Modern Ontology: Is everything quantity?

[DoomYoshi]

The triumph of statistics is turning every verb into a quantifiable value. It's pretty much accepted in science that without math, one can't prove anything. As our knowledge expands, we really are able to discern how "thingy" something is. An Aristotlean might say that we can still talk about a particular electron. Maybe, but can we accurately describe it and therefore define it? If not, then we can't talk about it particularly.

One concept that remains non-quantifiable is sense of self. I have a sense of self and so do you. Of course, the intelligent amongst us hold that self is an illusion, and therefore "sense of self" and many other such fanciful would-be things are no longer valid.

There is one category and one category only: quantity. Everything is quantity, everything is math. Ergo, God is math.

[riskllama]

horsefeathers, sir.

[warmonger1981]

Security is a state of mind.

[Metsfanmax]

One concept that remains non-quantifiable is sense of self.

I think that depends on how much of a Hofstadter fan you are. But his ideas on self-awareness have never been very plausible to me. I've always preferred the idea that evolution results in something like a continuum of possible strengths of "sense of self." If this is so, it must also be true that different humans have different levels of this quantity (even though the variation is likely small on average relative to the absolute variation across animal species).

[nietzsche]

The triumph of statistics is turning every verb into a quantifiable value. It's pretty much accepted in science that without math, one can't prove anything. As our knowledge expands, we really are able to discern how "thingy" something is. An Aristotlean might say that we can still talk about a particular electron. Maybe, but can we accurately describe it and therefore define it? If not, then we can't talk about it particularly.

One concept that remains non-quantifiable is sense of self. I have a sense of self and so do you. Of course, the intelligent amongst us hold that self is an illusion, and therefore "sense of self" and many other such fanciful would-be things are no longer valid.

There is one category and one category only: quantity. Everything is quantity, everything is math. Ergo, God is math.

funny that I just had a somewhat similar discussion with macbone in live chat and i got angry because he resorted to mocking a vqlid philosophical idea with arguments of "complexity", deming it not a judgement, before leaving.

Please elaborate in what you said in the second paragrapht, and then show me how I'm not intelligent. I'm willing to take an IQ test and if you win, I grant you the victory.

[macbone]

Mocking? Nietzsche, you completely misunderstood me. If you really did angry, I'm sorry to have offended you.

You didn't really get angry, did you?

[jonesthecurl]

The triumph of statistics is turning every verb into a quantifiable value. It's pretty much accepted in science that without math, one can't prove anything. As our knowledge expands, we really are able to discern how "thingy" something is. An Aristotlean might say that we can still talk about a particular electron. Maybe, but can we accurately describe it and therefore define it? If not, then we can't talk about it particularly.

One concept that remains non-quantifiable is sense of self. I have a sense of self and so do you. Of course, the intelligent amongst us hold that self is an illusion, and therefore "sense of self" and many other such fanciful would-be things are no longer valid.

There is one category and one category only: quantity. Everything is quantity, everything is math. Ergo, God is math.

I'm not sure if I have a sense of self in some absolute measurable way. But I'm pretty sure I'm not you.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

One concept that remains non-quantifiable is sense of self.

I think that depends on how much of a Hofstadter fan you are. But his ideas on self-awareness have never been very plausible to me. I've always preferred the idea that evolution results in something like a continuum of possible strengths of "sense of self." If this is so, it must also be true that different humans have different levels of this quantity (even though the variation is likely small on average relative to the absolute variation across animal species).

Word.

-TG

[TA1LGUNN3R]

The triumph of statistics is turning every verb into a quantifiable value. It's pretty much accepted in science that without math, one can't prove anything. As our knowledge expands, we really are able to discern how "thingy" something is. An Aristotlean might say that we can still talk about a particular electron. Maybe, but can we accurately describe it and therefore define it? If not, then we can't talk about it particularly.

One concept that remains non-quantifiable is sense of self. I have a sense of self and so do you. Of course, the intelligent amongst us hold that self is an illusion, and therefore "sense of self" and many other such fanciful would-be things are no longer valid.

There is one category and one category only: quantity. Everything is quantity, everything is math. Ergo, God is math.

Is it non-quantifiable as an intrinsic value or non-quantifiable because we lack the means to do so?

-TG

[nietzsche]

Mocking? Nietzsche, you completely misunderstood me. If you really did angry, I'm sorry to have offended you.

You didn't really get angry, did you?

Well, I did think you were mocking the idea, and was at the time pooping. Then I told you to give me time to plug in the laptop because I was running out of battery (but I actually needed to wipe) and then you said you have to go and you let me there upset when I should be feeling great, it always feel great after pooping.

But it's nice to know you were not mocking me.

[nietzsche]

One concept that remains non-quantifiable is sense of self.

