Bitcoin Forum
July 01, 2016, 09:57:58 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.12.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 ... 229 »
281  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 04:29:23 PM
I think the issue of gun control is so often mischaracterized because the issue of government control casts a veil of ignorance over almost everyone's eyes.  The extent to which guns can be controlled is predominantly influenced by how much control can be exercised by government at the Federal and state levels.  The larger governments get, the more tightly regulation generally controls all other facets of life, including things such as commerce, education, criminal justice, mental and medical health treatment, and even social relationships.  

On one hand, progressively granting government more control propels the myth that people would somehow be unable to work together harmoniously without such structure.  On the other hand, granting such control would make catastrophe all but certain if it were suddenly removed (i.e. we've gotten ourselves in too deep to easily pull ourselves out).  The situation is far more complex than people make it out to be, and you'll never reach a viable solution to the gun issue by simply looking at gun statistics, or even by relating those statistics to other things over which the government has been granted authoritarian control.
282  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 02:23:39 PM
Oh give me a break.  You just took a detour into total irrelevancy.  Tanks?  Really?
I'll give you the same number of breaks the national guard will give you if you ever challenge government authority when it comes to your "right" to use your guns: ZERO.

Relevancy-->
And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.

we shouldn't even bother resisting or protecting ourselves from anyone!
You should always seek to protect yourself and your home from killers. A gun in the home is 22 (twenty-two!) times more likely to be used in a suicide, homocide, or accident than for self-defense.



As I stated in the other thread, I see where this is going.  You're a black-and-white thinker, and little more than a parrot of buzz-word rhetoric.  I don't have the time to educate you about how to stay within the context of an argument instead of changing it willy-nilly whenever you have an idea, nor do I have time to explain to you the difference between things like correlation and causation, the definition of "mediating variable," "false dichotomy," or otherwise.  I'll retain my freedom to both carry a gun and think for myself, thanks.
283  Other / Politics & Society / Re: South Carolina church shooting: Nine die in Charleston 'hate crime' on: June 20, 2015, 02:17:36 PM
I'd be interested to know what you think about issue, in your own words, and without framing the issue in an infantile false dichotomy.
What, did you really think I linked material that opposes my own opinion on the matter? Not too fuckin' bright bro.

Why would I type something which has already been typed? This isn't the middle ages, we're not transcribing ancient texts for preservation here guys. This is the internet.

Still, I'll humor you as a show of good faith. Let's treat guns and cars the same!

-Gun licenses that prove competency
-Gun registration
-Mandatory gun insurance
-Education for misdemeanor offenses
-Suspension of gun license for multiple offenses
-Severe jail time for weapons used while under the influence of alcohol (or other drugs)




Ahh, I see where this is going.  I'm not responding to any more of your posts on this issue.
284  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 02:11:48 PM
And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.
Yeah, why don't you ask the Texas Waco cultists how well that attitude holds up when push comes to shove. OH WAIT, you can't because they burned to death.



All your guns aren't going to even put a scratch on one of these.

Oh give me a break.  You just took a detour into total irrelevancy.  Tanks?  Really?
285  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 01:55:11 PM
”Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” -- Ben Franklin
Actually, Franklin never said that.

If you, as a person, give up your freedoms (like the right to carry a gun)
You have no rights. You have privileges.

Fair enough.  I had actually thought it was Jefferson from memory, but to double check I just Googled the quote, and it popped up as Franklin.

Still, who said it, or if nobody said it, changes nothing.

And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.
286  Other / Politics & Society / Re: South Carolina church shooting: Nine die in Charleston 'hate crime' on: June 20, 2015, 01:53:29 PM
And what is stopping that same individual from just plowing that car into a bunch of people?




I've seen your posts in the gun control thread, too.  Nice to know you've thought this one out for yourself   Roll Eyes

I'd be interested to know what you think about issue, in your own words, and without framing the issue in an infantile false dichotomy.
287  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 01:43:43 PM
 ”Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” -- Ben Franklin

If you, as a person, give up your freedoms (like the right to carry a gun) and hand them over to someone else in exchange for protection, you are acknowledging a few things:

1) You acknowledge that someone(s) is more capable of protecting you than yourself.

2) You acknowledge that that you are content with being at the mercy of the decisions of those to whom you have conceded your freedoms.

3) You acknowledge that the extent to which you continue to have liberties is determined by those to whom you gave up your others.

 
So, here's the question of the day:  If you believe you are not best suited to handle the security of yourself, then how can you conclude that sacrificing liberties for security was the best idea to begin with?
288  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 12:57:02 PM

Well that's a neat little piece of information that tells you almost absolutely nothing.  If that's your basis for your opinion, you've chosen a context the size of a peep hole.

It seems like rather a straightforward statistic to me. In what way am I fudging it?

