Laurel or Yanny? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

What do you hear?

Laurel
18
69%
Yanny
8
31%
By Sivad
#14916877
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Liberals enjoy talking to me and respect my learning, but they loathe my views and hold out hope that I will change my ways. :lol:


The only difference between you and liberals is you're not a hypocrite.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14916881
Rugoz wrote:Assuming the equation of motion is a true description of the world, the causation when moving forward in time is clear.

Yet the equations of motion remain valid even if we reverse the arrow of time. What does this tell us, Rugoz? It tells us that the equations of motion of a physical system have nothing whatever to do with causality.

How are thoughts not a physical effect? If I hurt you and you think "ouch" the causation is pretty clear.

Not in a philosophical or even a scientific sense, it isn't.

According to you causation can never be proven ever, so we might as well stop talking about it.

Indeed. Aside from having a certain heuristic value, the concept of causality is of limited value in modern (by which I mean post-Newtonian) physics. Newton's great conceptual breakthrough was to stop thinking in terms of causality and start thinking in terms of abstract rules which Nature must obey, and which can be expressed mathematically. Your view of science seems to be Aristotelian.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#14916913
Potemkin wrote:Yet the equations of motion remain valid even if we reverse the arrow of time. What does this tell us, Rugoz? It tells us that the equations of motion of a physical system have nothing whatever to do with causality.


Let's try it that way:

Velocity equals the derivative of position with respect to time.
p'(t) = [p(t+dt) + p(t)] / dt
v(t) = p'(t)
p(t+dt) = p'(t) dt
Acceleration equals the derivative of velocity with respect to time.
v'(t) = [v(t+dt) + v(t)] / dt
a(t) = v'(t)
v(t+dt) = v'(t) dt

Both velocity and acceleration are defined as the rate of change of position respectively velocity over an infinitesimal time step. Change implies causation.

Potemkin wrote:Not in a philosophical or even a scientific sense, it isn't.


If thoughts equal brain activity, why not. The question is when do we become conscious of our thoughts and can express (i.e. measure) them.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14916921
B0ycey wrote:Nothing we perceive is real. Our minds create the universe around us. It is that simple.

Your right that our minds create it, but it is real, we imbue it with that quality consensually and are then constrained by it. We cannot really compare perceptions, communication requires abstract definition. Thus we arrive at communion and are not alone.

Zam 8)
By B0ycey
#14916964
Zamuel wrote:Your right that our minds create it, but it is real, we imbue it with that quality consensually and are then constrained by it. We cannot really compare perceptions, communication requires abstract definition. Thus we arrive at communion and are not alone.

Zam 8)


I suppose something needs to be real, the energy within an object. The property of the object, ie the physical nature of it and its appearence like colour is all down to perception.

I have yet to finish the three dialogues but have done other research on the internet on this very topic. To me Berkerley is correct with the concept of immaterialism but Locke is correct with his conclusion of material interactions. So I am a hybird. Or a believer of a new form of philosophy. B0yceyism.

However, and to bore people with a life story. There was one period of time in my life when I could entertain the existence of God within a philosophical framework. In August 1999 I was lucky enough to witness a solar eclipse. As I looked into the cloudy sky, I thought to myself, 'what are the chances of life existing on this very planet?' The conclusion I reached was that as I had to exist to come up with that question, I must also exist on a planet that could maintain my presence. Therefore the chances of life on Earth had to be 100%. The second question I asked myself was 'what are the chances of a life supporting planet also having the conditions to create the 'perfect' eclipse?' As Life as we know it is full of so many variables, the odds of this happening is so incredibly small on just randomness alone. So small in fact that on the bases of Occam razor there are way more conditions required to create the illusion of the eclipse on Eartg than the assumption that an unnatural power such as God placed the sun, Earth and Moon in the correct positions. Therefore there could be a God.

So I will take the 'red pill' VS, but I am almost certain I am going to remain a skeptic.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14916972
Rugoz wrote:Both velocity and acceleration are defined as the rate of change of position respectively velocity over an infinitesimal time step. Change implies causation.


No. Inertial motion is uncaused motion. Hence, there can be change without a cause.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14916981
^ Saeko said it for me, Rugoz.
#14917012
Rugoz wrote:Change implies causation.


Change implies sequence, which is nothing more than a correlation-observed-through-time, which is why inferring causation from either correlation (which are contemporaneous relationships) or sequence (over time) are both similarly fallacious[cum hoc ergo propter hoc OR post hoc ergo propter hoc].

Rugoz wrote:According to you causation can never be proven ever, so we might as well stop talking about it.


Yes, we should stop talking about physical causation, you are correct and @Potemkin, is right-on with this.

