God and Mathematics

[Resha Caner]

There's no reason to worry about an absolute boundary, photons can be a real phenomena described by an abstraction.

Maybe so. You're more flexible on that point than I expected you to be.

But how do we know a phenomena is real? Are you simply equating real with something that can be sensed? IOW, how do we know there is anything real behind the description of the idea "photon"?

 

[variant]

Maybe so. You're more flexible on that point than I expected you to be.

But how do we know a phenomena is real? Are you simply equating real with something that can be sensed? IOW, how do we know there is anything real behind the description of the idea "photon"?

Yes I'm a blatant empiricist.

It's real because it's detectable (directly or indirectly sensible), the idea (abstraction) "photon" is appropriate or true in the sense that it helps us make consistent predictions of what we would expect to detect.

 

[Resha Caner]

It's real because it's detectable (directly or indirectly sensible), the idea (abstraction) "photon" is appropriate or true in the sense that it helps us make consistent predictions of what we would expect to detect.

Mmm. It's the indirectly sensible part that intrigues me. What about a photon do you indirectly sense?

 

[variant]

Mmm. It's the indirectly sensible part that intrigues me. What about a photon do you indirectly sense?

It's measurable effects upon other things.

I think I may be overstating (or misstating) the distinction 'real' vs 'unreal' here though, as I do think abstractions have the ability to have an effect on the system, they just do so in a manner not as objects independent of minds as the mathematical Platonist would argue.

So the statement "photons can be a real phenomena described by an abstraction."

Should probably read:

"Photons can be an independent objective reality described by an abstraction."

 

[Resha Caner]

I think I may be overstating (or misstating) the distinction 'real' vs 'unreal' here though, as I do think abstractions have the ability to have an effect on the system, they just do so in a manner not as objects independent of minds as the mathematical Platonist would argue.

That seems a reasonable way to phrase it.

So, abstractions are a construct the mind can use to interact with the outside world. Would it be fair to say abstractions are an essential part of mind? That brains which don't create abstractions are not minds?

 

[WordsOfRepentance]

The difference between gnostic theists and agnostic atheists is that one believes in the unseen world while the other doesn't. It takes faith to believe in the spiritual realm - while the physical realm is undeniable.

If the physical world of the universe can accommodate so much of laws and properties so much so that mathematics is just a kind of observation - then obviously there should be laws governing the spiritual world.

I firmly believe in the universe possessing a spiritual realm with firm God-made laws. Evil is temporary injustice while permanent injustice is never gonna occur while the laws of God function.

 

[variant]

That seems a reasonable way to phrase it.

So, abstractions are a construct the mind can use to interact with the outside world. Would it be fair to say abstractions are an essential part of mind? That brains which don't create abstractions are not minds?

The action of creating abstractions and maintaining abstract systems to describe the world would be essential parts of what the mind does yes.

All living brains (brains attached to and devoted to the maintenance of a living system) will be dealing in abstractions (or something similar)(if working) though IMO.

So, I wouldn't draw that as a proper distinction between brains and minds. The mind I think the distinction may require the ability to build new imaginary abstract systems. Minds may require consciously directed imagination.

 

[Tenuisvir]

Thank you for all the great conversations here, I really appreciate it. I think Variant is closer to what it is I'm looking for, and could have probably worded my question better.

I think the answer to my question relies heavily on whether you consider numbers an abstract construct or a part of nature, as with a God being abstract or a part of nature.

Maybe I am reaching for some correlation between God is intangible but relied upon by Faiths, as numbers are intangible but relied upon by Scientists.

Any thoughts would be great. Thank you again.

 

[Resha Caner]

The action of creating abstractions and maintaining abstract systems to describe the world would be essential parts of what the mind does yes.

All living brains (brains attached to and devoted to the maintenance of a living system) will be dealing in abstractions (or something similar)(if working) though IMO.

So, I wouldn't draw that as a proper distinction between brains and minds. The mind I think the distinction may require the ability to build new imaginary abstract systems. Minds may require consciously directed imagination.

