GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin Solway wrote:

brokenhead wrote:

They are programmed to do so, in the same way as your keyboard seeks to send a certain character to the computer when you hit a key on it.

Yes, but programmed by whom, Kevin?

Programmed by their causes - their past.

Truth, Courage, Honesty

Sound familiar? All reducible to biochemical reactions?

All reducable to causes, yes.

Thank God! and bless causes. Here I was under the impression that there was something wrong with me. What a relief! :)

brokenhead wrote:Kevin Solway wrote:

When we say that we "kill" a virus, it's only a figure of speech.

When a murderer says he has killed your child, it would then have to be only a figure of speech as well.

If your computer comes to a grinding halt, you might say, "My computer has died". That's what I mean by "a figure of speech" - because we presumably didn't think the computer was really alive in the first place. So it is with viruses, if we don't think they are really alive.

Laird: In my opinion it's unlikely that we'll find a model that explains things satisfactorily

Kevin: I'm not interested in models - that's a matter for science.

Yeah, I know, you're not interested in models, you're interested in "pointing your finger at absolute truth". If you admitted that you were constructing a model then you would have to admit to the possibility that it was wrong, and Kevin Solway would never admit to that possibility on a philosophical matter.

Laird: In the meantime I'll posit that perhaps reality just doesn't conform to our ideas of natural logic.

Kevin: It does conform to logic, regardless of what your "natural logic" is. You are probably talking about a system of logic.

I'm probably trying to point my finger at the type of logic that you use and to suggest that you're blind to deficiencies in your conclusions.

Kevin: "The infinite past" is not a point in the past, so it is not relevant to the discussion.

Laird: But it is relevant, because it's part of the past

Kevin: What is? You aren't talking about a point in the past, so what are you talking about?

I'm talking about infinity itself.

Laird: "time doesn't flow in half-by-half-by-half increments, constantly diminishing its rate of flow

Kevin: It doesn't matter what size the increments are, the point is that there are an infinite number of them, which can never be traversed.

The model is flawed, however it's not akin to anything that I'm doing so your point is redundant. I'll note in passing that the sum of the infinite series is one.

Laird: In contrast, I am not splitting up the infinity of your beginningless past into any artificial set of distances

Kevin: Yes you are. If you think that you haven't "reached" the infinite, then you are splitting it up into increments. For example, you are splitting it up into a distance you have been and how much further you have to go. There are an infinite number of such increments, as in the example of throwing the ball at the wall.

In fact my argument does not rest on an infinite number of increments. It rests on the notion that infinity is an idealisation that can never be realised whereas your beginningless past requires it to have been realised in the time up to the present moment.

Laird wrote:Kevin: What is? You aren't talking about a point in the past, so what are you talking about?

I'm talking about infinity itself.

If it's not a point in the past (or the future) then you can't speak about "reaching" it. It is a category error akin to supposing that you can live inside the colour blue.

Laird wrote:

Laird: In contrast, I am not splitting up the infinity of your beginningless past into any artificial set of distances

Kevin: Yes you are. If you think that you haven't "reached" the infinite, then you are splitting it up into increments. For example, you are splitting it up into a distance you have been and how much further you have to go. There are an infinite number of such increments, as in the example of throwing the ball at the wall.

In fact my argument does not rest on an infinite number of increments.

When you say that you cannot "reach" some point infinitely far in the past (or the future), this is based upon incrementalizing the infinite.

Let me show you exactly how you are incrementalizing it. Let's say you have reached point "n", then you know there is another point "n+1" and yet another "n+1+1" etc. That's the way you know that you cannot "reach" the infinite. And the "n" and "n+1", etc, are the increments. That's how you are infinitely incrementalizing the infinite.

In fact my argument does not rest on an infinite number of increments. It rests on the notion that infinity is an idealisation that can never be realised

Then you need to demonstrate how it is only an idealisation without reference to any concepts such as "reaching", which incrementalize it (n, n+1,. . . etc).