There is no proof for a physical cause because it is impossible for a finite being to establish from an observed correlation or sequence that the relationship has a necessity inherit in it, for this would require a universal knowledge of all instances to guarantee the relationship universally obtained (omnipresence).

However, this is a problem only between correlation/sequence and causal inference (cum hoc/post hoc)

This does not mean there are no causes per se, just that causes cannot be established by observation.

Rather, causes as necessary conditions between antecedents and consequents, may be established by necessary inference (deduction). This is the only way that an absolute or universally-obtaining relationship may be discovered.

Berkeley and Hume did brilliant work in demonstrating these problems (along with the naturalistic fallacy as well, which is that moral obligations cannot be inferred from observation).

Like Berkeley, I affirm the existence of both causation and morality, but I deny that either of them originate from the observation of the phenomenal world, because that would be logically fallacious.

Rugoz wrote:If thoughts equal brain activity, why not. The question is when do we become conscious of our thoughts and can express (i.e. measure) them.


Thoughts do not equal brain activity, they are correlated to brain activity.

Your firing-synapse is not the same as the experience of a symphony, no (A=A) identity can be demonstrated for qualitative states and observed physical properties. the sensations as subjectively experienced (qualitative states) are philosophically irreducible. The philosophy of mind has basically reached an impasse on this very issue over the last 30 years and for good reason. No qualitative state (basic sensation) can be demonstrated as physically reducible. It cannot be done.

*Hears Berkeley's footsteps coming down the hall*

8)

Zamuel wrote:Your right that our minds create it, but it is real, we imbue it with that quality consensually and are then constrained by it. We cannot really compare perceptions, communication requires abstract definition. Thus we arrive at communion and are not alone.


How do you know that your own mind creates the percept? can you demonstrate this claim? ;)

I would argue that you cannot demonstrate yourself as the origination of the percepts you experience.

B0ycey wrote:So I will take the 'red pill' VS, but I am almost certain I am going to remain a skeptic.


Read the three dialogues and we'll take the plunge. Let me know.

Otherwise enjoy the fun on this thread.
#14917026
Sivad wrote:The only difference between you and liberals is you're not a hypocrite.


I can't tell if this is a compliment or an insult.

We haven't debated one another enough for me to accurately gauge your opinion of me as to know if this was meant in a serious or sarcastic tone either.

:hmm:
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14917027
Victoribus Spolia wrote:How do you know that your own mind creates the percept? can you demonstrate this claim? ;)

My mind is the only mind I have access to, just as yours is the only one you can access. If it exists, I created it. We are indeed islands, though not isolated ones. What we perceive is filtered by our minds, much is eliminated for various reasons. Perceptions we choose to acknowledge are formed into abstract concepts that are unique … You, as I know you, are such a concept, undoubtedly your conceptions of self are wildly different. But at points where they concur, consensual reality is formed. With consensual abstractions we can communicate, very vaguely. Communication is again filtered by our minds. Gradually we each establish the other as part of our unique realities. In so doing we both reinforce the points our personal realities share. This is communion, it is not limited to just you and I.

As we add others to the communion it becomes more complex (sound familiar?) it also attains greater and greater strength.

I would argue that you cannot demonstrate yourself as the origination of the percepts you experience.

I think, therefore I am, there I just created the very basic precept of ME. You cannot dispute that. It is it's own provenance. I choose what I experience, just as I choose what I eat. My mind rejects what I do not choose, therefore it has no reality, for me. We see this all the time here on Pofo. You reject progressive evidence, it simply isn't "Real" for you. Yet you choose to hear and consider my words. You choose to acknowledge my existence (so there is hope for you :D ). You are unaware of what your mind has declined to include in your reality.

If you want mathematical proofs, consult Putimkan. ( I know, he spells it differently, we have a consensual conflict. )

Zam 8)
#14917031
Zamuel wrote:My mind is the only mind I have access to, just as yours is the only one you can access.


Correct.

Zamuel wrote:If it exists, I created it.


This does not follow from the above premise. :eh:

Zamuel wrote:What we perceive is filtered by our minds, much is eliminated for various reasons. Perceptions we choose to acknowledge are formed into abstract concepts that are unique


Wait a sec....In the post I was responding to, you argued perceptions were created by your own mind, now you say that your mind "filters" them or "acknowledges" them.....Which is it? Does your mind create your perceptions or does your mind merely filter/acknowledge them as you receive them?

Those are contradictory claims unless you can explain to me what I am missing.

Zamuel wrote:I think, therefore I am


Cogito Ergo Sum is Descartes's proof of personal identity. Nothing more.

Zamuel wrote:there I just created the very basic precept of ME.


No you didn't. You only demonstrated (assuming Descartes argument) that you in fact exist as a consciousness.

You did not demonstrate "self-actualization" or "self-creation."