Because if you isolate that statistic, North Korea looks a heck of a lot better than the United States.  
289  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 12:41:31 AM
The UK is possibly the most restrictive country in the world with gun control, not sure. Per capita it has 0.25 gun deaths per 100,000 people. The US has 10.64 per 100,000. That's 40 times more gun deaths.

You can give me all the 'personal protection' 'criminals will get guns anyway' 'people will find other ways to kill themselves' shit you like. When American gun deaths are 40 times lower I'll be prepared to listen to that.

Well that's a neat little piece of information that tells you almost absolutely nothing.  If that's your basis for your opinion, you've chosen a context the size of a peep hole.
290  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: June 19, 2015, 06:01:08 PM
Paradoxes are fun, no doubt.  But, as Langan further notes:

Quote
Saying that a theory is “inconsistent” amounts to saying that it contains one or more irresolvable paradoxes.   Unfortunately, since any such paradox destroys the distinction between true and false with respect to the theory, the entire theory is crippled by the inclusion of a single one.  This makes consistency a primary necessity in the construction of theories, giving it priority over proof and prediction.

This is really the crux of it all.  Presenting a consistent model that provides a means of resolving said paradoxes automatically grants the model explanatory precedence.  Consequently, what thus determines a given, consistent model to be superior to another is generality.  By identifying a limit of theorization and evoking categorical relationships between the limit itself and reality, the result is a consistent model of reality at the epitome of generality, precluding the existence of a consistent model more general than itself.  In other words, it is the best we can ever do, and all that remains is to use such a model as a context within which to frame all sub-theories/models, resolving the paradoxes contained therein and providing us with objective insight which may give us clues as to how we can gain additional, practical utility from them (and perhaps even objectifying practical utility itself, giving us a concrete path to follow with regards to ethics and other considerations).

Let's not shoot the messenger... Plain English would be a superb example where it's possible to construct nonsensical statements, but that doesn't render the entire language useless and we continue to use it. Returning to your "absolute truth" argument,

Consider the following statement:  "Absolute truth exists."  Any attempt to falsify this statement actually reinforces it....

I later pointed out that in some cases it could result in the Liar Paradox, for which you quoted Langan about metalanguages:

Quote
But what if we now introduce a distinction between levels of proof?  For example, what if we define a metalanguage as a language used to talk about, analyze or prove things regarding statements in a lower-level object language, and call the base level of Gödel’s formula the "object" level and the higher (proof) level the "metalanguage" level?  Now we have one of two things: a statement that can be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, and thus recognized as a theorem conveying valuable information about the limitations of the object language, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, which, though uninformative, is at least no paradox.  Voilà: self-reference without paradox!  It turns out that "this formula is unprovable" can be translated into a generic example of an undecidable mathematical truth.  Because the associated reasoning involves a metalanguage of mathematics, it is called “metamathematical”.


Except, rereading, it seems to make more sense to think of metalanguage in computing terms. We can think of a statement as a series of instructions for running a program. Rather than a noun, the metalanguage would be an action: a reasoning process by which we somehow evaluate statements. Except that that still doesn't explain what we do when we run them. Or how we somehow seem able to overcome the limitations of computers.

1) I really don't understand the "let's not shoot the messenger comment."  I'm guessing it's non-essential, though I don't know who I shot lol.

2)  I agree that we can make sensical and non-sensical statements with plain English, and that the non-sensical statements do not render English inoperable or useless.  The syntax and rules of operation for English determine what is sensical and what isn't.  Statements are relayed back to the syntax and processed according thereto to determine if it is meaningful in a way consistent with it.  Thus, at the syntactic level there is indeed a "reasoning" process by which statements are evaluated, but the syntax itself is structural, i.e. it imposes constraints upon what can be considered meaningful.

3)  Yes, I recall your mention of the Liar's paradox.

4)  If you run software with code that does not conform to the syntax of its programming language, it will be evaluated as an invalid input. If valid, how those statements are expressed is a product of both their relation to their governing syntax, and also in relation to other object-level statements governed by the same syntax that may affect them (e.g. if-then or "conditional" statements).  I'm not sure if I fully responded to what you were saying, here.  I'm at lunch on an iPhone.

Edit: Linking this to subjectivity and objectivity, consider a governing syntax of Reality in total as it relates to its internal components.  As we perceive real content and subsequently process and model that content, we can either model that content in a way that is consistent with the syntax of Reality in total, or in a way that is inconsistent.  Because the structural syntax of Reality in total necessarily distributes to all of its content, if our model is consistent, then it is objectively valid, else we have an inconsistent, invalid model that provides us with no objective value.  In this way, we can consider this process in terms of a fundamental utility function, where utility is defined upon consistency and congruency with Universal syntax.  

