A More Localized Version of the Argument From Morality

[Mort_Alz]

Another unaddressed argument is the one where I assert that conscious thoughts cannot be the same as the associated electrochemical brain activity because thoughts have properties which electrochemical activity does not. I should point out that emergentism has nothing to do with this argument since we are talking about brain activity and thoughts being one and the same rather than the brain activity being a “part” of a “whole” that is a given thought.

Quoting Lewis again, here is a pretty succinct summary of the argument:

“We are certain that, in this life at any rate, thought is intimately connected with the brain. The theory that thought therefore is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense, for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction, but of which it would be meaningless to use the words “true” or “false.””

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Then, thanks for the compliment.

Yes, and it was intended to be a compliment.

I think I understand your thinking now. Unconscious matter being, at the same time, conscious is not a contradiction simply because it is an inaccurate portrait of what is really going on. To have consciousness be purely physical, you don’t have to say that unconscious matter is conscious. Rather, just like with emergent chemical properties of molecules from atoms, consciousness is an emergent property you get from a special arrangement of unconscious matter. Emergentism answers that quite well.

We are on the same wavelength here. I am glad.

Moving on, then, from this, just because we don’t understand exactly how it works does not give us license to assign any other non-physical cause to it without evidence because that is a God of the gaps argument which has time and time again been proven to be an ineffective argument for the existence of the supernatural.

I follow you. That pretty effectively addresses my assertion that it was a very simple contradiction.

The agreement continues. Most gratifying.

Here he is using the word “Reason,” but I think it’s safe to equate it, for our purposes, with consciousness, since reason, as a noun, is a part of consciousness. It requires consciousness, anyway. After all, we say that unconscious computers “reason” or “think,” but we all know that’s just anthropomorphic language. We know they don’t consciously think in the way that we do.

Maybe it is a just anthropomorphic language. The computers’ consciousness may very well be different from human consciousness - after all one happens in “hardware + software” while the other one happens in “wetware”. But that is not a fundamental problem - after all it is information processing. A car or an airplane uses locomotion very differently from human walking, but both of them achieve the same goal - getting from one place to another. The details are different, but the process is the same. A computer’s face recognition algorithm is very different from ours, but a computer can recognize one face among thousands, while we cannot. So which one is “better”?

Anyway, the quoted argument, so far, still stands. It has not even been addressed yet despite my ad nauseam repetitions of it on this thread.

I certainly tried to address it above. It is up to you to decide if I succeeded or failed. There is a wonderful book written by Stanislaw Lem, probably the greatest thinker of our time, its title is “Summa Technologiae” (amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=stanislaw+lem+summa+technologiae&sprefix=stanislaw+%2Caps%2C148&crid=3VLSE5UNP02WD). (It is not a coincidence that it resembles Aquinas’s “Summa Theologica”). In that book he writes extensively about consciousness, problem solving, questions about a creative process. It is not an easy read, but most stimulating. Highly recommended.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Maybe it is a just anthropomorphic language. The computers’ consciousness may very well be different from human consciousness - after all one happens in “hardware + software” while the other one happens in “wetware”. But that is not a fundamental problem - after all it is information processing. A car or an airplane uses locomotion very differently from human walking, but both of them achieve the same goal - getting from one place to another. The details are different, but the process is the same. A computer’s face recognition algorithm is very different from ours, but a computer can recognize one face among thousands, while we cannot. So which one is “better”?

And that makes me wonder if it is even possible to know for sure if anything outside ourselves is conscious without actually being that consciousness.

You asked which one is “better?” I have my opinion. I’d like yours.

While we’re at it, is the severely socially inept savant who can permanently memorize anything at a glance better than the more socially functional person whose memory abilities are less spectacular?

There is a wonderful book written by Stanislaw Lem, probably the greatest thinker of our time, its title is “Summa Technologiae” (amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=stanislaw+lem+summa+technologiae&sprefix=stanislaw+%2Caps%2C148&crid=3VLSE5UNP02WD). (It is not a coincidence that it resembles Aquinas’s “Summa Theologica”). In that book he writes extensively about consciousness, problem solving, questions about a creative process.

That sounds worth checking out.

It is not an easy read,

Ha! Neither is the Summa Theologica. Go figure.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And that makes me wonder if it is even possible to know for sure if anything outside ourselves is conscious without actually being that consciousness.

Well, we shall have to use the age-old duck principle. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it is very likely a duck. If you (in general) exhibit all visible symptoms of being in distress, of being filled with sorrow, if your behavior indicates that you are said, I would assume that you are actually sad, even though you might be an exceptionally talented actor, who just simulates sadness.

