What is the Nature of an idea?

[inocente]

What is your idea of the number 49?

Some possibilities:

#1 Consider the following process: start with one hundred. Divide by 2. Then subtract one. The result is 49.

#2 Consider the following process: multiply 7 by 7. The result is 49.

#3 Consider the following process: begin with 40. Add 9. The result is 49.

One problem is that the above processes aren’t physical, are they? Each possibility was expressed in terms of some constants and some operations, but they are arithmetical constants and arithmetical operations. They aren’t physical operations or physical constants.

A computer processor has an arithmetic unit which can do the physical operations. We don’t. We compute in a very different, much slower, more error prone, but more versatile way. Without a cpu between our ears, we learn partial answers. We hear ‘100 divide by 2’ and if we never learned the answer, we remember the procedure for long division, and remember 10 halved is 5, and so on. If we never learned all the steps needed for mental arithmetic, we have to resort to an abacus or calculator app. But in every case, whatever procedure we use, it’s encoded in neurons and pathways. We seem to comprehend words in the same way, by memory associations, and the memories might be other words, images, sounds, emotions, etc.

 

[PseuTonym]

But in every case, whatever procedure we use, it’s encoded in neurons and pathways.

How is an idea encoded before anybody on Earth has thought of it?
If there is a time before it is encoded in any form, then it would seem that there’s a difference between an idea and an encoding of that idea.

I would say that if there is a solvable problem that nobody has any clue of how to solve, then the idea of a solution (to that solvable problem) has not yet been encoded. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

So you go for a kind of physicalism or monist view.

The problem, the problem is that when i make a decision it begins with my concept of self and then the brain reacts to my sense of “i” and because of that i don’t see how a natural process, an non-directed process, can be effected by a “self directing influence” without considering an ontological distinction between the two acts. My sense of self appears to be irreducible.

The difficulty is explaining how a natural process can become a self directing process without introducing a new nature that is distinct from natural processes…

Things like meaning and truth represent unquantifiable aspects of human experience. I can say that something is true or false but there is nothing true or false about the properties that make up the brain. There is not a physical object in the brain that is truth.

I think “Physical” is just a word denoting what we can presently sense. Nothing more.

Sorry but you lose me in the rest. And I dont see a usable fruit of the question.

 

[IWantGod]

I think “Physical” is just a word denoting what we can presently sense. Nothing more.

Sorry but you lose me in the rest. And I dont see a usable fruit of the question.

Then i guess there is no reason for us to discuss it.

 

[STT]

And not you as a self-directed influence. Its just non-directed processes. And according to you ideas concepts and meaning are physical entities. .

Yes, switch off the brain and they will be gone.

Your very smart STT. I feel jealous.

I don’t think so.

You don’t say!!

I don’t get you here.

 

[STT]

A random event is not the same thing as a self-directed process.

What I describe is not a random event but a self directed process which is free because there is no set of equation which can predict it.

 

[IWantGod]

What I describe is not a random event but a self directed process which is free because there is no set of equation which can predict it.

What you described is certainly not a self directed process. Just because a thing cannot be predicted is not a sufficient reason to infer self direction.

 

[STT]

What you described is certainly not a self directed process. Just because a thing cannot be predicted is not a sufficient reason to infer self direction.

Consciousness guarantees that the act to be self directed but it does not guarantees that the act to be free. You become free when the number of laws of nature is infinite, meaning there is no close set of equation which can describe your decision.

 

[IWantGod]

Consciousness guarantees that the act to be self directed but it does not guarantees that the act to be free. You become free when the number of laws of nature is infinite, meaning there is no close set of equation which can describe your decision.

This is just an assertion.

 

[STT]

This is just an assertion.

What is wrong with it?

 

[inocente]

How is an idea encoded before anybody on Earth has thought of it?
If there is a time before it is encoded in any form, then it would seem that there’s a difference between an idea and an encoding of that idea.

I would say that if there is a solvable problem that nobody has any clue of how to solve, then the idea of a solution (to that solvable problem) has not yet been encoded. Do you agree or disagree?

The general explanation is, a new idea comes from a new sense perception or a new relation between existing ideas. For instance, in the eureka story, we all know the level of bath water rises when we step in, but until Archimedes no one had linked that to the idea of measuring volumes. Now of course, we’re taught in school to link those ideas.

The explanation leaves open the question of whether there are any innate ideas, i.e. whether we start life tabula rasa or with a small set of built-in ideas.

 

[PseuTonym]

The general explanation is, a new idea comes from a new sense perception or a new relation between existing ideas. For instance, in the eureka story, we all know the level of bath water rises when we step in, but until Archimedes no one had linked that to the idea of measuring volumes. Now of course, we’re taught in school to link those ideas.

The explanation leaves open the question of whether there are any innate ideas, i.e. whether we start life tabula rasa or with a small set of built-in ideas.

