Activity feed

I disagree that the universe would remain an object if we remove all objects, because an object must have properties. If we define “the universe” as the totality of all objects, then removing them leaves only a word with no metaphysical referent, and therefore can’t be thought of as “existing”. So I agree that it doesn’t work when applied to “all of existence”. This is why I think your point about the excluded middle makes nothingness impossible. But generally speaking, “nothingness” as a quantifier typically involves no logical contradictions.

I know.

I’m not quite sure, but it sounds like you are reverting your stance on having misread #696. Does that mean #1192 should be marked as a criticism after all?

But we don’t don't know if consciousness can emerge as a byproduct of computation […]

We do know that. From the laws of physics. From BoI ch. 6:

[E]xpecting a computer to be able to do whatever neurons can is not a metaphor: it is a known and proven property of the laws of physics as best we know them.

I know. But we don’t don't know if consciousness can emerge as a byproduct of computation, so I think Rands distinction is useful until proven false. Programs run according to their rules, while consciousness seems to transcend "its own rules", which is why it can be creative. To create rules with self-awareness isn’t an incremental improvement that logically follows from what we know of rules and programs today (as I can see it). I see there was another thread on this topic though, so I’ll go in and drop my comments there!

@knut-sondre-saebo, you write in the explanation for this revision:

I think the the law of excluded middle is more a property or constraint of existence, rather than a cause. Since we can treat universe as being something as a given, the reason it can't be something else is because the law of excluded middle constrains it to be what it is.

Revision explanations are meant to be short, eg ‘Fixed typo’ or ‘Clarified x’. Since the quote above contradicts #521, it might be worth submitting it as a criticism of #521, or as a separate idea. It doesn’t really work as a revision because revisions are for incremental changes, not for introducing contradictions.

💯

I do think the whole mind is a program (or programs).

When you make a revision to address a criticism, be sure to uncheck the corresponding criticism in the revision form, section “Do the comments still apply?”. That way, #1134 won’t show up anymore.

In #1189, yes, but then you reverted it in #1192.

I agree that nothingness as an object makes no sense.

Regarding nothingness as a quantifier: if you removed all objects except for the universe itself, then the universe remains as an object. So then the set of all objects wouldn’t be empty. So even as a quantifier, nothingness doesn’t seem to work.

Or am I missing something?

[…] it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist.

That isn’t a sentence.

Knut has fixed the typo. @knut-sondre-saebo, be sure to check off addressed criticisms when you revise an idea. Underneath the revision form, there’s a list of criticisms that you can check and uncheck.

The quote is now outdated.

There is a similar (identical?) theory put forward by Marc Lewis in Biology of desire. He explains addiction as the process of "reciprocal narrowing". The process of reciprocal narrowing does not remove conflicting desires, but instead reinforces a pattern of dealing with conflict through a progressively narrower, habitual response (substance, action, mental dissociation). Addiction, therefore, as you suggested, is a process of managing the "conflict between two or more preferences within the mind.

I think this explanation holds if you assume the law of the excluded middle is true. The only remaining criticism I can see, is if you throw out the law of the excluded middle (like paraconsistent- and intutionist logic.)

Logical possibilities and possible world frameworks, only works for potential states "inside" the universe right? The state of there being something or nothing in the universe doesn't have a "causal start", because the fact of something existing is an "eternal property" of the universe.