And that brings up the other problem: “how does one tell the difference between an excellent ‘emulation’ and the real McCoy”? Is there a difference between a computer, “whose” behavior passes the Turing test, and an actual human?

You asked which one is “better?” I have my opinion. I’d like yours.

I take both as equally “good”… whatever we mean here by the word “good”.

While we’re at it, is the severely socially inept savant who can permanently memorize anything at a glance better than the more socially functional person whose memory abilities are less spectacular?

We really should define “good” and “better” analyze this problem. Social behavior is such a complex phenomenon that I see no way to “map” it unto one-dimensional “yardstick”, so we can decide if person “A” has a higher score than person “B”?

That sounds worth checking out.

Your time will be well spent. Have fun with it.

 

[Mort_Alz]

And that brings up the other problem: “how does one tell the difference between an excellent ‘emulation’ and the real McCoy”? Is there a difference between a computer, “whose” behavior passes the Turing test, and an actual human?

That IS the question, isn’t it?

I take both as equally “good”… whatever we mean here by the word “good”.

I suppose, while I’m asking for your opinion, I’ll also ask what you mean by the word “good” in this instance.

We really should define “good” and “better” analyze this problem. Social behavior is such a complex phenomenon that I see no way to “map” it unto one-dimensional “yardstick”, so we can decide if person “A” has a higher score than person “B”?

We don’t have to. You know what I mean by high functioning. Better able to “fit in” to society and all of the benefits that come with that: People treat you better/nicer, you can navigate social networks more efficiently to obtain benefits, a list is kind of pointless because you already know.

 

[PseuTonym]

Why should we waste any more time on such trivialities?

I don’t think that you have described a distinction between two different kinds of statements.

Perhaps an analogy will be helpful. From my point of view, it is as though you tried to distinguish between “negation statements” and “direct statements that don’t begin with a negation.” Given that not(not(p)) is equivalent to p, any given statement p is equivalent to a “negation statement.” Inevitably, you would be forced to focus on trivialities, specifically to focus on the details of a given formulation of a statement, to determine whether or not it is a “negation statement.”

Since by definition the empty set is the subset of ANY set, it is an absolute proposition. ANY definition is an absolute proposition.

How about the following statement?

#1 “If there doesn’t exist a set that has no elements, then there exists a set that has no elements.”

That is written out as a conditional statement.

How about the following statement?

#2 “If 2 is an element of the empty set then not(2 is an element of the empty set).”

It seems that you are committed to claiming that #2 is a false statement because it is of the form “if z then not(z)” and is therefore of the form “if not then y.”

However, perhaps I should explicitly pose this as another question. Is the following statement a conditional?

#3 “If not(not(2 is an element of the empty set)) then not(2 is an element of the empty set).”

 

[PseuTonym]

Since by definition the empty set is the subset of ANY set, it is an absolute proposition. ANY definition is an absolute proposition.

It sounds as though you are making two different claims:

#1 If we can use definitions to demonstrate that a statement is true, then the statement is an “absolute” statement.

#2 Every definition is itself an “absolute” statement.

As for the word “proposition”, it isn’t clear whether you intend to distinguish between assertions that you believe are true (and that you claim “aren’t opinions”) and assertions that you believe are false. When you write “proposition” do you mean “true statement”?

From my point of view, it is possible for somebody’s opinion to be correct. After all, we could consider some famous conjecture such as Goldbach’s conjecture. If a counter-example were discovered, then somebody who has a reputation for claiming that Goldbach’s conjecture is false would gain credit for having been right about Goldbach’s conjecture.

I wonder what is the timeline for when something becomes a matter where “no opinion is involved.” How much detail must be provided in how many languages, and does the information have to be available at no cost (such as in libraries or via websites that can be accessed free of charge), or is it okay if you have to spend money to find out whether or not “no opinion is involved”?

Getting back to your claims … the following is not plausible:

#1 If we can use definitions to demonstrate that a statement is true, then the statement is an “absolute” statement.

Are you claiming that no conditional statement can be shown via definitions to be a true statement?

 

[PseuTonym]

Suppose that “X” is the following sentence: “the empty set is a subset of {1,2,3}.”
In that case, is “X” an absolute, or non-conditional proposition? That is not a rhetorical question. Please answer it.

Since by definition the empty set is the subset of ANY set, it is an absolute proposition.

I apologize for not guessing what your answer would be. Had I known, I would have asked you to categorize the following sentences:

#1 “{2} is a subset of {1,2,3}.”
#2 “if 2 is an element of {2}, then 2 is an element of {1,2,3}”

If #2 is true by definition, then it is supposed to be – according to one of your claims – an absolute, non-conditional statement. So it seems that you are forced to claim that #2 isn’t true by definition. However, #2 is implied by #1.

