for the general reasons I explained above.
For more details you could pose a question
to the real experts in one of the physics forums.

Live long and prosper.

Fair enough.
 
  • #48
Greetings again, Mentat ! :smile:
Originally posted by Mentat
I'm not talking about Science, I'm talking about
things that are "basic". You said that they
are all undefinable. I asked how you knew that,
and you responded, "Because they don't
have [a definition], unless it is self-referential
of course...". I asked you if this was inductive
(meaning that you had actually tried to define
every single "basic" entity, and found that this
was true in all cases) or deductive (meaning that
you had followed logical premises to this conclusion)
reasoning.
AGAIN, I referred to SPECIFIC BASICS - WITHIN
SCIENCE. NOT to ALL basics (whatever that might mean).
We were discussing causality and I said that
you can NOT decide if it's true - in response to
your original question, because even when it
was considered a scientific principle it was
a basic one - self-referential/unexplained, and
thus one has no way of discerning its truth
or anything else about it, the same way I can't
say an electron is true/false.
Now, in science a basic thing has a name and
certain characteristics discribed by the way
this basic thing is incorporated into our likely
model of observation. Hence, by definition it
has no explanation, until one is invented - theorized,
which in turn relies on other basics or is
self-referential. Clear ?
Originally posted by Mentat
I read it, but I disagree, as I don't think
it is a fact now, or that it has ever been.
Please, explain an electron. :wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #49
Originally posted by drag
Greetings again, Mentat ! :smile:

AGAIN, I referred to SPECIFIC BASICS - WITHIN
SCIENCE. NOT to ALL basics (whatever that might mean).

That's exactly what you referred to. Just read the third post of the third page of this thread.

We were discussing causality and I said that
you can NOT decide if it's true - in response to
your original question, because even when it
was considered a scientific principle it was
a basic one - self-referential/unexplained

I was asking why you immediately make this connection (between being basic, and being unexplained).

Now, in science a basic thing has a name and
certain characteristics discribed by the way
this basic thing is incorporated into our likely
model of observation. Hence, by definition it
has no explanation, until one is invented - theorized,
which in turn relies on other basics or is
self-referential. Clear ?

Oh, ok, you are saying that if something is definable, then you have to define the terms used to define it, and so on ad infinitum or until one runs into self-reference. While this is true, it is not practical, as language is based on the use of words to define words.
 
  • #50
Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
That's exactly what you referred to.
Just read the third post of the third page of this thread.
Clearly we had a misunderstanding, because
I meant one and the same thing from the beginning.
Originally posted by Mentat
I was asking why you immediately make this connection
(between being basic, and being unexplained).
Because basic is supposed to be a concept
used to refer to things that have no explanation.
If I could explain the scientific term of
an electron the same way I can explain an
orange - as consisting of other particles,
I would not call it basic. But, for the moment,
I can't, so I say it's a basic concept - an
axiom of science. Or, an axiom of the reasoning
we apply to observation.

Now, same went to classical causality when
it was assumed to be a part of science.
But, even if it were a part of science today,
I could not decide if it's true/false because
these terms have a meaning INSIDE science and
can not be extended to its axioms. Unless,
of course, you consider some form of reasoning
BEYOND what you use in science. You may do
so, of course, and it may allow you to say
weather causality is indeed true (whatever true
will mean in that system), but first you'll have
to justify this system. That is why there is
probably no ultimate proof.
Originally posted by Mentat
Oh, ok, you are saying that if something is
definable, then you have to define the terms
used to define it, and so on ad infinitum or
until one runs into self-reference.
[zz)]
Originally posted by Mentat
While this is true, it is not practical, as
language is based on the use of words to
define words.
I don't think I understand what you're
talking about here and how it's related ?

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #51
Originally posted by drag
I don't think I understand what you're
talking about here and how it's related ?

I'm talking about the fact that we can only communicate using some kind of language, and if we are using language, we are confined to it's rules - one of which is that words have meaning. So, if you ask me to define each word, and then define the words I used to define that word, and so on, you are just negating the use of language to describe phenomena, you are not negating my proof (as it exists within the confines of language).
 