Now, as you previously pointed out to some extent, real content isn't static, and this is because it is expressed through conditional changes according to the unconditional syntax of Reality.  This implies that Reality's syntax embodies rules for self-configuration via relational feedback between syntax and content, essentially a mechanism of self-evolution.  It is no different for us in an isomorphic sense.  We, too, embody this same mechanism for self-configuration, and this self-configuration can be defined in terms of the utility it generates.  If we self-configure in a way that is consistent with our own structural syntax, then bueno.  Else, no bueno.  I think this can serve as an objective basis for concepts like "good" and "bad," lending itself as a means of objective ethical mapping.

Edit 2: This may be getting a little bit ahead of ourselves, but consider for the sake of argument that what I have said so far in this post is true.  Relating to the computer analogy in which code that does not conform to the syntax of its program language would be considered invalid and thus incapable of being expressed, what would happen then if we do not conform to the syntax of Reality?  Might we, too, be deemed "invalid" and incapable of being expressed?  If so, might this be the basis of seemingly-religious concepts such as Heaven (i.e. something akin to "living with God forever, or in congruence with him), and Hell (i.e. being incongruent with God, and potentially facing interdiction from the system)?
291  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: There was just a block with 0 transactions, is Bitcoin forking or something? on: June 18, 2015, 10:49:28 PM
This has been going on for awhile now. Like a 3-4 weeks maybe.
Those miners are not adding transactions to get the block faster.
Kind of cheap, but I think someone started it, and now other follow randomly.

Edit: To clarify, I have not noticed those 0 transactions blocks till recently, so it is possible this has existed since the beginning of mining.

someone may be attacking the network by finding blocks but not publishing them immediately. then when they have found 3 blocks in a row they would publish them all at once to reverse the transactions of last 2 published blocks since the attacker has a longer block chain.
It would be incredibly difficult because what you just described is called a 51% attack. No one has >51% of the hashing power

You don't need >50% to be lucky for a few blocks.  It would just be statistically impossible to continue outpacing the other chain indefinitely with <50%.
292  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: June 17, 2015, 12:55:31 PM
Weather forecasting. Forecasters would have a theory about how the weather ought to work, which they implement as a simulation running on some computers. However, the actual weather does not care what someone else thinks about it. What it actually does, would be the practice.  This reminds me of the quote "in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is."

Theory would be the subjective reality, and practice would be objective reality. However, since we're "stuck in our minds", maybe we just have to keep adjusting our theory in a learning process?


Quoting from the same source as previous post:

Quote
To demonstrate the existence of undecidability, Gödel used a simple trick called self-reference.  Consider the statement “this sentence is false.”  It is easy to dress this statement up as a logical formula.  Aside from being true or false, what else could such a formula say about itself?  Could it pronounce itself, say, unprovable?  Let’s try it: "This formula is unprovable".  If the given formula is in fact unprovable, then it is true and therefore a theorem.  Unfortunately, the axiomatic method cannot recognize it as such without a proof.  On the other hand, suppose it is provable.  Then it is self-apparently false (because its provability belies what it says of itself) and yet true (because provable without respect to content)!  It seems that we still have the makings of a paradox…a statement that is "unprovably provable" and therefore absurd.  

But what if we now introduce a distinction between levels of proof?  For example, what if we define a metalanguage as a language used to talk about, analyze or prove things regarding statements in a lower-level object language, and call the base level of Gödel’s formula the "object" level and the higher (proof) level the "metalanguage" level?  Now we have one of two things: a statement that can be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, and thus recognized as a theorem conveying valuable information about the limitations of the object language, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, which, though uninformative, is at least no paradox.  Voilà: self-reference without paradox!  It turns out that "this formula is unprovable" can be translated into a generic example of an undecidable mathematical truth.  Because the associated reasoning involves a metalanguage of mathematics, it is called “metamathematical”.

Edit:  I'm a big fan of Langan's work, as you can see my beliefs closely reflect his -- and I've spent literally hundreds of hours dissecting it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. For the most part I actually agree with you, except for your confidence in earlier posts that you've got it all figured out. I suspect Gödel spent a lot of time breaking his way out of "linguistic Mamushka dolls", and what he tried to show was that the limitation could apply to any language.
Btw, I'm not sure what some people have against paradoxes - I think they're great! And I think the whole point of using a paradox was because of its ridiculousness, not in spite of it. It's just a symbol to represent any statement that's "true but unprovable" within its system of thought.

Paradoxes are fun, no doubt.  But, as Langan further notes:

Quote
Saying that a theory is “inconsistent” amounts to saying that it contains one or more irresolvable paradoxes.   Unfortunately, since any such paradox destroys the distinction between true and false with respect to the theory, the entire theory is crippled by the inclusion of a single one.  This makes consistency a primary necessity in the construction of theories, giving it priority over proof and prediction.