That looks like a topic for another thread. Could you give direct answers to my questions, please? I cannot figure out, from what I have quoted above, what your answers are.

 

[inocente]

That looks like a topic for another thread. Could you give direct answers to my questions, please? I cannot figure out, from what I have quoted above, what your answers are.

I answered your questions.

How is an idea encoded before anybody on Earth has thought of it? Before Archimedes, no one had ‘encoded’ his eureka idea.

I would say that if there is a solvable problem that nobody has any clue of how to solve, then the idea of a solution (to that solvable problem) has not yet been encoded. Do you agree or disagree? Yes, before Archimedes, no one had ‘encoded’ his eureka idea.

btw I didn’t understand your remark “If there is a time before it is encoded in any form, then it would seem that there’s a difference between an idea and an encoding of that idea.” An idea is a linking of more primitive ideas. It would seem unlikely that the eureka idea is encoded in precisely the same way in every mind that knows of it. It won’t be encoded as relations between English words in a Chinese person who knows no English. A person good at math may have learned it differently from someone who isn’t. But the idea is the same, in every case it’s about linking the idea of water displacement with the idea of measuring volume.

Given the thread title, why do you think it’s off-topic?

 

[PseuTonym]

I didn’t understand your remark “If there is a time before it is encoded in any form, then it would seem that there’s a difference between an idea and an encoding of that idea.”

This is the crux of the matter.

 

[PseuTonym]

An idea is a linking of more primitive ideas.

How do we know whether or not two primitive ideas are equally primitive?

 

[inocente]

This is the crux of the matter.

Are you trying to reify abstractions?

How do we know whether or not two primitive ideas are equally primitive?

I said more primitive, and meant a new idea combines ideas already existing in the mind.

 

[PseuTonym]

Are you trying to reify abstractions?

I don’t think that I am trying to do that. However, by asking that question, you have helped me understand your point of view. Thank you.

To indicate my point of view, we can consider the periodic table of chemical elements – when there were gaps in it – and contrast it with the “periodic table of the positive integers.”

Nature is subtle enough that there can be hidden patterns explaining what appears to us to be blatant irregularity. So, when the periodic table of chemical elements was first being put together, there was reason for enthusiasm, but there was also no guarantee that any given gap would eventually be filled in by finding an actual chemical substance that fits in what had been a gap.

With the positive integers, we don’t have to worry about the possibility that a positive integer we can write down on paper doesn’t correspond to any real positive integer. I could try to guess how you explain this situation, but prefer to avoid putting words into your mouth. My explanation is that reality includes both the tangible and the intangible, and that positive integers are an intangible aspect of reality that we can use to explain more complicated and more concrete aspects of reality.

I said more primitive, and meant a new idea combines ideas already existing in the mind.

Yes, but it occurred to me that if you can compare ideas based on how primitive they are, then one possibility is that two ideas are equally primitive.

 

[inocente]

I don’t think that I am trying to do that. However, by asking that question, you have helped me understand your point of view. Thank you.

To indicate my point of view, we can consider the periodic table of chemical elements – when there were gaps in it – and contrast it with the “periodic table of the positive integers.”

Nature is subtle enough that there can be hidden patterns explaining what appears to us to be blatant irregularity. So, when the periodic table of chemical elements was first being put together, there was reason for enthusiasm, but there was also no guarantee that any given gap would eventually be filled in by finding an actual chemical substance that fits in what had been a gap.

With the positive integers, we don’t have to worry about the possibility that a positive integer we can write down on paper doesn’t correspond to any real positive integer. I could try to guess how you explain this situation, but prefer to avoid putting words into your mouth. My explanation is that reality includes both the tangible and the intangible, and that positive integers are an intangible aspect of reality that we can use to explain more complicated and more concrete aspects of reality.

Perhaps with the positive integers we begin with the idea ‘a thing’, combine that with the idea ‘generalize’ to get the idea ‘1’, then combine it with the idea ‘successor’, and from there we get the idea that the successor must have a successor, then the idea of counting, and so on.

Perhaps Mendeleev’s periodic table started with the idea of a possible relationship between atomic number and chemical properties. (The idea of atomic numbers implies he must already have had the idea of positive integers in his mind). Then that’s combined with the idea of a two-dimensional table, and so on. But Mendeleev notices a number of empty cells, for two reasons. One is intentional due to the ordering (I looked, and the modern table has a number of intentionally empty cells, for instance between 1 H and 2 He). The other is missing atomic numbers, which Mendeleev uses for the idea they exist, we just didn’t find them yet.

Yes, but it occurred to me that if you can compare ideas based on how primitive they are, then one possibility is that two ideas are equally primitive.

I happened to be taught vectors and matrices before trigonometry, whereas other schools taught trigonometry first. So if ideas had creation date stamps, mine would be in a different order to most. But since we presumably only get one idea at a time, I guess comparison could only yield > or <, never =.