  • #52
Originally posted by Mentat
I'm talking about the fact that we can only communicate using some kind of language, and if we are using language, we are confined to it's rules - one of which is that words have meaning. So, if you ask me to define each word, and then define the words I used to define that word, and so on, you are just negating the use of language to describe phenomena, you are not negating my proof (as it exists within the confines of language).
We use language in order to be able to communicate
concepts. We can agree/disagree about concepts,
can't we ? Further more, some concepts are
not rigorously defined, they are approximations
of observation that we use for simplification
of otherwise very complex ideas, like love, thrill,
awareness and so on. So, when you attempt to provide
such approximations with exact meaning (consciousness ?),
I must ask for your rigorous proof. And, like I
suspected to begin with :wink:, you don't have one.

Peace and long life.
 
  • #53
Originally posted by drag
We use language in order to be able to communicate
concepts. We can agree/disagree about concepts,
can't we ? Further more, some concepts are
not rigorously defined, they are approximations
of observation that we use for simplification
of otherwise very complex ideas, like love, thrill,
awareness and so on. So, when you attempt to provide
such approximations with exact meaning (consciousness ?),
I must ask for your rigorous proof. And, like I
suspected to begin with :wink:, you don't have one.

Peace and long life.

I have proof, but explaining it relies on the use of words, and you seem bent on side-stepping my argument by quibbling about the undefined nature of words.
 
  • #54
Originally posted by Mentat
I have proof, but explaining it relies on the use
of words, and you seem bent on side-stepping my
argument by quibbling about the undefined nature of words.
You have proof of causality ?!
 
  • #55
Originally posted by drag
You have proof of causality ?!

You said "consciousness", in your last post. That's what I have proof of. I can't prove cause-and-effect - as is evident by the very existence of this thread.
 
  • #56
Originally posted by Mentat
You said "consciousness", in your last post. That's what I have proof of. I can't prove cause-and-effect - as is evident by the very existence of this thread.
No ! I just used it as an example in brackets.
Now it's your turn to get confused between the 2 threads...
 
  • #57
Originally posted by drag
No ! I just used it as an example in brackets.
Now it's your turn to get confused between the 2 threads...

Well, the point is the same: Any proof that I offer, on any subject, will require that you take words for their inherent meaning, as stipulated by either a dictionary, or a textbook on the subject.
 
  • #58
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, the point is the same: Any proof that I offer, on any subject, will require that you take words for their inherent meaning, as stipulated by either a dictionary, or a textbook on the subject.
And I tell you again that meaning of words
is not a precise definition because we have
many words with no precise definition. If you
want to prove something you should use words
that make sense according to some type
of reasoning system connected with observation
(preferably the seemingly most successful one - science).

Statements like "I'm conscious because I'm aware." or
"I think, therefor I am." have no concrete meaning
that is in consensus and thus none that we can discuss
and reason with together.

Anyway, what's your proof ?

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #59
Originally posted by drag
And I tell you again that meaning of words
is not a precise definition because we have
many words with no precise definition. If you
want to prove something you should use words
that make sense according to some type
of reasoning system connected with observation
(preferably the seemingly most successful one - science).

Why?

Statements like "I'm conscious because I'm aware." or
"I think, therefor I am." have no concrete meaning
that is in consensus and thus none that we can discuss
and reason with together.

Not true. "I think therefore I am" was discussed rather rigorously, by Manuel_Silvio and I, and the words need not be rigorously defined for us to do so.

Anyway, what's your proof ?

My proof is the empirical data, taken from my own personal experience of consciousness. If you like science, you should respect empirical data taken from your own personal experience.
 
  • #60
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
Why?
Because words are a part of language and
that in turn is a means of COMMUNICATION. :wink:
If we can not agree upon the precise meaning
of the words then we can not communicate efficiently.
Originally posted by Mentat
Not true. "I think therefore I am" was discussed rather
rigorously, by Manuel_Silvio and I, and the words need
not be rigorously defined for us to do so.
Did he agree with you ? And in case he did - did others ? :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
My proof is the empirical data, taken from my own
personal experience of consciousness. If you like
science, you should respect empirical data taken
from your own personal experience.
Science operates in a different way. Science
adepts a reasoning system to the observed data
and then tries to make sense of it by translating
the data accordingly.

If you can define a reasoning system of some sort
(that is not unlikely - opposed by observation) and
then define the consciousness accordingly then
I'll adress your "empirical data".