I didn't mean to imply that abstraction was a sufficient description, but only a necessary part of it. Maybe I should back off from "brain" to "nervous system". Further, I'm not asking for commentary on which nervous systems are capable of abstraction and which are not (e.g. humans can abstract and jellyfish cannot). I just meant that if a living system lacks the ability to be abstract, it seems it would follow that it lacks a mind.

I'm not sure you agree, but if you do some interesting questions follow. For example:
1) Can the physical interactions with the outside world initiated by an abstraction of a mind be accomplished any other way? i.e. can they be done without a mind?
2) Our material brains are one way to create these abstractions, but is that the only way? If abstractions can exist as something immaterial, would that mean a mind could exist as something immaterial?

 

[Resha Caner]

Maybe I am reaching for some correlation between God is intangible but relied upon by Faiths, as numbers are intangible but relied upon by Scientists.

The conversation is sort of headed that direction, but it is not my intent to draw exactly that parallel. First of all, I wouldn't call God intangible. Second, as crucial as mathematics is to science, as crippled as it would be without it, mathematics is not necessary for all science.

 

[variant]

Maybe I am reaching for some correlation between God is intangible but relied upon by Faiths, as numbers are intangible but relied upon by Scientists.

Any thoughts would be great. Thank you again.

It is an idea that does crop up in theological contexts where the theist will say that God can be an abstract thing and exists like numbers are abstract and exist.

 

[variant]

I didn't mean to imply that abstraction was a sufficient description, but only a necessary part of it. Maybe I should back off from "brain" to "nervous system". Further, I'm not asking for commentary on which nervous systems are capable of abstraction and which are not (e.g. humans can abstract and jellyfish cannot). I just meant that if a living system lacks the ability to be abstract, it seems it would follow that it lacks a mind.

Yes, but where I'm having trouble with that is I think the root/basis of abstraction is probably fundamental to all living systems. It might be proper to call it something else in systems that are rudimentary.

I understand this to be a radical view but it is the reason I would quibble with you over abstraction being the distinction of brains an minds.

As I said, I mean that the ability to imagine an abstract system is where my preference for the distinction would lie. Although, I am not entirely sure if the distinction is particularly important.

I'm not sure you agree, but if you do some interesting questions follow. For example:
1) Can the physical interactions with the outside world initiated by an abstraction of a mind be accomplished any other way? i.e. can they be done without a mind?

2) Our material brains are one way to create these abstractions, but is that the only way? If abstractions can exist as something immaterial, would that mean a mind could exist as something immaterial?

I would say that minds (as we experience them) are emergent features of specialized systems of physical phenomena. I don't know how else you could construct them.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes, but where I'm having trouble with that is I think the root/basis of abstraction is probably fundamental to all living systems.

All living systems? Hmm. Maybe our definitions of "abstraction" differ. What abstraction does grass make? In order for us to know, a key is being able to communicate those abstractions, and as I use the word, I don't see how we could ever know if the abstractions made by grass aren't just our own anthropomorphic projections.

In that sense, I don't know why the adjective "living" would be necessary. It seems it would just be that all systems make abstractions.

I would say that minds (as we experience them) are emergent features of specialized systems of physical phenomena. I don't know how else you could construct them.

All you need is some medium to convey the functions, right?

 

[variant]

All living systems? Hmm. Maybe our definitions of "abstraction" differ. What abstraction does grass make? In order for us to know, a key is being able to communicate those abstractions, and as I use the word, I don't see how we could ever know if the abstractions made by grass aren't just our own anthropomorphic projections.

1. consider (something) theoretically or separately from something else.
"to abstract science and religion from their historical context can lead to anachronism"

2. extract or remove (something).
"applications to abstract more water from streams"synonyms: extract, isolate, separate, detach "he abstracted the art of tragedy from its context"


used euphemistically to say that someone has stolen something.
"his pockets contained all he had been able to abstract from the apartment"

withdraw.
"as our relationship deepened you

3. make a written summary of (an article or book).
"staff who index and abstract material for an online database"synonyms: summarize, précis, abridge, condense, compress, shorten, cut down, abbreviate, synopsize; rareepitomize

It's a very abstract concept of mine of what abstractions are at their base and why they are possible.

