Dennis Hackethal
Member since June 2024
Badges
Activity
#1222 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, about 2 months agoI 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, about 2 months agoI 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!
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.
#1194 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, about 2 months agoWhat 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.
@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.
There is a similar (identical?) theory put forward by Marc Lewis in *The Biology ofdesire.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 themind.mind."
#1195 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, about 2 months agoLogical 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.
💯
#1191 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, about 2 months agoI misread your text. I originally read it as the whole mind is a program (or programs).
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.
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 towork.↵ ↵ Orwork. At least when it refers to all of existence.↵ ↵ Or am I missing something?
#1156 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, about 2 months agoIf 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.
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?
#1194 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, about 2 months agoWhat 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.
[…] it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist.
That isn’t a sentence.
#1132 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoNothingness as a qunatifier
Typo. Consider revising your idea to resolve this criticism.
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.
> Nothingness as aqunatifier [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?
#1131 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoNothingness 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?
The quote is now outdated.
Workaround: have users email me for password reset for now. Re-evaluate when I have enough users to merit additional infrastructure for sending emails.
#1130 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, 2 months agoWouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.
on the other
This part should be preceded by ‘on the one hand’. As in: ‘In other words, the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection on the one hand, and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.’
#1130 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, 2 months agoWouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.
You marked your idea as a criticism but I don’t see where it conflicts with its parent. Explain?
#1127 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, 2 months agoA useful distinction in talking of non-existence and nothingness is nothingness as a quantifier and nothingness as an object. Nothingness as a qunatifier, 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.
Nothing as an object is inherently paradoxical. Nothingness as an object is something without properties, but paradoxically therefore has the properties of at least:
1. Immutability: it can't change, because change requires something
2. Boundarylessness
3. Indeterminacy: undefined, without qualitiesI kind of relate to Graham Priest in that existence and non-existence is dependent on each other - kind of like the ying-yang symbol. For something to "be", it must be distinguished from "not-being". It might therefore not really be a resolution to the problem. Just like the rabbit in the rabbit-duck illusion is dependent on the shape of the duck, non-existence is dependent on existence.
Nothingness as a qunatifier
Typo. Consider revising your idea to resolve this criticism.
#1127 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, 2 months agoA useful distinction in talking of non-existence and nothingness is nothingness as a quantifier and nothingness as an object. Nothingness as a qunatifier, 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.
Nothing as an object is inherently paradoxical. Nothingness as an object is something without properties, but paradoxically therefore has the properties of at least:
1. Immutability: it can't change, because change requires something
2. Boundarylessness
3. Indeterminacy: undefined, without qualitiesI kind of relate to Graham Priest in that existence and non-existence is dependent on each other - kind of like the ying-yang symbol. For something to "be", it must be distinguished from "not-being". It might therefore not really be a resolution to the problem. Just like the rabbit in the rabbit-duck illusion is dependent on the shape of the duck, non-existence is dependent on existence.
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?
Sounds like she treats existence or nature or the law of identity as an ultimate bedrock. Foundationalism.
Sounds like she treats existence or nature as an ultimate bedrock. Foundationalism.
#518 · Dennis Hackethal, 7 months agoSounds like she treats existence as an ultimate bedrock. Foundationalism.
Not existence but maybe the law of identity.
She only says that the law of identify rules nature, not that it explains nature’s existence.
#517 · Dennis Hackethal, 7 months agoI disagree. Existence is something to be explained.
(Logan Chipkin)
She does explain it by referring to the law of identity.