The Impossible

[Resha Caner]

How can I accept the possibility of consciousness appearing in a form that lacks a positive ontology, unless you care to provide a definition of "immaterial consciousness" that might qualify it as "another form"?

It was never a question of you accepting it. Accepting, being open to the possible, and ruling out as impossible are all different.

Were you heading toward providing a definition for the terms in question, like Durango did?

He defined consciousness, which I didn't realize was an issue. It seemed to me the only reason he defined it was to make the point that the definition does not make it contingent on the material. Did he define "immaterial"? I don't recall seeing that. All he said was that it was a concept he could fathom. I've got no quarrel with Durango, but I don't know what concept of "immaterial" he is thinking about.

 

[Davian]

Yeah. "Withing oneself" is solipsistic, as if you could not apply the term to an other. Other than that, the definition is pretty helpful, I think.

The grounds for applying the label "consciousness" to something immaterial would have to be some variety of "I know when I see it"... Well, not exactly SEE it, obviously, but experience it.

And, in some way, verify that the experience is not just a product of the imagination.

Which of course raises all the good questions skeptics raise about the "spiritual realm", especially: how could anything immaterial interact with and affect the material realm? Excellent question.

But the point is: people have been imagining this realm forever.

About two minutes ago, reading the local paper, I came across this quote:

"Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time." - Richard Dawkins

People CANNOT imagine a square-circle, etc. The spirit realm may not exist. But its not nonsense.

Well, I take an ignostic approach to it. Without a coherent definition of what you mean by "spirit" or "spiritual", those words are meaningless to me, other than how I have seen them used in works of fiction.

 

[Upisoft]

Or "process". Works for me.

That's even better. Though I would use "function" in TV example, after all we made it to do that.

 

[Upisoft]

The spirit realm may not exist. But its not nonsense.

Everything that is so vaguely defined is hard to be proven nonsense.

But I have to ask few questions. If such realm exists then why it only interacts with humans?

 

[Davian]

It was never a question of you accepting it. Accepting, being open to the possible, and ruling out as impossible are all different.

Is that is a "no" to providing a definition of "immaterial consciousness" that might qualify it as "another form"? That leaves it in the "impossible" bin for now.

He defined consciousness, which I didn't realize was an issue. It seemed to me the only reason he defined it was to make the point that the definition does not make it contingent on the material. Did he define "immaterial"? I don't recall seeing that. All he said was that it was a concept he could fathom. I've got no quarrel with Durango, but I don't know what concept of "immaterial" he is thinking about.

And I don't know what concept of "immaterial" you are thinking about. I can only ask so many times.

 

[durangodawood]

And, in some way, verify that the experience is not just a product of the imagination.

About two minutes ago, reading the local paper, I came across this quote:

"Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time." - Richard Dawkins


Well, I take an ignostic approach to it. Without a coherent definition of what you mean by "spirit" or "spiritual", those words are meaningless to me, other than how I have seen them used in works of fiction.

I dont like the ignostic approach as a must-use litmus test for everything. I am not so confident in my capacity to make every aspect of reality intelligible... such that if I cannot sort of mentally manhandle it, therefor it cannot be. I'm open to some aspects of reality being approachable only obliquely. Caution is advised, of course, lest you get attached to any goofy notion.

 

[Resha Caner]

Is that is a "no" to providing a definition of "immaterial consciousness" that might qualify it as "another form"?

No. I was simply acknowledging that you have no reason to accept something that hasn't been defined. I was further distinguishing your position (as I see it) from Durango.

It appears to me (per my example in post #132) you are rejecting it as impossible simply because it hasn't been defined. Durango, on the other hand, appears neutral. He has neither accepted nor rejected it. The latter seems more reasonable to me - even moreso because he allows for an experiential aspect which may be "approachable only obliquely".

And I don't know what concept of "immaterial" you are thinking about. I can only ask so many times.

You needed the practice.

The immaterial is irreducible, always active, and thereby exhibits at least one constant or continuous property.

That's the concise version. For those who want to understand the meaning in more depth, I'm willing to elaborate.

 

[durangodawood]

.....You needed the practice.

The immaterial is irreducible, always active, and thereby exhibits at least one constant or continuous property.

That's the concise version. For those who want to understand the meaning in more depth, I'm willing to elaborate.

That could just as well describe some fundamental material particle, or similar.

 

[contango]

What would science say is impossible?

Skiing through a revolving door?

 

[Resha Caner]

That could just as well describe some fundamental material particle, or similar.

I could give you my definition of "material" as well. As I've mentioned in other conversations about these definitions, I expected someone would have already defined "material". As it turns out, it hasn't really been done. There is a paper by Markosian I could share about that, where he reviews definitions of "material" (actually, the word he uses is "physical", which is another part of this discussion). Anyway, he shows how weak previous attempts at definition have been.