I think that depends on how much of a Hofstadter fan you are. But his ideas on self-awareness have never been very plausible to me. I've always preferred the idea that evolution results in something like a continuum of possible strengths of "sense of self." If this is so, it must also be true that different humans have different levels of this quantity (even though the variation is likely small on average relative to the absolute variation across animal species).

Word.

-TG

Right, now, to have a better picture, why not explore eastern philosophy about mind? Doesn't have to mean you buy it, just explore it.

Ah but no. Let's shape our minds with the prevalent, dominant dogma.

---

I was once a sucker for all these ideas, I admit. It didn't make sense to me, to see how these authors were painfully forcing pieces that didn't fit only because it had to be that way, they couldn't consider different solutions to the I problem, conciousness problem, sense of self problem, call it however you want. Yet I sticked to it because in any other regards their ideas were excellent.

THe most interesting question of humanity. Let's not explore it. Let's read these guys other people in our languange in our universities say are da shit and just be happy with it. And whenever we hear weird sounding ideas, let's mock them before giving them time to sink in to really understand them. Let's just all think alike.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

One concept that remains non-quantifiable is sense of self.

I think that depends on how much of a Hofstadter fan you are. But his ideas on self-awareness have never been very plausible to me. I've always preferred the idea that evolution results in something like a continuum of possible strengths of "sense of self." If this is so, it must also be true that different humans have different levels of this quantity (even though the variation is likely small on average relative to the absolute variation across animal species).

Word.

-TG

Right, now, to have a better picture, why not explore eastern philosophy about mind? Doesn't have to mean you buy it, just explore it.

Ah but no. Let's shape our minds with the prevalent, dominant dogma.

---

I was once a sucker for all these ideas, I admit. It didn't make sense to me, to see how these authors were painfully forcing pieces that didn't fit only because it had to be that way, they couldn't consider different solutions to the I problem, conciousness problem, sense of self problem, call it however you want. Yet I sticked to it because in any other regards their ideas were excellent.

THe most interesting question of humanity. Let's not explore it. Let's read these guys other people in our languange in our universities say are da shit and just be happy with it. And whenever we hear weird sounding ideas, let's mock them before giving them time to sink in to really understand them. Let's just all think alike.

So evolutionary theory is dogma?

It's funny because I think Mets was sort of moving along a continuous definition of consciousness or sentience, which has implications regarding the relationships between man, animals, and nature. I would consider this more Eastern than classical Western, where the separation of mind and body is dominant.

But whatevs, you can continue to harp on about the evils of scientific thought and how it's so rigid.

Have you ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?

-TG

[nietzsche]

One concept that remains non-quantifiable is sense of self.

I think that depends on how much of a Hofstadter fan you are. But his ideas on self-awareness have never been very plausible to me. I've always preferred the idea that evolution results in something like a continuum of possible strengths of "sense of self." If this is so, it must also be true that different humans have different levels of this quantity (even though the variation is likely small on average relative to the absolute variation across animal species).

Word.

-TG

Right, now, to have a better picture, why not explore eastern philosophy about mind? Doesn't have to mean you buy it, just explore it.

Ah but no. Let's shape our minds with the prevalent, dominant dogma.

---

I was once a sucker for all these ideas, I admit. It didn't make sense to me, to see how these authors were painfully forcing pieces that didn't fit only because it had to be that way, they couldn't consider different solutions to the I problem, conciousness problem, sense of self problem, call it however you want. Yet I sticked to it because in any other regards their ideas were excellent.

THe most interesting question of humanity. Let's not explore it. Let's read these guys other people in our languange in our universities say are da shit and just be happy with it. And whenever we hear weird sounding ideas, let's mock them before giving them time to sink in to really understand them. Let's just all think alike.

So evolutionary theory is dogma?

It's funny because I think Mets was sort of moving along a continuous definition of consciousness or sentience, which has implications regarding the relationships between man, animals, and nature. I would consider this more Eastern than classical Western, where the separation of mind and body is dominant.

But whatevs, you can continue to harp on about the evils of scientific thought and how it's so rigid.

Have you ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?

-TG

Nope, I think you recommended it to me before? I think.

I would say that currently the most commonly accepted idea in western thought is materialism, deeming mind as an epiphenomenom.

What I see is that the answer is not there, they're not even close, and it can be seen by a mile it won't be found there. By the very nature of the question, and who's making the question.

We are talking of a meta cognitive process, that's all it's reduced to, that's the best they've come up with. Not sure if Hofstadter talks about this meta cognitive process or leaves it all to parallel processing magic, I haven't read the Godel book, only indirectly on Dennet works and other philosophers of mind or cognitive science philosophers.