Kevin Solway wrote:Let me show you exactly how you are incrementalizing it. Let's say you have reached point "n", then you know there is another point "n+1" and yet another "n+1+1" etc. That's the way you know that you cannot "reach" the infinite. And the "n" and "n+1", etc, are the increments. That's how you are infinitely incrementalizing the infinite.

That's simply the nature of infinity: that it avoids our reach because there is always more. If you want to posit that we come to an understanding of the nature of infinity by "incrementalizing" [American spelling Kev??] it then that's fine with me. I know what you mean.

Laird: In fact my argument does not rest on an infinite number of increments. It rests on the notion that infinity is an idealisation that can never be realised

Kevin: Then you need to demonstrate how it is only an idealisation without reference to any concepts such as "reaching", which incrementalize it (n, n+1,. . . etc).

It is precisely because there is always more (your idea of "incrementalization") that it is an ideal. What you are saying though in your idea of a beginningless past is that there is no more - that we have already reached it by the present moment.

Laird wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Let me show you exactly how you are incrementalizing it. Let's say you have reached point "n", then you know there is another point "n+1" and yet another "n+1+1" etc. That's the way you know that you cannot "reach" the infinite. And the "n" and "n+1", etc, are the increments. That's how you are infinitely incrementalizing the infinite.

That's simply the nature of infinity

No, that's part of a model of infinity. Models are completely different to the real thing.

What you are saying though in your idea of a beginningless past is that there is no more - that we have already reached it by the present moment.

No - I'm saying that the concept of "reaching" is inappropriate in the context of infinity.

Kevin: Let me show you exactly how you are incrementalizing it. Let's say you have reached point "n", then you know there is another point "n+1" and yet another "n+1+1" etc. That's the way you know that you cannot "reach" the infinite. And the "n" and "n+1", etc, are the increments. That's how you are infinitely incrementalizing the infinite.

Laird: That's simply the nature of infinity

Kevin: No, that's part of a model of infinity. Models are completely different to the real thing.

My point was that that's how we understand infinity. But please share with us what the "real thing" is then.

Laird: What you are saying though in your idea of a beginningless past is that there is no more - that we have already reached it by the present moment.

Kevin: No - I'm saying that the concept of "reaching" is inappropriate in the context of infinity.

You say that we have come from an infinite past to the present. That means that an infinity has been achieved. We both know that that's impossible: the nature of infinity is that we cannot achieve it, we can merely continue towards it.

Laird wrote

That's simply the nature of infinity: that it avoids our reach because there is always more. If you want to posit that we come to an understanding of the nature of infinity by "incrementalizing" [American spelling Kev??] it then that's fine with me. I know what you mean.

Infinity of what? In set theory, some infinite sets can be larger than other infinite sets, "larger" meaning "contains more elements."

Laird wrote:But please share with us what the "real thing" is then.

The real thing is everywhere around you.

Laird: What you are saying though in your idea of a beginningless past is that there is no more - that we have already reached it by the present moment.

Kevin: No - I'm saying that the concept of "reaching" is inappropriate in the context of infinity.

You say that we have come from an infinite past to the present.

Unlike yourself, I don't conceive of there having been a starting point.

That's the big difference.

That means that an infinity has been achieved.

You can't "achieve" an infinite. Something is either infinite or it isn't. It's like a ball being either a ball or not a ball. A ball doesn't "achieve" being a ball.

The nature of infinity is that we cannot achieve it, we can merely continue towards it.

You are confusing mathematical models for the real thing.

Laird: But please share with us what the "real thing" is then.

Kevin: The real thing is everywhere around you.

There! You have it! It’s quite simple, Laird; you must be utterly blind not to see it.

If you can’t really see the ‘real thing’, then it is you who are confused, mate. Surely it must be 'mental blocks' keeping you from it. Or perhaps you haven’t been able to discover your engrams (the real thing) hidden beneath those 'painful layers' (mental blocks) :)

"Dianetics defines an engram as "a mental image picture which is a recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. It must by definition have impact or injury as part of its content."[2] Engrams are said to contain all of the perception and experience of any memory but are not easily available to an individual because they are overlaid with some kind of pain. A goal of Dianetics is to assist a person in confronting such memories and thus to bring the memory into full consciousness."