We can also consider …

#3 “The empty set is a subset of {1,2,3}.”
#4 “if 2 is an element of the empty set, then 2 is an element of {1,2,3}”

I have no way to predict how any given statement is going to be categorized. It certainly looks as though #4 is a conditional statement, but since the antecedent (i.e. the separate claim that 2 is an element of the empty set) is false, the conditional is true. What is true by definition is allegedly an absolute, non-conditional statement. So #4 is for one reason to be classified as non-conditional and for another reason to be classified as conditional. Which is correct?

 

[PseuTonym]

Suppose that “X” is the following sentence: “the empty set is a subset of {1,2,3}.”
In that case, is “X” an absolute, or non-conditional proposition? That is not a rhetorical question. Please answer it.

Since by definition the empty set is the subset of ANY set, it is an absolute proposition.

Consider “X” constructed as follows:

The antecedent of “X” is “{2} is a subset of {1,2,3} and 2 is an element of {2}”
The consequent of “X” is: “2 is an element of {1,2,3}”

In other words, consider the following statement to be called “X”:
“if {2} is a subset of {1,2,3} and 2 is an element of {2}, then 2 is an element of {1,2,3}.”

“X” looks like a conditional statement, but is “X” a conditional statement? The statement “X” is true by definition, isn’t it?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

That IS the question, isn’t it?

My answer is: “NO”, there is no difference between a human and any other being (regardless of the material they are made of) if that being behaves like a human.

I suppose, while I’m asking for your opinion, I’ll also ask what you mean by the word “good” in this instance.

Good, kind, helpful, benevolent… all are synonyms for the word “good”.

We don’t have to. You know what I mean by high functioning. Better able to “fit in” to society and all of the benefits that come with that: People treat you better/nicer, you can navigate social networks more efficiently to obtain benefits, a list is kind of pointless because you already know.

The point is that human interactions are not one-dimensional. You cannot “measure” if person “X”, loving and kind simpleton is “better” or “worse” than person “Z” who is a rude genius, who has no communication skills, but works on an insofar unsolved mathematical problem. These are incommensurables. In mathematics the problem is similar to find the optimal solution for a multi dimensional function. You cannot even define the optimum, so it would be futile to look for it.

 

[PseuTonym]

Oh, buddy, you seriously overcomplicated.

“X” is an absolute, or non-conditional proposition. It means that X is true, always and under any condition.

Of the other hand

“If Y then X” is a conditional proposition where “Y” is just a shorthand for “Y is true”.

How do you get “true” from “non-conditional proposition”? Is true coming from “non-conditional”, is true coming from “proposition”, or is true somehow coming from the combination?

For example, consider the following statement (to be called “X”): “2 is not equal to 2.”

Is “X” a conditional proposition?

If it is a non-conditional proposition, then it is supposed to be true.

 

[PseuTonym]

I have treated the points in isolation from each other, but perhaps the most interesting thing here is the structure of the rhetoric.

If the word “non-conditional” is a stimulus that elicits the response “true” …

… then we have been set up to get from “true by definition” to “non-conditional truth.”

Taken in isolation, the claim …

if we know that a statement that is true by definition, then we know that it isn’t a statement of the form “if X then Y”

… is a completely absurd claim.

This reminds me of another thread. In all subject areas, there is in a sense a “bias” in favor of truth. There is an attempt to build up a body of truth. However, obviously if a conjecture falls under the topic “mathematics”, then it remains mathematics even when it is definitively refuted. The discovery of the status of a statement as false doesn’t change the topic that the statement is about.

Link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14245270&postcount=44

The person who started that thread denied that specific, individual facts (such as data providing a counter-example to a conjecture) can be objective truth. Allegedly, to avoid subjectivity, one must also focus on what is both abstract and general rather than upon any specific fact.

Originally Posted by John Martin

“Objective truth” is truth of individual objects.

Originally Posted by STT

Objective truth is a set of abstract rules/principles. So I disagree with you.

The problem is that the entire methodology of science goes against relying upon abstract theory when faced with a conflict between theory and direct, irrefutable observation.

As I posted in that other thread:

An alleged proof that a conjecture is true might be defective: at least one step in the reasoning is invalid, or not all of the “objective truths” that the proof relies upon are actually true.

 

[PseuTonym]

I have treated the points in isolation from each other, but perhaps the most interesting thing here is the structure of the rhetoric.

If the word “true” is a stimulus that elicits the word “non-conditional” as a response (or if there is a non-directed mental association between the words “non-conditional” and “true”), then we have been set up to get from “true by definition” to “non-conditional truth.”

