Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:

jamest wrote:

BWE wrote:How do you as an idealist understand map-territory errors? How would you explain the issue to someone? Assuming there was no pressure to defend your explanation, just to state it.

I ask because I don't consider myself a physicalist or an idealist because I don't think we can really escape the issue well enough to make any sort of conclusions about reality at some ultimate level. I just figure engineering seems to produce predictable results and for some aspects of life, that seems to matter so it's a decent pragmatic assumption. But when I describe map-territory errors, I tend to slant them in such a way as to make the territory into sensory perception and the map into expectations of those perceptions which many people then make the leap to assume is a physical grounding even though that's not really how I see it.

Why the fuck do you think that this question is significant? For me, it's on a par with asking me about our weather predictions.

I cannot be arsed with this shit unless you make it worth my while.

I see. Well. Toss back another gin I guess.

He's right, this time 'round. How do you impart the concept of a map to an idealist?

Well, that is exactly why I asked the question. I don't know.

To jamest, maps are just pretenses of physicalists. You, BWE, can have interesting quarrels only with physicalists, and what folks like you call their 'map-territory errors'. You've got the same pretense jamest does: That your shit is cloaked in some sort of mystery.

My shit is cloaked in mystery? Hmm. I think there is a difference between acknowledging the problem that ontologies cannot be proven because they rely on their own definitions and pretending that those definitions provide access to the mystery beyond.

Toss back another gin, indeed. Fuck mystery unless you've got your own storefront with robes and sandals and come ready to sing some poetry.

Map-territory error? What's a metaphor, BWE? Is it a map? If so, does it describe a territory? No, it fucking does not. In the worst-case scenario, what does brain damage really threaten? When we die, what is it with which we lose touch? Is the map or is it the territory? Guess which one you can give up voluntarily.

Recursion in language models is a bitch.

BWE wrote:I think there is a difference between acknowledging the problem that ontologies cannot be proven because they rely on their own definitions and pretending that those definitions provide access to the mystery beyond.

Well, keep on hinting at that mystery, and let that be your mystery-cloak. Nobody's getting the idea you have access to anything. What if there isn't a mystery? You know, like, the emperor isn't wearing anything? What then?

BWE wrote:Recursion in language models is a bitch.

I'll tell you what's a bitch, BWE, and that's the proliferation of clever buzz-phrases in blatherist post-structuralism. Buzz-phrases don't give you access to anything, either. Stick with engineering.

Just as an aside, I'd love to see you and jamest duke it out with buzz phrases. Truth-mills and recursion in language models. Battle of the giants, it were.

I am not sure how you got that from what I wrote.

The recursion comment was just noting that your statement about dying and losing the map or the territory is only meaningful if there were no self-reference. I was being nice about you being dumb. Maybe I'll try to be more obvious next time.

BWE wrote:I am not sure how you got that from what I wrote.

Much of the time, I'm not trying to get anything from what you write, because I don't rate you as any kind of educator. If you want to contribute, do better than telling us that ontologies can't be proven. We're not doing mathematics, and that ontologies can't be proven is one of those staples of amateurish discussions like this that get repeated ad nauseam. So shut the fuck up about other people's dumb.

Seriously, BWE: What if there isn't a mystery?

BWE wrote:The recursion comment was just noting that your statement about dying and losing the map or the territory is only meaningful if there were no self-reference. I was being nice about you being dumb. Maybe I'll try to be more obvious next time.

Yes, BWE. Let's get back to the serious navel-gazing.

Cito, when you say, "what if there isn't a mystery?" What do you mean? You are using the word "mystery" in a way that suggest you mean something slightly mooted specific than the normal definition which is quite broad.

BWE wrote:Cito, when you say, "what if there isn't a mystery?" What do you mean? You are using the word "mystery" in a way that suggest you mean something slightly mooted specific than the normal definition which is quite broad.

Since it doesn't appear as though Cito has any interest to pursue the debate with you, BWE, I would like to run with it: what if there isn't any mystery? What if all that we are observing with our senses is all that there is to existence? This would mean that Physicalism, as an ontology, would be correct, despite having no way to ultimately prove it; as you said. This is the reason why Physicalism is the only ontology with evidential support. The physical universe can quite clearly be independently verified by all observers. It clearly has universal solidity. No other ontology has this universal substantial evidential support ... Therefore, if there is no mystery then the testimony of uniform physical substance is justified, despite the inability of humans to prove this to be the case.

OK, there does seem to be a mystery: scientists are currently unable to reduce conscious/personal conduct to electrical signals/impulses. There is also this strange incompatibility between gravity and quantic particles. However, if there were no mystery, as Cito asked, then this would simply mean that we are not being deceived by what we are observing with our senses; and Physicalism would therefore be a reliable testament to the Truth.

OK, there does seem to be a mystery: scientists are currently unable to reduce conscious/personal conduct to electrical signals/impulses

Nonsense ...just emergent behaviour from complex systems....yes there are artificial neurons.

reliable testament to the Truth.

geez you were doing okay until that little bit of biblical crap.

There is reproducible evidence.....the rest is garbage.

Macdoc wrote:

OK, there does seem to be a mystery: scientists are currently unable to reduce conscious/personal conduct to electrical signals/impulses

Nonsense ...just emergent behaviour from complex systems....yes there are artificial neurons.

reliable testament to the Truth.

geez you were doing okay until that little bit of biblical crap.