This is really the crux of it all.  Presenting a consistent model that provides a means of resolving said paradoxes automatically grants the model explanatory precedence.  Consequently, what thus determines a given, consistent model to be superior to another is generality.  By identifying a limit of theorization and evoking categorical relationships between the limit itself and reality, the result is a consistent model of reality at the epitome of generality, precluding the existence of a consistent model more general than itself.  In other words, it is the best we can ever do, and all that remains is to use such a model as a context within which to frame all sub-theories/models, resolving the paradoxes contained therein and providing us with objective insight which may give us clues as to how we can gain additional, practical utility from them (and perhaps even objectifying practical utility itself, giving us a concrete path to follow with regards to ethics and other considerations).

Quote
Another paradox would be our ability to define metalanguages -- creating higher levels of thought -- to isolate and explain things when we hit some limit at a lower level. If we were previously operating within the confines of a lower-level object language, who could have predicted that we were about to break out of that intellectual prison and create something different? If we can do that, then inductive reasoning suggests there's no known upper limit to the meta-metalanguages we might create. And we don't even know whether there's infinite regression because it's an open-ended proposition. We simply don't know if there will be more higher-level paradoxes as side-effects or not. But if we call it infinite regression and say we're operating at the highest possible level, the continued existence of paradoxes makes our system internally inconsistent.

The "higher-level paradoxes as side-effects" would again be precluded by the reintroduction of yet another metalanguage to resolve paradoxes in an object-oriented metalanguage.  Isomorphic regression is not the same as infinite regression in the traditional sense because falsifying isomorphic regression would require introducing a metalanguage to attempt to falsify it, making it impossible to falsify it without actually adhering to it.  Thus, the falsification attempt renders itself inconsistent and therefore invalid.

Edit:  A way to visualize how isomorphic regression does not equate to infinite regression is to consider a 'prime' metalanguage as an algebraic construct which serves as a primordial archetype which distributes its structure isomorphically to all linguistic subsystems.  This means the archetype is a static, unchanging structure distributed among both reality in total and in part, objectively relating the latter to the former.

Quote
Therefore, in response to metalanguages, Gödel's "incompleteness or inconsistency" dilemma could be a kind of "meta paradox" that persists in defiance of any attempt to contain it. Back to reality, it seems intuitively obvious that reality is incomplete (or inconsistent?) because it just keeps changing. It's not a static system.

On a lower level, it isn't static, but at the highest level it would be totally static and unchanging...complete and self-consistent with respect to its non-static constituents.  A presumption of the kind you're making would suggest there would be something external to reality itself that would be capable of determining it incomplete and/or inconsistent (claiming its either or both is itself an objective determination, and this would reintroduce the problematic infinite regression).
293  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: June 17, 2015, 02:15:52 AM

A self-deterministic model is not in any way threatened by such unfalsifiable assumptions in the same way that an Empirical worldview is because it precludes any instance in which such unverifiable content is actually relevant to Reality.  Accordingly, these unfalsifable assumptions are a priori unreal.  This distinction is especially highlighted by the fact that Empirical models cannot account for themselves (because they are abstract and therefore beyond the scope of Empiricism altogether), and can't even account for their own assumptions (e.g. that we live in a Positivistic Universe, a purely philosophical assumption that also falls outside of their scope).  

My claims are falsifiable, as I have already explained how there is a theoretical way to falsify them.  Again, what you will find is that any attempt to falsify them will only reinforce the general idea in the same way that any attempt to falsify the existence of absolute truth only serves to reinforce it, since any claim must necessarily assume its own absolute, objective weight in order to be objectively relevant to the argument.

But one thing about putting "it's the absolute truth that..." in front of statements is that some statements will take the form of the Liar Paradox (It's the absolute truth that this sentence is false.) , which Gödel used to great effect, upsetting lots of people with his incompleteness theorems. Others have also expounded upon it, saying that the incompleteness is not only relevant to vague ideas of arithmetical language, but it applies to "real world" theories as well. The take-home message being that there will always be some true truths that cannot proven within the theory.

Interestingly, I'm not sure about your use of the word 'theory' earlier. For one thing, I didn't immediately click that you were using theory as a synonym for similar words like perception, experience, or the senses. And I'm wondering how a "practice" of reality might differ, or whether it's a coherent idea for there to even be a practice of reality.

I can test these thoughts by applying them to a concrete example to see if it makes sense in a smaller context. E.g.: Weather forecasting. Forecasters would have a theory about how the weather ought to work, which they implement as a simulation running on some computers. However, the actual weather does not care what someone else thinks about it. What it actually does, would be the practice.  This reminds me of the quote "in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is."