So, what would your definitions be?

 

[durangodawood]

I could give you my definition of "material" as well. As I've mentioned in other conversations about these definitions, I expected someone would have already defined "material". As it turns out, it hasn't really been done. There is a paper by Markosian I could share about that, where he reviews definitions of "material" (actually, the word he uses is "physical", which is another part of this discussion). Anyway, he shows how weak previous attempts at definition have been.

So, what would your definitions be?

Physically identifiable particles, the forces they exert, and the things built out of them.

 

[Resha Caner]

Physically identifiable particles, the forces they exert, and the things built out of them.

Hmm. So are you willing to discuss a few things about definitions?

As I mentioned, the word "physical" must be used carefully here because it has several different connotations. If you look through the online dictionaries, many of their definitions make it merely a synonym of "material". As such, that would make your definition circular.

In another connotation, physical is synonymous with "interactive", and that is how I prefer to use it. In that sense, everything we know of (including God) can be physical. So again, that would make your definition mean "the material is everything". Definitions that say something is everything end up being pretty useless. Further, it a priori excludes immaterial.

 

[Davian]

No. I was simply acknowledging that you have no reason to accept something that hasn't been defined. I was further distinguishing your position (as I see it) from Durango.

It appears to me (per my example in post #132) you are rejecting it as impossible simply because it hasn't been defined. Durango, on the other hand, appears neutral. He has neither accepted nor rejected it. The latter seems more reasonable to me - even moreso because he allows for an experiential aspect which may be "approachable only obliquely".

I defined my terms, where I pointed the problem, post #138. You never did address that point.

You needed the practice.

How rude of you.

The immaterial is irreducible, always active, and thereby exhibits at least one constant or continuous property.

And how would one test and falsify that?

That's the concise version. For those who want to understand the meaning in more depth, I'm willing to elaborate.

Don't do it for me. The time for that has come and gone.

 

[durangodawood]

Hmm. So are you willing to discuss a few things about definitions?

As I mentioned, the word "physical" must be used carefully here because it has several different connotations. If you look through the online dictionaries, many of their definitions make it merely a synonym of "material". As such, that would make your definition circular.

In another connotation, physical is synonymous with "interactive", and that is how I prefer to use it. In that sense, everything we know of (including God) can be physical. So again, that would make your definition mean "the material is everything". Definitions that say something is everything end up being pretty useless. Further, it a priori excludes immaterial.

Talking about what is "material" is like being a deep sea fish and talking with your school about what is "wet". Getting leverage on the idea is very difficult without some apparent opposite to refer to. But, here WE are, above the ocean, where of course "wet" is a reasonable concept, even if the fishes find themselves in the same pickle we're in over whats "material".

 

[durangodawood]

Talking about what is "material" is like being a deep sea fish and talking with your school about what is "wet". Getting leverage on the idea is very difficult without some apparent opposite to refer to. But, here WE are, above the ocean, where of course "wet" is a reasonable concept, even if the fishes find themselves in the same pickle we're in over whats "material".

Also, this^^^ is why I consider a positive ontology overrated as requirement for considering an idea.

 

[Resha Caner]

And how would one test and falsify that?

The same way any other physical constant is tested. For example, if someone developed an experiment to show special conditions whereby the speed of light in a (near) vacuum was 2E8 m/s rather than 3E8 m/s, then the claim that the speed of light was constant would be falsified.

Talking about what is "material" is like being a deep sea fish and talking with your school about what is "wet".

Agreed. It is an extremely difficult problem. Have you ever read Flatland? That is one of the major themes in that book. After the protagonist experiences three dimensions and then returns to Flatland, he can't convince anyone it exists. It is an issue of incommensurability.

I have long said that for those who have not recognized an encounter with God, this conversation is (dare I say it) impossible. But, at the same time, I think it is legitimate for someone to challenge the use of a word like "immaterial" and ask for a definition. I took on that challenge, and learned just how difficult the definition is. As I mentioned, it led me to wonder: can a physicalist define "material"? As it turns out, that is an equally difficult job. I think acknowledging that helps get past the sticking point and allows the conversation to continue.

The typical challenges I get are either that my definition is arbitrary or it was reverse engineered to suit my purposes. If someone had the grit to sit through a story of how I came to that definition, I think they would see that was not what I was doing. But I do understand, because of what you said about a fish's perception of wet, why it might seem that way.

 

[Davian]

Also, this^^^ is why I consider a positive ontology overrated as requirement for considering an idea.

I realize I have not set the bar very high, but I can see that it is too high for Resha. He just keeps coming back with more obfuscation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, it seems you miss my point ... as do your examples.

Then clarify your point.

Yes, why is it?

Why act so childishly? Just give us some specific examples.