There is reproducible evidence.....the rest is garbage.

You have said nothing that disagrees with anything that I have written. I am happy to leave you with your faith in emergent complex systems.

ETA: BWE has specifically spoken about a lack to prove ontology. If you were paying attention then you would understand the need for "Truth".

Destroyer wrote:
OK, there does seem to be a mystery: scientists are currently unable to reduce conscious/personal conduct to electrical signals/impulses.

The potential mystery is not "personal conduct". That's Chalmers' "Easy problem", which is tricky but not ineffable mystery.

Destroyer wrote:... If you were paying attention then you would understand the need for "Truth".

Let's pretend for a moment that I haven't paid enough attention. What is "Truth"? Could you also give an example of "Truth" that an ageing ground ape can observe and test for "Truthiness"?

I am happy to leave you with your faith in emergent complex systems.

FFS go back to your fucking tablets. You know nothing of emergent behaviour .....even in simple systems.

“Smarticle” Robot Swarms Turn Random Behavior into Collective Intelligence
New algorithms show how very simple robots can be made to work together as a group
By Ben Rollins, Quanta Magazine on February 18, 2018

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... tories.org

Altmetric: 58More detail
Article | OPEN

DNA-assisted swarm control in a biomolecular motor system
Jakia Jannat Keya, Ryuhei Suzuki, Arif Md. Rashedul Kabir, Daisuke Inoue, Hiroyuki Asanuma, Kazuki Sada, Henry Hess, Akinori Kuzuya & Akira Kakugo

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02778-5

Just because a something is complex does not mean it's mysterious....extra physical or any of the other woo that floats around here in the philobabble sector.

You've written yourself out of rational conversation with your Truth .....how fucking Victorian.

Destroyer wrote:
BWE has specifically spoken about a lack to prove ontology
If you were paying attention then you would understand the need for Truth

You cannot prove an ontology not even if what is observed is compatible with a particular one such as
physicalism for example because that question is entirely academic as it is philosophical not scientific

Why is there a need for Truth? Why cannot there simply be observation of physical reality without the need to formulate it in
such absolute terms? Given that science is inductive not deductive then any notion of absolute Truth is actually unobtainable

exactly.

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
OK, there does seem to be a mystery: scientists are currently unable to reduce conscious/personal conduct to electrical signals/impulses.

The potential mystery is not "personal conduct". That's Chalmers' "Easy problem", which is tricky but not ineffable mystery.

The mystery, is that what seems to be emergent cannot be demonstrated as being identical to its supposed source. This is also the same mystery that cannot reconcile energy in the form of mass with Energy in its original and fundamental form (GR and QM). When unity can be demonstrated then mystery solved.

newolder wrote:

Destroyer wrote:... If you were paying attention then you would understand the need for "Truth".

Let's pretend for a moment that I haven't paid enough attention. What is "Truth"? Could you also give an example of "Truth" that an ageing ground ape can observe and test for "Truthiness"?

Truth is whichever Nature happens to be fundamental.

Macdoc wrote:

I am happy to leave you with your faith in emergent complex systems.

FFS go back to your fucking tablets. You know nothing of emergent behaviour .....even in simple systems.

“Smarticle” Robot Swarms Turn Random Behavior into Collective Intelligence
New algorithms show how very simple robots can be made to work together as a group
By Ben Rollins, Quanta Magazine on February 18, 2018

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... tories.org

Altmetric: 58More detail
Article | OPEN

DNA-assisted swarm control in a biomolecular motor system
Jakia Jannat Keya, Ryuhei Suzuki, Arif Md. Rashedul Kabir, Daisuke Inoue, Hiroyuki Asanuma, Kazuki Sada, Henry Hess, Akinori Kuzuya & Akira Kakugo

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02778-5

Just because a something is complex does not mean it's mysterious....extra physical or any of the other woo that floats around here in the philobabble sector.

You've written yourself out of rational conversation with your Truth .....how fucking Victorian.

If something has actually emerged from something that is more fundamental then it must be demonstrably the same in nature as its source. When scientists can demonstrate that consciousness is of the same substance as the physical then, and only then, will the emergence of consciousness not be a faith.

surreptitious57 wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
BWE has specifically spoken about a lack to prove ontology
If you were paying attention then you would understand the need for Truth

You cannot prove an ontology not even if what is observed is compatible with a particular one such as
physicalism for example because that question is entirely academic as it is philosophical not scientific

Why is there a need for Truth? Why cannot there simply be observation of physical reality without the need to formulate it in
such absolute terms? Given that science is inductive not deductive then any notion of absolute Truth is actually unobtainable

You also do not seem to have been paying attention. Everyone here is in agreement that no ontology can be proven. What I have argued with BWE, in reference to the question from Cito, is what if there is no mystery in Nature. Without mystery fundamental Physical universal substance is a given.

Destroyer wrote:When scientists can demonstrate that consciousness is of the same substance as the physical then, and only then, will the emergence of consciousness not be a faith.

What do you mean by the phrase "of the same substance" ?

Sendraks wrote:

Destroyer wrote:When scientists can demonstrate that consciousness is of the same substance as the physical then, and only then, will the emergence of consciousness not be a faith.

What do you mean by the phrase "of the same substance" ?

Of the same Nature.