Sapius wrote:There! You have it! It’s quite simple, Laird; you must be utterly blind not to see it.

If you want to know what an apple tastes like, a mathematical model is not the appropriate tool for the job. Likewise if you want to know about the infinite.

Dianetics defines an engram as "a mental image picture which is a recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. It must by definition have impact or injury as part of its content."[2] Engrams are said to contain all of the perception and experience of any memory but are not easily available to an individual because they are overlaid with some kind of pain. A goal of Dianetics is to assist a person in confronting such memories and thus to bring the memory into full consciousness

Dianetics? L. Ron Hubbard Dianetics? Please tell me you're joking.

Kevin Solway wrote:

If you want to know what an apple tastes like, a mathematical model is not the appropriate tool for the job. Likewise if you want to know about the infinite.

"Likewise" being purely your opinion. You can compare anything to anything - it does not prove or even demonstrate a point.
If you want to discuss "infinity," mathematics is the only logical way to do so. You are implying you have experienced infinity by comparing it to tasting an apple. Here we are not considering what infinity feels like - although that may be germane - but rather what we believe it to be.

Kevin, let me try to narrow this down so I can see if I understand your point. Are you saying infinity is simply what's out there? That chopping it up for discussion is something we are imposing on it? And because it is infinite, there is nothing else? God, the special place we give to Life and living things, all something we do, not something that actually is? You seem to be maintaining this as sort of a secure bunker, from which you can shoot down any contradicting point be simply saying "you not right, I am."

Kevin Solway wrote:

Sapius wrote:There! You have it! It’s quite simple, Laird; you must be utterly blind not to see it.

If you want to know what an apple tastes like, a mathematical model is not the appropriate tool for the job. Likewise if you want to know about the infinite.

Oooo! That sounds almost vulgar. Get down on it, Laird.

However, I think Laird is simply saying; SHOW ME THE APPLE! so that I may taste it, but not such a rotten one that seems so far removed from what an apple is supposed to be. IMO of course.

Say how about a philosophical model then? One derived from pure logic without any involvement of the empirical, or examples of it. The infinite is not as empirical, so you can’t actually use the ‘taste’ example here. I generally use it to demonstrate how a realization is absolutely personal like a taste is, which none other may actually experience, even if he has had another similar apple, because each individual apple (mind) is quite unique to begin with, and so is it’s taste; very personal indeed.

On the other hand, are you suggesting that pure logic with all its truth by definitions is not enough? That something more is needed to realize? What exactly would that be? Faith?

And why are you so stuck-up on the “mathematical”? Aren’t mathematical models simply pointers too?

brokenhead wrote:

Dianetics defines an engram as "a mental image picture which is a recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. It must by definition have impact or injury as part of its content."[2] Engrams are said to contain all of the perception and experience of any memory but are not easily available to an individual because they are overlaid with some kind of pain. A goal of Dianetics is to assist a person in confronting such memories and thus to bring the memory into full consciousness

Diametics? L. Ron Hubbard Dianetics? Please tell me you're joking.

Shush! It’s not polite to joke about a great mind like Elron.

Try focusing on truth "by definition", and "full consciousness". Have you ever heard them being strongly emphasized elsewhere?

I read Dianetics and found a lot of sound ideas in it. I was young when I read it and not overly impressed, and became even less so as I read other things, sources for his thoughts and notions, expounded on better and earlier. He was a successful snake-oil salesman. Ugh.

brokenhead wrote:Kevin Solway wrote:

If you want to know what an apple tastes like, a mathematical model is not the appropriate tool for the job. Likewise if you want to know about the infinite.

"Likewise" being purely your opinion.

The infinite is the essence of reality, of logical necessity. The reason being that all things have a cause.

If you want to discuss "infinity," mathematics is the only logical way to do so.

No, mathematics is only one particular concept of infinity, for use in very specialized areas.

You are implying you have experienced infinity by comparing it to tasting an apple.

That's right. You can experience infinity in that you can experience what is all around you.