Theory would be the subjective reality, and practice would be objective reality. However, since we're "stuck in our minds", maybe we just have to keep adjusting our theory in a learning process?


Quoting from the same source as previous post:

Quote
To demonstrate the existence of undecidability, Gödel used a simple trick called self-reference.  Consider the statement “this sentence is false.”  It is easy to dress this statement up as a logical formula.  Aside from being true or false, what else could such a formula say about itself?  Could it pronounce itself, say, unprovable?  Let’s try it: "This formula is unprovable".  If the given formula is in fact unprovable, then it is true and therefore a theorem.  Unfortunately, the axiomatic method cannot recognize it as such without a proof.  On the other hand, suppose it is provable.  Then it is self-apparently false (because its provability belies what it says of itself) and yet true (because provable without respect to content)!  It seems that we still have the makings of a paradox…a statement that is "unprovably provable" and therefore absurd.  

But what if we now introduce a distinction between levels of proof?  For example, what if we define a metalanguage as a language used to talk about, analyze or prove things regarding statements in a lower-level object language, and call the base level of Gödel’s formula the "object" level and the higher (proof) level the "metalanguage" level?  Now we have one of two things: a statement that can be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, and thus recognized as a theorem conveying valuable information about the limitations of the object language, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, which, though uninformative, is at least no paradox.  Voilà: self-reference without paradox!  It turns out that "this formula is unprovable" can be translated into a generic example of an undecidable mathematical truth.  Because the associated reasoning involves a metalanguage of mathematics, it is called “metamathematical”.

Edit:  I'm a big fan of Langan's work, as you can see my beliefs closely reflect his -- and I've spent literally hundreds of hours dissecting it.
294  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: June 16, 2015, 10:04:21 PM
You have absolutely no basis to say that it "by no means affects the objective existence of a thing."  This is your fundamental error.  How can you possibly know that without making a (as I noted before) "totally unnecessary and wholly unfalsifiable assumption?"  How can you possibility know what the objective existence of something is without being aware of it?

Strictly speaking, I agree with that. Absence of proof is not proof of absence (and all that shit about falsifiability). Thereby it is a moot point really, since the same principle is applicable to your reasoning as well. Ancient people knew nothing of cancer, but there is overwhelming evidence that it existed back then, so something might exist today that we know nothing of. Actually, that's what I was trying to convey right from the start. That is, in the absence of strong evidence we can only believe (until new evidence is found, of course), or just refrain from making definitive conclusions...

And yes, I am more inclined to think that the subjective is not connected with the objective in the way you are trying to push it

Correct, absence of proof is not proof of absence, but in this case that only applies directly to Empiricism, which necessarily omits comprehensive explanation and thereby not only leaves unfalsifiable assumptions on the table, but also leaves a necessary cause of which it can never model.  In a self-deterministic model where objective content is fundamentally inseparable from the mental constructs that model them, the necessary cause is modeled, and in such a way that it also explains the cause of the model itself (i.e. through theoretical self-reference).  

A self-deterministic model is not in any way threatened by such unfalsifiable assumptions in the same way that an Empirical worldview is because it precludes any instance in which such unverifiable content is actually relevant to Reality.  Accordingly, these unfalsifable assumptions are a priori unreal.  This distinction is especially highlighted by the fact that Empirical models cannot account for themselves (because they are abstract and therefore beyond the scope of Empiricism altogether), and can't even account for their own assumptions (e.g. that we live in a Positivistic Universe, a purely philosophical assumption that also falls outside of their scope).  

My claims are falsifiable, as I have already explained how there is a theoretical way to falsify them.  Again, what you will find is that any attempt to falsify them will only reinforce the general idea in the same way that any attempt to falsify the existence of absolute truth only serves to reinforce it, since any claim must necessarily assume its own absolute, objective weight in order to be objectively relevant to the argument.

...Objectively relevant.  These are the types of relationships you need to become aware of.  What is objective is only so in relation to something else.  For example, the syntax of a system is objective relative to its contents, while its contents are only relative to its syntax and not in any way absolute to it.  However, the same, objective syntax of the original system is merely relative to the syntax of an even greater system containing it.  Objective does NOT mean something like "it is what it is all by itself."  Objectivity is a relation.  You avoid infinite regression by modeling objectivity self-relationally (in the same way that sound logic is logical because sound logic says so).

And of course you're inclined to think subjectivity and objectivity aren't connected in the way I propose because the notion apparently runs contrary to what you've been assuming (i.e. your inclination) this entire time.