Zamuel wrote:I choose what I experience, just as I choose what I eat. My mind rejects what I do not choose, therefore it has no reality, for me.


Choosing/Rejecting propositions is not a proof of your own mind Creating/Destroying Perceptual reality, which was your claim. (Unless you don't understand how @B0ycey, and the rest of us are using the term "perception.") We are not talking about the colloquial expression of one's interpretation of the world being "their perception of it,"

We are talking about phenomena, percepts, bundles-of-sensations, what is commonly called the physical world.

You seemed to have claimed that your own mind is the creator of the physical world you experience (which is made entirely of percepts (bundles of sensations))

You have not demonstrated this claim that you are the originator of the perceptual/phenomenal world.

Zamuel wrote:You reject progressive evidence, it simply isn't "Real" for you. Yet you choose to hear and consider my words. You choose to acknowledge my existence (so there is hope for you ). You are unaware of what your mind has declined to include in your reality.


WTF?

Lay off the peace pipe bro.

This thread is not a bong-off for your opaque cognitions.

and I do not reject ideas I disagree with for any other reason than the fact that I have not been convinced of their accuracy or I have demonstrated that they are in fact wrong.

No more, no less.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14917047
Zamuel wrote: If it exists, I created it.”

Victor Spolia wrote:This does not follow from the above premise. :eh:

Sure it does, my personal reality is my creation as are it's components.

Wait a sec....In the post I was responding to, you argued perceptions were created by your own mind, now you say that your mind "filters" them or "acknowledges" them.....Which is it?

Both, perception is not an exclusive ability. My mind extracts what it wants from raw perception and creates a perception that suits me. As it has just done when confronted by your question. It had no need of this answer until you asked.

Those are contradictory claims unless you can explain to me what I am missing.

I can't really explain anything to you Victor … I can provide external perceptions, but YOUR mind will filter them to suit your desire.

Focus your consciousness on what I have said if you wish to understand. Waiting for me to say what you want to hear is lazy and will only cause frustration.

Cogito Ergo Sum is Descartes's proof of personal identity. Nothing more.

No, it's MY proof … Descartes may have figured it out too … But he doesn't own it.

Zamuel wrote: there I just created the very basic precept of ME.”

No you didn't. You only demonstrated that you in fact exist as a consciousness.

As opposed to not existing (prior to thought). Excuse me but something from nothing -is- creation.

what is commonly called the physical world.

Physical existence is an illusion created by consensual reality and it just keeps getting more complex.

You seemed to have claimed that your own mind is the creator of the physical world you experience.

No, I assert that the physical world is the product of what all our minds agree upon (consensual reality). My mind filters what I choose to experience and retains (in my personal reality) that which I choose -

You have not demonstrated this claim that you are the originator of the perceptual / phenomenal world.

- and YOU choose to exclude my personal reality. How rude. :lol:

This thread is not a bong-off for your opaque cognitions.

It is if I want it to be, as the OP demonstrates, we do not all perceive the same thing.

and I do not reject ideas I disagree with for any other reason than the fact that I have not been convinced of their accuracy or I have demonstrated that they are in fact wrong.

= unless you want to.

Zam :roll:
By Sivad
#14917058
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I can't tell if this is a compliment or an insult.


It's not meant as an insult, I'm just saying that liberals who are appalled by your views are the biggest supporters of the worst kinds of aggression and exploitation under the sun. Your views aren't really all that appalling compared to what liberal are actually doing in the world.
#14917070
Sivad wrote:It's not meant as an insult, I'm just saying that liberals who are appalled by your views are the biggest supporters of the worst kinds of aggression and exploitation under the sun. Your views aren't really all that appalling compared to what liberal are actually doing in the world.


Thank you.

Zamuel wrote:my personal reality is my creation as are it's components.


That does not follow from Cogito Ergo Sum, if you are convinced it does, put it in a syllogism where we can see the actual premises and conclusion and can see if it in fact follows.

Otherwise, please define what you mean by your "personal reality?"

It sounds like you've been hangin' in head shops a bit too much.

Zamuel wrote:My mind extracts what it wants from raw perception and creates a perception that suits me.


So you don't create "raw perception," then....which is basically a concession against your first claim where you created it yourself.

Where does "raw perception" come from in your hippy universe might I ask?

The moon goddess within us all? :lol:

from the energy of human peace with all living things?

The force?

:D

Zamuel wrote:No, I assert that the physical world is the product of what all our minds agree upon (consensual reality). My mind filters what I choose to experience and retains (in my personal reality) that which I choose


This is a concrete claim which is different than the original claim you made. Here you basically say that you experience raw perceptions, conform them to/interpret them according your own subjective states (moods) and that what we refer to, as a community, as physical reality is based on community consent.