Kevin, let me try to narrow this down so I can see if I understand your point. Are you saying infinity is simply what's out there?

It is everywhere.

That chopping it up for discussion is something we are imposing on it? And because it is infinite, there is nothing else?

Ultimately, yes.

God, the special place we give to Life and living things, all something we do, not something that actually is?

God is meant to be a name for the Infinite, but people commonly use the word for an imaginary alien creator being.

Sapius wrote:Aren’t mathematical models simply pointers too?

They're supposed to be, but many people think they are an end in themselves. They mistake the mathematics for reality.

Kevin Solway wrote:

No, mathematics is only one particular concept of infinity, for use in very specialized areas.

That is how you view Mathematics.
Mathematics is not any concept of infinity. Math is not a concept of anything. Math is a means by which logical arguments are made symbolically. It is referred to as "Mathematics" when speaking about the totality of all proven theorems, as well as theorems in the progress of being proven; that is, it is an evolving thing.
Let me ask you this: are mathematical concepts discovered or are they invented?

Believe it or not, we are still on topic.

brokenhead wrote:are mathematical concepts discovered or are they invented?

Both.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Sapius wrote:Aren’t mathematical models simply pointers too?

They're supposed to be, but many people think they are an end in themselves. They mistake the mathematics for reality.

How stupid of them. Just like those who look at “Forget about Enlightenment” as an end in its self, and argue against it from that point of view.

But one thing seems to be for sure; “pure logic” on its own cannot help prove an extraordinary claim.

Kevin Solway wrote:

brokenhead wrote:are mathematical concepts discovered or are they invented?

Both.

If both, then the times they are discovered, where have they been? Where have they lain covered?

brokenhead wrote:If both, then the times they are discovered, where have they been? Where have they lain covered?

Right where they are.

Kevin Solway wrote:

brokenhead wrote:If both, then the times they are discovered, where have they been? Where have they lain covered?

Right where they are.

I was going to say "You can do better than that!" But I'm beginning to believe that you can't. Your philosophy is starting to sound mighty autistic. Stop with the 1 = 1 nonsense, Kevin. If you want to exchange ideas, exchange them then. You had me. If your belief system is so profound, answer the question. If mathematical ideas can be "discovered," do they exist prior to the very act of discovery? If so, where do they reside?

The Internet is such a funny method people use to reach out to one another.

Someone could say, “Something has overcome me. I want to work. I want to live, but not out of fear and anxiety, but out of a general love for life. Everything that happens, every manifestation of existence is significant to me – all of life is so divine and precious, that it makes me want to drop to my knees and soil the earth with my tears of reverence.“ If you have no better way to articulate yourself, you could call this love for life – your “God”.

Someone else could say, “ Life has no meaning. No meaning. My every move is pointless. My every breath… A waste… I run the motions of day-to-day existence but it feels cold, empty, and lifeless. I go to work, I eat, I buy, buy, buy, I eat, I kiss the warm object next to me…. Then I sleep…. My life is an incessant, prolonged avoidance of the fact that my every effort is meaningless.” If we are strapped for words and have no better way to articulate ourselves, we could call this person's God “meaninglessness”.