We are used to abstracting at will, re-representing the universe, defining things with respect to our identity or our purpose. It is natural to you, so you don't think about the basis of what you are doing. But at the core you need to have an identity and you start to simplify the universe, to describe it, and to re-examine it from your perspective.

So, for grass, It's more about what grass is, than something it does consciously. What it DOES is live, and the process of being a living system requires something similar. Grass is a system that reproduces itself, and reacts to it's environment. Even if this reaction is intergenerational. It must react to stimuli in a "grass like" manner, or from the perspective of "system grass".

This means that grass doesn't just react (like a rock) it reacts with respect to a specific identity, it must maintain it's physical boundaries, it must re-make (reproduce) itself. It has a rudimentary sense of a definition for itself, and this self vs not self interaction, doesn't exist in the rest of the physical universe. It is a life specific quality.

We too have this basic systematic living function upon which there has been added layer upon layer of complexity until an abstract concept building engine capable of control over the organism and a global sense of self emerges. This I think is a massive simplification, but again, it's what we do.

The ability to create language, a higher order abstraction meant for communication of abstract ideas between minds, doesn't, in my opinion, define the basic system, we just see it that way because we are used to dealing with language.

In that sense, I don't know why the adjective "living" would be necessary. It seems it would just be that all systems make abstractions.

As I said, the other systems of matter just move with respect to their fundamental properties, they don't have any set boundaries that must be maintained and no way to react in the way the living thing would.

All you need is some medium to convey the functions, right?

Divorcing it from the physical is my issue. If I knew the proper structure of consciousness I could easily recreate it via a computer program (an abstract processing consciousness or mind made of abstract programming language) but, the medium holding these abstractions are going to still ultimately be the physical hardware needed to accomplish this, all I have done removed the process one step.

I don't know of any other "mediums" capable of this basic existential support other than physical ones so I can't comment on if they are possible.

If a medium were capable of being as consistent and sensible as physical mediums are, to the point where minds could either be created or emerge from them, I am also not sure how I would differentiate them from physical mediums...

 

[Resha Caner]

The ability to create language, a higher order abstraction meant for communication of abstract ideas between minds, doesn't, in my opinion, define the basic system, we just see it that way because we are used to dealing with language.

I didn't mean it as a definition, but as a means of discernment. Without language I can't think of any way to discern that grass is doing what you're saying - that you aren't just projecting your ideas onto grass.

As I said, the other systems of matter just move with respect to their fundamental properties, they don't have any set boundaries that must be maintained and no way to react in the way the living thing would.

I think one could say the same of grass - that it's just a system reacting to physical laws. Yes, grass takes in energy to sustain itself and reproduces more grass, but why isn't that just a reaction to a physical law? To make the leap from a passive reaction to actively pursuing sustenance/replication requires some meta-thing, and I don't know how we would discern that. To me, metaphysics can't be investigated but must be revealed.

So, in the end, your version of abstraction seems to me just an idea of sustaining and replicating. For it to become the idea of separation that you're claiming requires more justification.

I don't know of any other "mediums" capable of this basic existential support other than physical ones so I can't comment on if they are possible.

If a medium were capable of being as consistent and sensible as physical mediums are, to the point where minds could either be created or emerge from them, I am also not sure how I would differentiate them from physical mediums...

One way of approaching it is to define what you know. I prefer the word "material" to "physical". So, what is "material"? Once you define that, you indicate what you would be willing to accept as immaterial.

 

[variant]

I didn't mean it as a definition, but as a means of discernment. Without language I can't think of any way to discern that grass is doing what you're saying - that you aren't just projecting your ideas onto grass.

Well I am, that's the basis of the argument (I am abstracting grass). I can't get around this point true. The question is whether my description of grass ultimately comes into line with what grass is actually doing, and whether this can help us understand why I can abstract in the first place.