The simple fact is that you (personally and at this time,
at least)can't formalize this piece of observation
in any clear manner. Remember that science does not
adress what it can not define and since consciousness
is not defined in science - there's no problem here.
I mean, you could say that science ignores it, but
that would in turn question all of the scientific
interpretations we have and throw them out the window.
I personally think it's better to leave consciousness
outside of science, as part of the PoE, rather than
throw away science because of this problem and
crack our heads at how we can define a type of
reasoniong compatible with consciousness (seemingly
complete lack of causality ).

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #61
Originally posted by drag
Because words are a part of language and
that in turn is a means of COMMUNICATION. :wink:
If we can not agree upon the precise meaning
of the words then we can not communicate efficiently.

We could agree on their meaning, if you were willing to do so.

Did he agree with you ? And in case he did - did others ? :wink:

I don't think anyone else has even read our posts, as no one has commented for or against any of them. I really wish you would read some of it. Perhaps you could copy it and paste it on a word processor, and then you could read it in your spare time.

Science operates in a different way. Science
adepts a reasoning system to the observed data
and then tries to make sense of it by translating
the data accordingly.

You see, it assumes that there are data to be observed (as opposed to just "Mindul perceptions", to borrow a lifegazer term), and that there is sense to be made out of them.

If you can define a reasoning system of some sort
(that is not unlikely - opposed by observation) and
then define the consciousness accordingly then
I'll adress your "empirical data".

How about the fact that you are thinking about what I have typed here? I've used this kind of argument before, and it's undoubtedly true - if you know what I have posted here, you are conscious of it.

The simple fact is that you (personally and at this time,
at least)can't formalize this piece of observation
in any clear manner. Remember that science does not
adress what it can not define and since consciousness
is not defined in science - there's no problem here.
I mean, you could say that science ignores it, but
that would in turn question all of the scientific
interpretations we have and throw them out the window.

I don't think Science ignores it. We have such fields as Psychology and Psychiatry (and even much of Sociology) which deal with the conscious actions of human beings.
 
  • #62
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
We could agree on their meaning, if you were willing to do so.
Now that's a good approach - "agree to my meaning".
No, thanks. Not to mention that you can't even
explain your meaning (for a very good reason - it
has no satisfactory scientific explanation or definition).
Originally posted by Mentat
I don't think anyone else has even read our posts, as no one
has commented for or against any of them. I really wish you
would read some of it. Perhaps you could copy it and paste it
on a word processor, and then you could read it in your spare time.
That would indeed require a lot of spare time. :wink:
How about a short sum up(I'm pretty skeptical about this) ?
Originally posted by Mentat
You see, it assumes that there are data to be observed
(as opposed to just "Mindul perceptions", to borrow a lifegazer
term), and that there is sense to be made out of them.
It assumes nothing. We get some data and we deal
with it. We do not deal with data if we don't get
any. We make probable asumptions by applying
various types of reasoning and theories to the data.
If some reasoning appears to apply and show consistentcy
according to the data then it would appear that it
"makes sense" of the data.
If you wan'na show that science is a belief
you can start a separate thread on this.
(And don't use Alexander's views as an example.:wink:)
Originally posted by Mentat
How about the fact that you are thinking about what I have typed here?
I've used this kind of argument before, and it's undoubtedly true - if
you know what I have posted here, you are conscious of it.
Perhaps you need to learn a bit about definitions.
One, amongst others, interesting aspect of a definition
is that it should not contain itself. Another is
that it should have content.
Originally posted by Mentat
I don't think Science ignores it. We have such fields as
Psychology and Psychiatry (and even much of Sociology) which
deal with the conscious actions of human beings.
These fields deal with physical approximations of
a complex system of the specific - human type.
These fields use consciousness as an approximation
to direct discription according to physical laws.
That is, instead of explaining how is it that I
require food and how the whole procedure goes on in
the body and the environment, the approximation just
notes - I want to eat. That is the basic info input
that we appear to have while physics is a reasoning
frame we apply to it and interpret it through.
The info itself has no characterization (except the
self-referential maybe) out of the context of our reasoning.

Peace and long life.
 
  • #63
Originally posted by drag
Greetings Mentat !

Now that's a good approach - "agree to my meaning".
No, thanks. Not to mention that you can't even
explain your meaning (for a very good reason - it
has no satisfactory scientific explanation or definition).