Were it not for that psychological preparation, there would be nothing to motivate anybody to accept the following claim:

if we know that a statement is true by definition, then we know that it isn’t a statement of the form “if X then Y”

That claim is completely absurd.

 

[Mort_Alz]

My answer is: “NO”, there is no difference between a human and any other being (regardless of the material they are made of) if that being behaves like a human.

That, at least, is consistent with your worldview, which is really all I ask of people (even if we fundamentally disagree).

The point is that human interactions are not one-dimensional. You cannot “measure” if person “X”, loving and kind simpleton is “better” or “worse” than person “Z” who is a rude genius, who has no communication skills, but works on an insofar unsolved mathematical problem. These are incommensurables. In mathematics the problem is similar to find the optimal solution for a multi dimensional function. You cannot even define the optimum, so it would be futile to look for it.

I see no reason to disagree here.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

How do you get “true” from “non-conditional proposition”? Is true coming from “non-conditional”, is true coming from “proposition”, or is true somehow coming from the combination?

For example, consider the following statement (to be called “X”): “2 is not equal to 2.”

Is “X” a conditional proposition?

If it is a non-conditional proposition, then it is supposed to be true.

Just because a proposition is non-conditional it does not make it true. A proposition is true, if it describes a state of affairs correctly (inductive systems), or, it is derived from some axioms, using the correct rules of transformation (deductive systems).

If the proposition does not contain a conditional, it is an absolute statement. If it does contain a conditional, it is a relative statement. That has nothing to do with the question whether the proposition is true or not.

 

[PseuTonym]

Why should we waste any more time on such trivialities?

Perhaps that was a rhetorical question, but I’m thinking that I might be able to provide at least the beginning of an answer.

1. The less knowledge required, the greater the number of people who can understand and participate in the discussion.
2. If I provide a very clear and simple counter-example to a claim (and I mean clear and simple ideas, not attitudes), then it doesn’t merely serve to gain approval from people who are on “my side” in a debate, but has a chance of actually influencing the beliefs of my opponent in the debate.
3. Should I continue, or are two reasons enough?

 

[Tomdstone]

There is a wonderful book written by Stanislaw Lem, probably the greatest thinker of our time,…

I had a difficult time understanding the 1972 Soviet science fiction art film adaptation of Stanisław Lem’s novel Solaris (1961). I watched it without reading the book.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I had a difficult time understanding the 1972 Soviet science fiction art film adaptation of Stanisław Lem’s novel Solaris (1961). I watched it without reading the book.

Since I never saw the film, I cannot comment. Generally I stay away from those movies which are based on a book. The adaptation is almost never satisfactory. There was one exception, Abe Kobo’s “The woman of the dunes”. The director transplanted the exact story on the “silver screen”.

 

[PseuTonym]

I hate the word rhetoric. It solves nothing, and proves nothing.

I was looking for the above in the past and couldn’t find it. I just stumbled upon it while looking for other messages.

Do you also hate the word “even” and the word “odd”? They are descriptive.

If I say that thirteen is an odd number, then I have simply used the word “odd” to make a particular claim. Proving the claim requires a bit more work.

Similarly, if I say that eight is an even number, then I have proved nothing.

 

[PRmerger]

I was looking for the above in the past and couldn’t find it. I just stumbled upon it while looking for other messages.

Do you also hate the word “even” and the word “odd”? They are descriptive.

If I say that thirteen is an odd number, then I have simply used the word “odd” to make a particular claim. Proving the claim requires a bit more work.

Similarly, if I say that eight is an even number, then I have proved nothing.

Here it is, in bold:

Here’s a blazingly simple question:

Is a statement conditional?

See what I did there? I have asked a question about the nature of an unspecified statement, and I provided no information whatsoever about the statement. The question has no regard for distinguishing between different statements. It is devoid of context. And I’d like an answer please. Which puts anyone who holds that we can categorize any given statement as either conditional or absolute in something of a quandary in attempting to answer it.

The answer can be YES (any given statement is conditional) or NO (any given statement isn’t conditional), either of which will do to prove the point.

Perhaps someone thinks: I‘ll just change ‘statement’ to ‘conditional statement’ and I can get around this, because everyone knows that a conditional statement is always conditional. Except that what you have then done is create a new conjecture that, although plausible, is conditional, and relative, and non-absolute. That is you have created the following conjecture: ‘Yes, a statement is conditional – if the statement being examined is a conditional statement.’ However, because we used the word “if” to introduce a qualification, we are forced to put the plausible conjecture into the junk heap of what is merely relative.

Any resemblance of the above to the following may or may not be a coincidence:
Rhetorical tactics on display