I think one could say the same of grass - that it's just a system reacting to physical laws. Yes, grass takes in energy to sustain itself and reproduces more grass, but why isn't that just a reaction to a physical law? To make the leap from a passive reaction to actively pursuing sustenance/replication requires some meta-thing, and I don't know how we would discern that. To me, metaphysics can't be investigated but must be revealed.

Because the system grass isn't 'just' reacting to a physical law it is reacting to a systematic representation of it centered on replicating "the grass".

The grass has a specialized system of matter bent on reproducing itself with respect to the environment (and changes with respect to that environment) so I think it necessarily is reacting to the environment with respect to an identity.

This becomes more apparent when these systems begin to develop systems specifically for interacting and sensing the environment.

Back to your "photon" abstraction, we don't just have one we have many. We have eyes that are developed specifically for interacting with a simplified version of the sensory data provided by interacting with photons.

This means that the sensation of light is already an abstract representation of it before you think about it consciously. You don't need language for this as I know fish have eyes and see photons abstractly, without an idea of "blue". What I am saying here is that they see a representation of photons just like you do. The idea, or the word light is not necessary here just the abstract simplification of the phenomena.

The "photon" is a further abstract representation of this physical phenomena to try to understand the source of these sorts of sensory experiences, with mechanical detectors and precise measurements, and the full mathematical theoretical experience..

So, in the end, your version of abstraction seems to me just an idea of sustaining and replicating. For it to become the idea of separation that you're claiming requires more justification.

I am saying that the basis for abstraction comes from the process of living, and sure it would take quite a bit more justification.

One way of approaching it is to define what you know. I prefer the word "material" to "physical". So, what is "material"? Once you define that, you indicate what you would be willing to accept as immaterial.

Objective, consistent, and sensible is all I think is required for matter.

 

[Resha Caner]

Objective, consistent, and sensible is all I think is required for matter.

Hmm. Maybe some examples would help. I could take this to mean "matter = everything", which isn't too helpful.

So, what is something that is objective, consistent, and sensible? And what is something that is not objective, not consistent, or not sensible?

 

[variant]

Hmm. Maybe some examples would help. I could take this to mean "matter = everything", which isn't too helpful.

As a materialist I don't have a problem with this. I think the notion of an immaterial medium is nonsense.

If you think you could come up with a good definition of such a phenomena feel free to present it.

My line of thinking would be opposed to say, Platonism, or substance dualism, or any set of ideas that thinks ideas and abstractions have their own basic substance.

 

[Resha Caner]

My line of thinking would be opposed to say, Platonism, or substance dualism, or any set of ideas that thinks ideas and abstractions have their own basic substance.

I am not attempting to promote Platonism or mind-body dualism.

If you think you could come up with a good definition of such a phenomena feel free to present it.

I have in the past, though you may not have seen it. I think that would only cause a digression. I know what I think and feel no need to trumpet it. I'm more interested in how you rationalize your view.

As a materialist I don't have a problem with this.

So are you familiar with the discourse on physicalism then? Physicalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

That the topic is called "physicalism" is an unfortunate misnomer. As I said, I prefer the word "material", but materialism means something else yet again. Philosophy has too many -isms.

 

[variant]

I am not attempting to promote Platonism or mind-body dualism.

OK.

I have in the past, though you may not have seen it. I think that would only cause a digression. I know what I think and feel no need to trumpet it. I'm more interested in how you rationalize your view.

I don't remember every conversation I've had in the past, feel free to digress.

So are you familiar with the discourse on physicalism then? Physicalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

That the topic is called "physicalism" is an unfortunate misnomer. As I said, I prefer the word "material", but materialism means something else yet again. Philosophy has too many -isms.

I was introduced to the idea as materialism, I am not sure there is much enough difference there to make much of a distinction.

I'm not sure that I would be purely devoted to either position though, as I am not saying that mental or abstract systems aren't real, just that they are based upon, and inseparable from their physical constructions.

I don't think there is a hard problem of consciousness as I just argued, I don't think physical systems giving rise to consciousness is any problem at all.