Quote
http://ctmu.org/  [See Q&A]

Scientific theories are mental constructs that have objective reality as their content.   According to the scientific method, science puts objective content first, letting theories be determined by observation.  But the phrase "a theory of reality" contains two key nouns, theory and reality, and science is really about both. Because all theories have certain necessary logical properties that are abstract and mathematical, and therefore independent of observation - it is these very properties that let us recognize and understand our world in conceptual terms - we could just as well start with these properties and see what they might tell us about objective reality.  Just as scientific observation makes demands on theories, the logic of theories makes demands on scientific observation, and these demands tell us in a general way what we may observe about the universe.

In other words, a comprehensive theory of reality is not just about observation, but about theories and their logical requirements.  Since theories are mental constructs, and mental means "of the mind", this can be rephrased as follows: mind and reality are linked in mutual dependence at the most basic level of understanding.  This linkage of mind and reality is what a TOE (Theory of Everything) is really about...

...Mind and reality - the abstract and the concrete, the subjective and the objective, the internal and the external - are linked together in a certain way, and this linkage is the real substance of "reality theory".  Just as scientific observation determines theories, the logical requirements of theories to some extent determine scientific observation.  Since reality always has the ability to surprise us, the task of scientific observation can never be completed with absolute certainty, and this means that a comprehensive theory of reality cannot be based on scientific observation alone.  Instead, it must be based on the process of making scientific observations in general, and this process is based on the relationship of mind and reality...

Quote
...As noted by Berkeley, we can know reality only through perception. So our theories of reality necessarily have a perceptual or observational basis.  But as noted by Kant, the process of observation has substantial internal complexity; it is a relationship of subject and object with sensory (phenomenal) and cognitive (categorical) components. So reality is at once monic, because uniformly perceptual, and dualistic, because perception has two complementary aspects...

...Now consider physics. Because physics is governed by the scientific method, it deals exclusively with phenomena. Thus, it effectively diverts attention away from the cognitive, categorical aspect of perceptual reality, without which neither phenomena nor scientific theories could exist. Because physics is irreducibly dualistic and takes the fundamental separation of mind and matter as axiomatic, it cannot provide us with a complete picture of reality. It can tell us only what lies outside the subjective observer, not within.

By definition, reality must contain all that it needs to exist; equivalently, anything on which the existence of reality depends is real by definition (if it were not, then reality would be based on nonreality and would itself be unreal, a semantic contradiction). So attempts to explain reality entirely in terms of physics are paradoxical; reality contains not only the physical, but the abstract machinery of perception and cognition through which "the physical" is perceived and explained. Where this abstract machinery is what we mean by "the supraphysical", reality has physical and supraphysical aspects. Physical and supraphysical reality are respectively "concrete" and "abstract", i.e. material and mental in nature.  

The question is, do we continue to try to objectivize the supraphysical component of reality as do the theories of physics, strings and membranes, thus regenerating the paradox? Or do we...resolve the paradox, admitting that the supraphysical aspect of reality is "mental" in a generalized sense and describing all components of reality in terms of SCSPL syntactic operators with subjective and objective aspects?
295  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: June 16, 2015, 08:11:28 PM
2) ...I am not ascribing them any intrinsic meaning in and of themselves as you suggest.  Although, I would like to point out that you seem to be making some very definitive claims about the nature of objects in general, which goes against your favoritism towards indeterminism as an explanatory model (i.e. you are determining their meaning).

If you meant to say that I, as a subject, determine the meaning of things to me (e.g. their usefulness in achieving my ends), then yes, I am. But I don't see how that goes against my favoritism toward indeterminism

3) Again, meaning is derived from a subject-object relationship.  You seem to acknowledge this by claiming that objects are neither meaningful nor meaningless (see #1).

4) If you acknowledge #3, then you should also acknowledge that you cannot say objects (like cancer) can exist (imbuing them with your own meaning) outside of subjective awareness.

They I cannot agree with. If I determine the meaning of things (to me), it doesn't mean that I determine their existence since meaning is subjective, existence is objective. In other words, existence is an intrinsic quality of things while meaning is not (removing this quality from a thing would be equal to destroying it)...

1)  The mere existence of something is meaningful.  That is, if you assert something exists, then it is imbued with meaning, and it is your awareness of its existant form that determines, in tandem with each other, that it 1) it exists, and 2) to that extent (at the very least) it is meaningful.  Existence and meaning are a package deal.

Now you go where you started at. I don't want to repeat what I have said earlier. If I assert that something exists, or otherwise ascribe some meaning to it (since that seems to be your point), this by no means affects the objective existence of a thing. In this way, asserting the existence of something is not the same as its objective existence, which is not dependent on someone assigning a meaning to it (or just stating that it exists)...

It seems that you got lost in purposeless verbiage

You have absolutely no basis to say that it "by no means affects the objective existence of a thing."  This is your fundamental error.  How can you possibly know that without making a (as I noted before) "totally unnecessary and wholly unfalsifiable assumption?"  How can you possibility know what the objective existence of something is without being aware of it?  To falsify your assumption requires that you would need to be aware of its objective existence independent of your awareness of its objective existence.  Your assumption negates its own possibility.