That referent terms for physical objects are community-derived is not being contended, that we interpret what we perceive is not being contended, but that the physical objects, the raw phenomena (percepts) originate in ourselves is being contended; however, if you misspoke (which appears to be the case) and you do believe that raw perception is something you receive from outside yourself. Then the original contention is dissolved, as that was what I was addressing.

That this sparked in you an impulse to spew out your new-age psuedo-eastern hippy-dippy mysticism was an amusing and unintended consequence of my inquiry. :lol:

Zamuel wrote:- and YOU choose to exclude my personal reality. How rude


Zamuel wrote:Physical existence is an illusion created by consensual reality and it just keeps getting more complex.


Zamuel wrote:I can't really explain anything to you Victor … I can provide external perceptions, but YOUR mind will filter them to suit your desire.

Focus your consciousness on what I have said if you wish to understand. Waiting for me to say what you want to hear is lazy and will only cause frustration.


Imagevia Imgflip Meme Generator
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14917103
Victoribus Spolia wrote:It sounds like you've been hangin' in head shops a bit too much.

The moon goddess within us all? :lol:

from the energy of human peace with all living things? The force?

That this sparked in you an impulse to spew out your new-age psuedo-eastern hippy-dippy mysticism was an amusing and unintended consequence of my inquiry. :lol:


Well, I see the overload light is flashing and you've reverted to the Neo-barb persona, so I'll leave it there. It wasn't my intention to threaten your "personal reality." I just tried to answer the questions you asked.

Zam :smokin:
User avatar
By Rugoz
#14917178
Saeko wrote:No. Inertial motion is uncaused motion. Hence, there can be change without a cause.

Potemkin wrote:^ Saeko said it for me, Rugoz.


The cause is the state before the current one, or you can track it back to the original state if you want. Point is, an equation of motion describes a change from one state to another. It doesn't describe the state at any point in time.

We can add a force field if you want and write t0 for clarity instead of t:

p(t0+dt) = p(t0) + v(t0) dt + 0.5 F(p(t0)) / m dt^2

To compute p(t) at t I have to integrate forward this equation.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#14917181
Victoribus Spolia wrote:This does not mean there are no causes per se, just that causes cannot be established by observation.


Which is frankly irrelevant mumbo-jumbo. All that matters is that I know when I do something, it leads to something else, and that's what observation can provide.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Your firing-synapse is not the same as the experience of a symphony, no (A=A) identity can be demonstrated for qualitative states and observed physical properties. the sensations as subjectively experienced (qualitative states) are philosophically irreducible. The philosophy of mind has basically reached an impasse on this very issue over the last 30 years and for good reason. No qualitative state (basic sensation) can be demonstrated as physically reducible. It cannot be done.


I can see the problem, but I would argue there are definitely sensations that are felt and expressed almost equally by everyone. Needless to say an equal brain at an equal state would always report the same sensation.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14917187
Rugoz wrote:The cause is the state before the current one, or you can track it back to the original state if you want. Point is, an equation of motion describes a change from one state to another. It doesn't describe the state at any point in time.


If the inertial object's motion has a cause, then this should be true in all inertial reference frames. This includes the stationary frame of the inertial object in question. Yet, in this frame, there is no motion. So what is your hypothetical cause causing now?
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14917188
Rugoz wrote:The cause is the state before the current one, or you can track it back to the original state if you want.

Saeko got there before me again. :)

Point is, an equation of motion describes a change from one state to another. It doesn't describe the state at any point in time.

Yes it does. You just have to assign the time variable a definite value.

We can add a force field if you want and write t0 for clarity instead of t:

p(t0+dt) = p(t0) + v(t0) dt + 0.5 F(p(t0)) / m dt^2

To compute p(t) at t I have to integrate forward this equation.

So? There is still no 'causality' involved in that equation. And if you reverse the arrow of time, the equations of motion are still valid. The laws of physics look the same either forward or backward in time. What does this tell us about the laws of physics, Rugoz?
User avatar
By Rugoz
#14917225
Saeko wrote:If the inertial object's motion has a cause, then this should be true in all inertial reference frames. This includes the stationary frame of the inertial object in question. Yet, in this frame, there is no motion. So what is your hypothetical cause causing now?


That's a good point. Looks like acceleration is needed.

Potemkin wrote:Yes it does. You just have to assign the time variable a definite value.


You can derive a solution for position at any time by integrating the equation of motion, but an integral is just a sum of changes. Many differential equations don't have a closed-form solution anyway and can only be solved numerically (e.g. 3-body problem). Point is, if time moves in one direction (either forward or backward), and the current state can only be expressed in changes from an original state, that implies causation for me.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@JohnRawls Why do you think that? If you wer[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]