Activity feed

  Knut Sondre Sæbø addressed criticism #1204.

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. At least when it refers to all of existence.

Or am I missing something?

#1204·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months ago

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.

  Knut Sondre Sæbø revised criticism #1189 and unmarked it as a criticism. The revision addresses ideas #1133, #1134.
  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #1222.

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!

#1222·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 8 months ago

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?

  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #1222.

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!

#1222·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 8 months ago

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.

  Knut Sondre Sæbø commented on criticism #1208.

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

#1208·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months ago

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!

  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #1194.

What do you think of: it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.

#1194·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 8 months ago

@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.

  Dennis Hackethal revised idea #1197.
There is a similar (identical?) theory put forward by Marc Lewis in *The Biology of desire.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.mind."
  Dennis Hackethal commented on criticism #1195.

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.

#1195·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 8 months ago

💯

  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #1191.

I misread your text. I originally read it as the whole mind is a program (or programs).

#1191·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 8 months ago

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

  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #1190.

Fixed

#1190·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 8 months ago

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.

  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #1190.

Fixed

#1190·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 8 months ago

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

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #1203.
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.↵
↵
Orwork. At least when it refers to all of existence.↵
↵
Or am I missing something?
  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1156.

If we talk about the quantifier nothing, you would look at the universe = all objects. So if you remove all objects the universe wouldn’t really «refer» to anything. But if you believe there exist such a thing as the object Nothingness, there could possibly exist a universe = Nothingness (as the object), which has some defined properties.

#1156·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 8 months ago

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?

  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #1194.

What do you think of: it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.

#1194·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 8 months ago

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

That isn’t a sentence.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1132.

Nothingness as a qunatifier

Typo. Consider revising your idea to resolve this criticism.

#1132·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months ago

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.

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #1131. The revision addresses idea #1198.
> Nothingness as a qunatifier [sic],quantifier, is the concept of a universe with no objects. This doesn't have any inherent contradictions in classical logic. It would simply be a world where all objects are subtracted, as in an empty set.

Wouldn’t the universe itself be an object, as would the set itself, so you’d never have an empty set anyway?
  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1131.

Nothingness as a qunatifier [sic], is the concept of a universe with no objects. This doesn't have any inherent contradictions in classical logic. It would simply be a world where all objects are subtracted, as in an empty set.

Wouldn’t the universe itself be an object, as would the set itself, so you’d never have an empty set anyway?

#1131·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months ago

The quote is now outdated.

  Knut Sondre Sæbø commented on idea #744.

My conjecture

Conjecture: addiction is the result of the entrenchment of a conflict between two or more preferences in a mind.

Picture a smoker who wants to give up smoking but also really enjoys smoking. Those preferences conflict.

If the conflict is entrenched, then both preferences get to live on indefinitely. The entrenchment will not let the smoker give up smoking. He will become a chain smoker.

#744·Dennis HackethalOP, 12 months ago

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.

  Knut Sondre Sæbø commented on idea #1194.

What do you think of: it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.

#1194·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 8 months ago

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.)

  Knut Sondre Sæbø addressed criticism #525.

I don’t see why nonexistence cannot also be a logical possibility.

If nonexistence is logically possible, and existence is logically possible, we need to explain why the latter has been physicalized in the first place.

(Logan Chipkin)

#525·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year ago

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.

  Knut Sondre Sæbø revised idea #521.

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.

What do you think of: it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that causesconstrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.