Whereas you make an assumption that impossible to falsify empirically or logically, I make exactly zero assumptions.

This point isn't even anything novel.  This is taught in classrooms globally.  I hate appealing to authority, but how many academic references would you need to convince you otherwise?  Though, the explanation contained in this very post is enough to prove the flaw in your assumption beyond all doubt.  You are making an assumption that is absolutely impossible to establish, provide reasonable grounds for, or falsify, and there is not a shred of evidence to support it.
296  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: June 16, 2015, 05:43:42 PM
2) ...I am not ascribing them any intrinsic meaning in and of themselves as you suggest.  Although, I would like to point out that you seem to be making some very definitive claims about the nature of objects in general, which goes against your favoritism towards indeterminism as an explanatory model (i.e. you are determining their meaning).

If you meant to say that I, as a subject, determine the meaning of things to me (e.g. their usefulness in achieving my ends), then yes, I am. But I don't see how that goes against my favoritism toward indeterminism

3) Again, meaning is derived from a subject-object relationship.  You seem to acknowledge this by claiming that objects are neither meaningful nor meaningless (see #1).

4) If you acknowledge #3, then you should also acknowledge that you cannot say objects (like cancer) can exist (imbuing them with your own meaning) outside of subjective awareness.

They I cannot agree with. If I determine the meaning of things (to me), it doesn't mean that I determine their existence since meaning is subjective, existence is objective. In other words, existence is an intrinsic quality of things while meaning is not (removing this quality from a thing would be equal to destroying it)...

1)  The mere existence of something is meaningful.  That is, if you assert something exists, then it is imbued with meaning, and it is your awareness of its existant form that determines, in tandem with each other, that 1) it exists, and 2) to that extent (at the very least) it is meaningful.  Existence and meaning are a package deal.

2)
Quote
...it doesn't mean I determine their existence...

Yes it does.  See #1.  

Quote
Edit 2:  Another, more primordial example, is the self-evident process of metacognition whereby we, as subjects, objectify ourselves in a self-referential process.  We derive meaning in our lives and form a meaningful self-concept through this process whereby we, as subjects, objectify ourselves [e.g. "I (subject) am a subject (object)."].   And voila! -- Subjectivity objectified  
297  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: June 16, 2015, 05:19:43 PM
Edit:  Consider the syntax of our own language and what is required for meaning.  Consider the following (non)sentence: "Apple."  This means nothing by itself.  An apple, we know, is an object, but it is a completely meaningless object unless it is related to some subject.  Now consider the sentence: "An apple is a fruit."  Now, broken down: "An apple (subject) is a fruit (object)."  Meaning is derived from a subject-object relationship. This sets a 'ratio' (the root word of "rationale") between the subject and object so we can make sense of it.  Objectivity by itself is meaningless in the way you describe it.  You're failing to consider that, for objectivity to be in any way meaningful, it must be fundamentally inseparable from subjectivity.

Objects are not "made" to be meaningful (or meaningless, for that matter) by themselves. You, at first, try to ascribe to them some qualitative category (namely, that of possessing a meaning), which they don't have, and then, on that basis, make them appear as incomplete since they allegedly lack in a property of that category. Meaning is purely subjective, objects, on the contrary, are neither meaningful nor meaningless...

In short, what you say about subjective and objective having the same root seems to make even less sense than your ideas about determinism

1) Correct, objects are not made meaningful or meaningless by themselves.  Information of any kind is utterly meaningless unless it is processed by some entity capable of processing and rendering that information in a meaningful way.  Thus...

2) ...I am not ascribing them any intrinsic meaning in and of themselves as you suggest.  Although, I would like to point out that you seem to be making some very definitive claims about the nature of objects in general, which goes against your favoritism towards indeterminism as an explanatory model (i.e. you are determining their meaning).

3) Again, meaning is derived from a subject-object relationship.  You seem to acknowledge this by claiming that objects are neither meaningful nor meaningless (see #1).

4) If you acknowledge #3, then you should also acknowledge that you cannot say objects (like cancer) can exist (imbuing them with your own meaning) outside of subjective awareness.
298  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 17-year-old Bitcoiner faces prison for tweeting about... You guessed it! Bitcoin on: June 15, 2015, 06:29:36 PM
But then, the media witchdoctors can spin any story as per their liking...

Exactly this. We have seen this kind of bitcoin news way too often so that we know very sure how journalists will twist the story. You know... bitcoin and terrorism is a really nice headline. There are enough fiends of bitcoin that would welcome such news. And i mean even politicians that, maybe were lobbied, to defend bitcoin.