What has no satisfactory scientific explanation or definition? Consciousness or Causality? It's really hard to keep up with both of these threads at the same time, without "losing thread" of what you were arguing.

That would indeed require a lot of spare time. :wink:
How about a short sum up(I'm pretty skeptical about this) ?

I can try to do a short sum-up. Just know that it's not the whole thing, and I'm probably missing more than one important point.

"Uncertainty" (with a capital "U", which is how Manuel and I agreed to refer to the uncertainty of all things) does not allow one to take anything for granted, correct? However, one must first take Uncertainty for granted, before deciding not to take anything for granted. This means that there is a paradox at the heart of Uncertainty (the paradox of taking for granted that one should take nothing for granted). With this paradox at it's heart, it become quite unusable, as one could not possibly give it a use (without running into it's paradoxicality (if that's actually a word).

Anyway, that's the shortest sum-up I could think of. I'll post more on that, if it becomes necessary.

It assumes nothing.

Remember, to assume that you assume nothing is a paradox :wink:.

We get some data and we deal
with it.

Oh yes? So we assume that we are "getting some data" (which is an assumption of an objective Universe), and we assume that we are capable of "dealing with it".

We do not deal with data if we don't get
any. We make probable asumptions by applying
various types of reasoning and theories to the data.
If some reasoning appears to apply and show consistentcy
according to the data then it would appear that it
"makes sense" of the data.

And whether or not it's showing consistency isn't left to assumption?

If you wan'na show that science is a belief
you can start a separate thread on this.
(And don't use Alexander's views as an example.:wink:)

I'm not saying that Science is a belief, I'm saying it's based on a few of them (much like any other branch of Philosophy).

Perhaps you need to learn a bit about definitions.
One, amongst others, interesting aspect of a definition
is that it should not contain itself. Another is
that it should have content.

I wasn't defining, I was pointing out a bit of reasoning that proves that you are conscious.

These fields deal with physical approximations of
a complex system of the specific - human type.
These fields use consciousness as an approximation
to direct discription according to physical laws.
That is, instead of explaining how is it that I
require food and how the whole procedure goes on in
the body and the environment, the approximation just
notes - I want to eat. That is the basic info input
that we appear to have while physics is a reasoning
frame we apply to it and interpret it through.
The info itself has no characterization (except the
self-referential maybe) out of the context of our reasoning.

I must point out that this is your assumption, and nothing more, as there are many reputable scientists who believe otherwise.
 
  • #64
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
What has no satisfactory scientific explanation or definition? Consciousness or Causality? It's really hard to keep up with both of these threads at the same time, without "losing thread" of what you were arguing.
I think we're talking about consciousness in both now,
aren't we ?
Originally posted by Mentat
"Uncertainty" (with a capital "U", which is how Manuel and I agreed to refer to the uncertainty of all things) does not allow one to take anything for granted, correct? However, one must first take Uncertainty for granted, before deciding not to take anything for granted. This means that there is a paradox at the heart of Uncertainty (the paradox of taking for granted that one should take nothing for granted). With this paradox at it's heart, it become quite unusable, as one could not possibly give it a use (without running into it's paradoxicality (if that's actually a word).
Yeah, I know. A paradox, remember ? :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
Remember, to assume that you assume nothing is a paradox :wink:.
What I said is not a scientific assumption,
it's part of the philosophical background of science.
Originally posted by Mentat
Oh yes? So we assume that we are "getting some data" (which is an assumption of an objective Universe), and we assume that we are capable of "dealing with it".
We ARE getting data. That is the only absolute we
have - existence, characterized by what we experience.
I did not say we were capable of dealing with it.
It is one of many possibilities that we just try.
If it gives us anything - alright, if not - then not.
Originally posted by Mentat
And whether or not it's showing consistency isn't left to assumption?
Of course not. Consistency is judged according to
invented abstract reasoning systems that are by
themselves absolute and axiomatic (at least, all
our abstract reasoning systems so far used axioms).
Originally posted by Mentat
I'm not saying that Science is a belief, I'm saying it's based on a few of them (much like any other branch of Philosophy).
Science is NOT a branch of philosophy.
Science deals with observation. Philosophy is the
background "below", "above" and to the "sides".
Originally posted by Mentat
I wasn't defining, I was pointing out a bit of reasoning
that proves that you are conscious.
Your "reasoning" is self-referential and with no
additional to that content. It reasons nothing and
proves nothing. Sorry.
(This is like Alexander saying that he discribes a
wave using mathematics so mathematics must've created it.)
Originally posted by Mentat
I must point out that this is your assumption, and nothing more, as there are many reputable scientists who believe otherwise.
Any quotes of scientists on consciousness ?