God doesn’t need any other name or any other association. Tacking on Judaic-Christian descriptors only turns something simple into something absurd. If you are an Atheist or a rationalist, but have plenty to motivate you to live, then who needs a term like God? It then only becomes an argument of semantics and a waste of time. If you’ve reached a state of comfort and confidence, a thirst for life by providing a foundation through deep philosophical inquiry - then philosophy is your “God”. God is such a stupid term by itself. It’s utterly laughable to an intellectually honest and inquisitive mind. But if one uses the term to describe some kind of personal experience or to fill in the blanks that science and philosophy have yet to fill in, then one shouldn’t waste something so personally significant and profound on another who has either failed to understand, refuses to understand, or to one who prefers to call it by another name. Miyamoto Musashi’s “God” was death. His every encounter was an encounter with death. Therefore his every breath was a breath of life. Every second has significance when you view life through that perspective and your potential for tangible, material accomplishment is immense. We are broadly and vaguely trying to articulate about something that has no significance outside of our own selfish, isolated little perspectives. We are caged in our own little heads and using a rather pathetic set of tools to communicate or reach out to one another. There is no one single concept or model for life that will satisfy every vastly dissimilar, individualist perspective in this immensely populated planet. Therefore we will either band up together, fight against each other, or isolate ourselves from one another. Forever. It’s our nature. It’s nature itself. Sometimes competition becomes our “God”. Personally I feel surrounded by capitalist, corporate dogs fighting over scraps of meat or squabbling over chicken feed (the chicken feed being more power and more money). I humbly believe that life is more of a struggle (battle) then our apparently altruist visions of grandeur will allow us to believe. I want to love the human brethren and every man, women, and child. But then I observe the behavior of the world around me. As algae feeds on river nutrients, flies feed on algae, spiders feed on flies, frogs and fish feed on spiders, spiders feed on other spiders, Humans feed on fish, and humans feed on each other: Pakistan has nuclear arms pointed at India with tensions high and violence in their mutual history.
America made a deal to share nuclear technology with India, Pakistan is the suspected location of Osama Bin Laden. China has its nuclear weapons pointed at Taiwan with tension high and violence in their mutual history. America (under Clinton) advised the Chinese government that any military action against Taiwan would have "grave consequences" for China. China is a communist government and America has recently come out of a cold war against communist Russia. North Korea, China, and Japan all want to go to war with each other. American has sworn to protect Japan. Russia and China are important "business" partners with Iran. America very obviously wants to go to war with Iran. Everyone wants oil but there isn't enough to satisfy our needs. The Middle East is a major source of oil. America just went to war with Iraq. Iran has sworn to protect Syria. Iraq is between Iran and Syria. Israel and America are close allies. Israel has nuclear weapons pointed at Syria and Iran. War is common in history, and we are on the brink of war at this very second. To some people War is God.

I personally don’t need one God or even the term God, nor do I care to argue about the semantics of a word with such vastly dissimilar respective meanings. But that is not to say that I don’t harbor a personal philosophy that at one point served as a foundation to justify my continued existence (once existence is justified the battle for justification is won and the circular arguments of convoluted semantics seem like a waste of time and energy). That personal philosophy is ever changing and constantly renewing itself by its very simplicity. Call it Tao or call it the Absolute. But even the Tao tries to simplify the unknown in order to be done with the constant circular battles of contradiction that every intellectually honest inquiry places us in. I personally feel that the simplicity or obviousness makes it profoundly useful.

Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, God is what God is, or God will be what God will be. The Absolute sum of everything is the Absolute. A equals A. Cause and Effect.

1
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

42 (Stephan Mitchel)
The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things.

All things have their backs to the female
and stand facing the male.
When male and female combine,
all things achieve harmony.

Ordinary men hate solitude.
But the Master makes use of it,
embracing his aloneness, realizing
he is one with the whole universe.

42 (Jane English/ Gia-fu Feng)
The Tao begot one.
One begot two.
Two begot three.
And three begot the ten thousand things.
The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang.
They achieve harmony by combining these forces.

Men hate to be "orphaned," "widowed," or "worthless,"
But this is how kings and lords describe themselves.

For one gains by losing
And loses by gaining.

What others teach, I also teach; that is:
"A violent man will die a violent death!"
This will be the essence of my teaching.

“Father of night, Father of day,
Father, who taketh the darkness away,
Father, who teacheth the bird to fly,
Builder of rainbows up in the sky,
Father of loneliness and pain,
Father of love and Father of rain.

Father of day, Father of night,
Father of black, Father of white,
Father, who build the mountain so high,
Who shapeth the cloud up in the sky,
Father of time, Father of dreams,
Father, who turneth the rivers and streams.

Father of grain, Father of wheat,
Father of cold and Father of heat,
Father of air and Father of trees,
Who dwells in our hearts and our memories,
Father of minutes, Father of days,
Father of whom we most solemnly praise.”

-- Bob Dylan