I don't see any sensationalism or spin in the headline.  I think it's more likely that an average reader may spin it themselves to align with other legitimately sensationalist articles they may have read or heard of in the past.  That doesn't mean there's anything here to suggest that BTC is inherently related to terrorism in any way.
299  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: June 15, 2015, 05:19:10 PM
From our perspective, we have evidence of mummies, and we have evidence of a cancerous tumors in those mummies.  Practically, this evidence suggests that, yes, cancer did exist back then, and may have been the cause of their deaths.  We know this (practically) because we 1) have verified the evidence, and 2) have applied the rules of inductive inference to conclude that these mummies had cancer, and this conclusion comes with a very, very high level of confidence.

From the mummies' perspective (granting their prior living existence), they wouldn't know, because they presumably couldn't know. You have to accept this. The answer depends upon the perspective and what is verifiable.

So what you say boils down to subjective existence (as opposed to objective existence), that is, something exists only as long as we think it exists. Yes, I am familiar with that point of view. No, I do not share this view. I guess you will have to accept this...

No.  It boils down to the fact that subjective and objective are homogenized at a fundamental level...that objective content is ultimately inseparable from the mental constructs that describe them.  You're a huge fan of dichotomies, and I'm encouraging you not to be.  You're not familiar with this point of view because you keep trying to cram your square peg into a round hole.  Something is known to exist after it has been verified.  You can't know what you can't verify, and you can't verify what you aren't aware of, and so you can't objectify anything without being aware of it.  Therefore, what is objectively known is utterly dependent upon subjective awareness or "mind."  This does NOT, however, means it loses objectivity.  Rather, you just have a poor understanding of objectivity.

Edit:  Consider the syntax of our own language and what is required for meaning.  Consider the following (non)sentence: "Apple."  This means nothing by itself.  An apple, we know, is an object, but it is a completely meaningless object unless it is related to some subject.  Now consider the sentence: "An apple is a fruit."  Now, broken down: "An apple (subject) is a fruit (object)."  Meaning is derived from a subject-object relationship. This sets a 'ratio' (the root word of "rationale") between the subject and object so we can make sense of it.  Objectivity by itself is meaningless in the way you describe it.  You're failing to consider that, for objectivity to be in any way meaningful, it must be fundamentally inseparable from subjectivity.

Edit 2:  Another, more primordial example, is the self-evident process of metacognition whereby we, as subjects, objectify ourselves in a self-referential process.  We derive meaning in our lives and form a meaningful self-concept through this process whereby we, as subjects, objectify ourselves [e.g. "I (subject) am a subject (object)."].   And voila! -- Subjectivity objectified  Cool
300  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: June 15, 2015, 03:22:32 PM
Quote
But ultimately it is irrelevant, since, say, cancer kept on killing people as effectively when they got an idea about it as it had been doing when they did not have a clue about it. Was it non-existent when people knew nothing about it, and if it was (non-existent) why people still died from it?

Until the point at which someone verifies a person has cancerous cells in their body, then nobody knows whether they have cancer or not.  A person may be aware of subtle (or drastic) changes to their experience of being just prior to verifying that they have cancer, but you cannot conclude before verification that a person has cancer, or that they died from it.

I see that you are trying to subtly switch contexts. I talked about the existence of cancer as a malady even before people knew anything about this disease. Now you are talking about whether an individual knows he has cancer or not. Yes, people had cancer in ancient times, which has been verified in present times by finding various cancer tumors in Egyptian and South American mummies. So I have to repeat my question, did cancer exist back then when people knew nothing about it (and thus couldn't verify it)?

It seems that your theory of mental awareness of a thing as a prerequisite for its existence fails a reality check

I'm not switching contexts at all.  It's a simple point that one can not know whether something exists or not without verification.  So, did cancer exist back then?  Well, let's consider the question from two perspectives, ours and theirs.

From our perspective, we have evidence of mummies, and we have evidence of a cancerous tumors in those mummies.  Practically, this evidence suggests that, yes, cancer did exist back then, and may have been the cause of their deaths.  We know this (practically) because we 1) have verified the evidence, and 2) have applied the rules of inductive inference to conclude that these mummies had cancer, and this conclusion comes with a very, very high level of confidence.

Ultimately, from a strictly rationalist point of view (which often appears to conflict with practical reasoning), what we can absolutely conclude is that we have evidence of mummies with tumors in them.  Practcally, we conclude these mummies were alive and died with cancer in them, which aligns with what we know about cancer and mummies.  Ultimately, we can't conclude these mummies were ever alive to begin with (though again, practically, it would be silly to ignore the evidence).

From the mummies' perspective (granting their prior living existence), they wouldn't know, because they presumably couldn't know. You have to accept this. The answer depends upon the perspective and what is verifiable.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 ... 229 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!