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.
 
  • #65
Originally posted by drag
Greetings Mentat !

I think we're talking about consciousness in both now,
aren't we ?

Alright then.

Yeah, I know. A paradox, remember ? :wink:

Thus a dead-end in a rational line of reasoning, as that's what a paradox really is.

What I said is not a scientific assumption,
it's part of the philosophical background of science.

Are we going to discuss Science, or it's Philosophical background. The difference is important, as you are taking the stance of someone who believes in Science (thus, as is my nature, I must take the opposite stance, no matter how much I agree with you), and you cannot just leave it (for it's philosophical background) whenever you wish.

We ARE getting data. That is the only absolute we
have - existence, characterized by what we experience.

Existence may be the only absolute we have (Wuliheron had an excellent thread about this), but existence doesn't equal "getting data".

I did not say we were capable of dealing with it.
It is one of many possibilities that we just try.
If it gives us anything - alright, if not - then not.

But you did say that we try. And if we always try to deal with the data that we get, isn't the logical conclusion that we believe (assume) it is right (and possible) to do so?

Of course not. Consistency is judged according to
invented abstract reasoning systems that are by
themselves absolute and axiomatic (at least, all
our abstract reasoning systems so far used axioms).

How many things are you going to declare absolute, before realizing that absolutes are all assumptions?

Science is NOT a branch of philosophy.
Science deals with observation. Philosophy is the
background "below", "above" and to the "sides".

Philosophy is the love and pursuit of Wisdom/Knowledge/Understanding. Science is one of the ways to pursue Wisdom/Knowledge/Understanding. There was a whole thread dedicated to this point.

Your "reasoning" is self-referential and with no
additional to that content.

It doesn't matter that it's self-referential, as the clause against self-reference is only toward definitions and deductions. If I tell you that you are thinking about that which I have typed at this time, I am telling you the simple, demonstrable, scientific, truth.

Any quotes of scientists on consciousness ?

There is a book by the [great] Philosopher, Daniel Dennet, called "Consciousness Explained". In it (as well as in "The Mind's I") there are numerous insights - with regard to consciousness - that are based on the studies of neurologists and psychologists (both of which are branches of Science, obviously).
 
  • #66
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
Thus a dead-end in a rational line of reasoning, as
that's what a paradox really is.
Indeed.
Originally posted by Mentat
Are we going to discuss Science, or it's Philosophical background. The difference is important, as you are taking the stance of someone who believes in Science (thus, as is my nature, I must take the opposite stance, no matter how much I agree with you), and you cannot just leave it (for it's philosophical background) whenever you wish.
Science deal with applying some reasoning to
observation. Philsophy deals with applying (often
the same) type of reasoning to any abstract thought.

I do not "believe" in science, I "think" it's correct
BECAUSE it's probable.

I do not see why you should take any side but your own.
Originally posted by Mentat
Existence may be the only absolute we have (Wuliheron had an excellent thread about this), but existence doesn't equal "getting data".
I think it does, these are seemingly all connected,
basic and self-referential concepts (in this context).
Originally posted by Mentat
But you did say that we try. And if we always try to deal with the data that we get, isn't the logical conclusion that we believe (assume) it is right (and possible) to do so?
Well, we could also try to cook it for dinner
or simply ignore it, the possibilities are infinite
I think and some people try to pursue those that
appear usefull (while others don't... ).
Originally posted by Mentat
How many things are you going to declare absolute,
before realizing that absolutes are all assumptions?
What ?!
That's supposed to be my line for you. :wink:
(Is this delibarate or did you seriously fail to
understand me, or perhaps I failed to explain myself,
so badly ? )
Originally posted by Mentat
Philosophy is the love and pursuit of Wisdom/Knowledge/Understanding. Science is one of the ways to pursue Wisdom/Knowledge/Understanding. There was a whole thread dedicated to this point.
Science are likely perspectives upon contents of existence.
Philosophy are all perspectives upon existence - everything.
I guess I should correct myself, you could say that
science is a sub-field of philosophy. It's just that
their roles in modern society slightly obscure this
in terms of semantics.
Originally posted by Mentat
It doesn't matter that it's self-referential, as the clause against self-reference is only toward definitions and deductions. If I tell you that you are thinking about that which I have typed at this time, I am telling you the simple, demonstrable, scientific, truth.
No, a scientific truth in modern times is defined as
a mathematical discription. Please, provide one. :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
There is a book by the [great] Philosopher, Daniel Dennet, called "Consciousness Explained". In it (as well as in "The Mind's I") there are numerous insights - with regard to consciousness - that are based on the studies of neurologists and psychologists (both of which are branches of Science, obviously).
I'm terribly sorry but I do not regard philosophers
as scientists. :smile:
Anyway, the examples are not that important and are
not a real indication anyway so it's unfair of me
to ask you to do this as some sort of proof. I believe
you are mistaken about this, but let's leave it at that.
(We could post a poll - "Consciousness - something
special according to modern science ?" :wink:)