I'll start with an analogy from algebra. If I give you the equation x + y = 5 and ask you to solve it, can you? No, because you have 1 equation with 2 unknowns. However, if an assumption is made, the equation can be solved.

If the assumption is y = 2, the equation becomes x + 2 = 5.

When you are ready to talk about MEASUREMENTS, let me know.

One result was Riemannian geometry, which was critical to Einstein. Einstein used Riemannian geometry as the basis for his physics rather than the Euclidean geometry used by Newton. Still, it remains an assumption. No one has proven any one of the three has a binding reason.

What we can show is that Riemannian geometry accurately predicts the precession in planetary orbits while Newton's model using Euclidean geometry did not. Therefore, we don't need to assume. We have the test showing that one is better than the other.

Now, we were specifically talking about the assumptions of measuring, and my example was trying to determine if noise is Gaussian.

That is not a measurement. The measurements are the data points. Whether those data points fall into a Guassian curve or not has nothing to do with the ability to measure those data points.

The assumption, as I said, is the confidence level of the fit of the noise to a Gaussian distribution.

That is not an assumption, nor is it a measurement. That is the output of an equation that is not assumed to be a perfect model of nature, nor is it a measurement.

"Consequently, if the measurements follow a normal distribution, we can say a great deal about the measurement process. The question remains: How do we know that this is so from the limited number of measurements on hand? The answer is that we don't. However, in most instances the metrologist may be willing to assume that the measurement process generates numbers that follow a normal distribution approximately, and act as if this were so."

But there is no need to make these assumptions, it is just a convenience factor many times. In fact, I have already cited numerous papers that test the very things you claim are assumptions. I see that you chose to ignore them. Why is that?

 

[Resha Caner]

Why act so childishly? Just give us some specific examples.

Interesting.

What we can show is that Riemannian geometry accurately predicts the precession in planetary orbits while Newton's model using Euclidean geometry did not. Therefore, we don't need to assume. We have the test showing that one is better than the other.

Yes, Riemannian geometry better predicts precession. But what happens when the model that best predicts case A is not the one that best predicts case B? That is the reason I included the GR/QM example.

That is not a measurement. The measurements are the data points. Whether those data points fall into a Guassian curve or not has nothing to do with the ability to measure those data points.

Is that a concession of the point (even though you think it an irrelevant point)? I don't think it's irrelevant, and I explained why. Suppose I measure a parameter and obtain a value of 3.2. My assumed Gaussian model tells me the noise is 0.2. So, I conclude the "actual" value of the parameter is 3.0. That's an oversimplification of the math, but I did it for the sake of the example.

So, what is the "measurement"? IMO it's 3.2. But do I use that number? No. The number I use (3.0) is based on the Gaussian assumption.

But you don't like that example.

In fact, I have already cited numerous papers that test the very things you claim are assumptions. I see that you chose to ignore them. Why is that?

Did you read the full text of the sources I cited? If so, then I'll admit you're one up on me. I skimmed(*). If you didn't read them, I don't understand why you're expecting me to do that. My experience in the past has been that people refuse to read an entire text that I cite. The pace of the conversation makes that unrealistic, it's too difficult to read 10s or 100s of pages and know what message one is supposed to extract from the source, etc.

I can understand that. Do you? It's the reason I quoted the specific passage that made my point. So, if you would do the same, it would help the conversation along.

Or, if you want me to try offering another example - one that you might think is closer to a discussion of "actual measurement" - I'll suggest acceleration. Are you familiar with accelerometers?

[edit] (*) And after skimming (not ignoring) I replied that they didn't seem to address my point.

 

[Loudmouth]

Interesting.

And another refusal to supply specifics. Go figure.

Yes, Riemannian geometry better predicts precession. But what happens when the model that best predicts case A is not the one that best predicts case B?

Then the model fails the test and is thrown out. No need for assumptions.

Is that a concession of the point (even though you think it an irrelevant point)? I don't think it's irrelevant, and I explained why. Suppose I measure a parameter and obtain a value of 3.2. My assumed Gaussian model tells me the noise is 0.2. So, I conclude the "actual" value of the parameter is 3.0. That's an oversimplification of the math, but I did it for the sake of the example.

Your measurement is still 3.2. The adjustment for noise is also not assumed, and is part of a model that is not assumed to be absolutely true.

So, what is the "measurement"? IMO it's 3.2. But do I use that number? No. The number I use (3.0) is based on the Gaussian assumption.

It is not an assumption. It is a model. The two are very different.

Did you read the full text of the sources I cited?

Did you read any of the sources I referenced?

I have commented on your references. So where are the comments on mine? You just completely skipped over the very references that blow your argument out of the water.

Overall, you still don't understand how statistics are applied to measurements, nor how they are considered by actual scientists. No guassian distribution model is assumed to be absolutely true. They are only models. Period. Not assumptions. Until you understand this point you have to business lecturing me on anything.