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #67
Mind if I join drag and mentat. I have a question.
WHAT IS A DEFINITION?
 
  • #68
Greetings sage !
Originally posted by sage
Mind if I join drag and mentat.
Not at all, I think the two of us could certainly
use some air considering this tight discussion.
Originally posted by sage
I have a question. WHAT IS A DEFINITION?
The use of other concepts to explain a specific
concept.

Preferably, the other concepts and their
use in this case should be in consensus amongst the
people deriving the definition since it would
otherwise be considered a subjective rather than
a correct definition by these people as a whole.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #69
Originally posted by drag
Science deal with applying some reasoning to
observation. Philsophy deals with applying (often
the same) type of reasoning to any abstract thought.

Philosophy deals with applying some type of reasoning to anything. Science limits itself to observable phenomena.

I do not "believe" in science, I "think" it's correct
BECAUSE it's probable.

Why do you think it's probable?

I do not see why you should take any side but your own.

That's the point. The true devil's advocate (who has a truly open mind) doesn't have a "side of his/her own", and can thus take whichever "side" they wish, whenever they wish.

I think it does, these are seemingly all connected,
basic and self-referential concepts (in this context).

Not really so. In one direction, yes - as, in order to take in input, one must exist. But in the other direction, no - as one can exist without taking in input.

Well, we could also try to cook it for dinner
or simply ignore it, the possibilities are infinite
I think and some people try to pursue those that
appear usefull (while others don't... ).

Don't you realize that Scientists all fall into the category of "people who try to pursue those that appear useful"?

What ?!
That's supposed to be my line for you. :wink:
(Is this delibarate or did you seriously fail to
understand me, or perhaps I failed to explain myself,
so badly ? )

I don't think I misunderstood. You said:

Of course not. Consistency is judged according to
invented abstract reasoning systems that are by
themselves absolute and axiomatic (at least, all
our abstract reasoning systems so far used axioms).

And I say that that's an assumption. Well, isn't it?

Science are likely perspectives upon contents of existence.
Philosophy are all perspectives upon existence - everything.
I guess I should correct myself, you could say that
science is a sub-field of philosophy. It's just that
their roles in modern society slightly obscure this
in terms of semantics.

I fully agree with you here (and commend you on a succinct way of describing the problem).

No, a scientific truth in modern times is defined as
a mathematical discription.

Bull. Scientific truth is only verified by mathematical descriptions/predictions.

I'm terribly sorry but I do not regard philosophers
as scientists. :smile:

I don't either, I regard Scientists as Philosophers.

Besides, you do agree that neurology, cognitive science, and psychology are all Sciences, right?

I believe
you are mistaken about this, but let's leave it at that.
(We could post a poll - "Consciousness - something
special according to modern science ?" :wink:)

Fine, if you wish to agree to disagree, I can do that.

And I like this idea for a thread. You should post it, as it is your idea.
 
  • #70
Originally posted by sage
Mind if I join drag and mentat.

Not at all, good buddy, go right ahead :smile:.

I have a question.
WHAT IS A DEFINITION?

Hmm. I'd say that a definition is a way that we (humans) describe something, so as to make another human aware of it's meaning.
 

Similar threads

  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
667
  • Quantum Physics
5
Replies
143
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
30
Views
3K
Back
Top