But even though the answer is not there, people seem to think: "oh ok, it's there i assume, I'm not sure how, but it's there, because they seem so sure of it, I must be not smart enough because I don't see it, but I'll act as if I see it because otherwise they'll think I'm dumb"

I just did a quick read of Hofstadter's wiki:

All FARG computational models share certain key principles, including:
that human thinking is carried out by thousands of independent small actions in parallel, biased by the concepts that are currently activated
that activation spreads from activated concepts to less activated "neighbor concepts"
that there is a "mental temperature" that regulates the degree of randomness in the parallel activity
that promising avenues tend to be explored more rapidly than unpromising ones

By all means yes! Those are all true statements, describing mental processes that I can relate to. But that doesn't mean he's close to explain consciousness. As the critiscism over Dennet goes, he's explaining consciousness away.

Which takes me to another point you mentioned, the science? What is the science here? As many psychologists, he validly used his own "stream of thought" as the subject, it's only understandable, direct 24/7 access, I'm not sure how he can prove it.

If the answer was there, a scientific answer, I'd be stupid not to consider it. But it's simply not there.

And it won't be there, just think of the nature of the question, and what would be a valid answer. How do you explain yourself, you awareness, not you body.


--
edit. about dogma:
As I said it seems to me they're forcibly looking for an answer where it's not. But they seem confident enough to find it there, without even considering if it's possible. And only because they follow a certain positivistic idea, a science will conquer all idea, which made me thouhgt of the word dogma.
Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself.

[mrswdk]

Mocking? Nietzsche, you completely misunderstood me. If you really did angry, I'm sorry to have offended you.

You didn't really get angry, did you?

Of course not. Anger doesn't exist.

[DoomYoshi]

The triumph of statistics is turning every verb into a quantifiable value. It's pretty much accepted in science that without math, one can't prove anything. As our knowledge expands, we really are able to discern how "thingy" something is. An Aristotlean might say that we can still talk about a particular electron. Maybe, but can we accurately describe it and therefore define it? If not, then we can't talk about it particularly.

One concept that remains non-quantifiable is sense of self. I have a sense of self and so do you. Of course, the intelligent amongst us hold that self is an illusion, and therefore "sense of self" and many other such fanciful would-be things are no longer valid.

There is one category and one category only: quantity. Everything is quantity, everything is math. Ergo, God is math.

Is it non-quantifiable as an intrinsic value or non-quantifiable because we lack the means to do so?

-TG

That is one of the arguments I explicitly tried to counteract in my topic title with the word modern. It's based on a current understanding, not an omniscent one.

The triumph of statistics is turning every verb into a quantifiable value. It's pretty much accepted in science that without math, one can't prove anything. As our knowledge expands, we really are able to discern how "thingy" something is. An Aristotlean might say that we can still talk about a particular electron. Maybe, but can we accurately describe it and therefore define it? If not, then we can't talk about it particularly.

One concept that remains non-quantifiable is sense of self. I have a sense of self and so do you. Of course, the intelligent amongst us hold that self is an illusion, and therefore "sense of self" and many other such fanciful would-be things are no longer valid.

There is one category and one category only: quantity. Everything is quantity, everything is math. Ergo, God is math.

funny that I just had a somewhat similar discussion with macbone in live chat and i got angry because he resorted to mocking a vqlid philosophical idea with arguments of "complexity", deming it not a judgement, before leaving.

Please elaborate in what you said in the second paragrapht, and then show me how I'm not intelligent. I'm willing to take an IQ test and if you win, I grant you the victory.

If I changed the wording to "certain people in the intellegentsia", would it offend you less?

How can you prove to yourself or to others that you actually have a sense of self or a mind or anything like that?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I would say that currently the most commonly accepted idea in western thought is materialism, deeming mind as an epiphenomenom.

What I see is that the answer is not there, they're not even close, and it can be seen by a mile it won't be found there. By the very nature of the question, and who's making the question.

We are talking of a meta cognitive process, that's all it's reduced to, that's the best they've come up with. Not sure if Hofstadter talks about this meta cognitive process or leaves it all to parallel processing magic, I haven't read the Godel book, only indirectly on Dennet works and other philosophers of mind or cognitive science philosophers.

But even though the answer is not there, people seem to think: "oh ok, it's there i assume, I'm not sure how, but it's there, because they seem so sure of it, I must be not smart enough because I don't see it, but I'll act as if I see it because otherwise they'll think I'm dumb"

And what's so bad about cognition being an emergent property? You seem to have this strong aversion to the topic. Every time you you post criticizing me for materialistic thinking are you criticizing the actual validity or just denying something you don't like?

-TG

[nietzsche]

How can you prove to yourself or to others that you actually have a sense of self or a mind or anything like that?

I don't and I don't need to. Everybody can relate to that.

And I don't care, my life is not ruled by what others think is right.

It's such a rich experience, to experience my consciousness in different states, I don't need anything more. I don't need a book to tell me, I don't need it to be in accordance to the current in vogue thinkers. I don't ideolize them, they are nothing compared to much more complete thinkers of the past, why value their thought more?

I think by myself. You can't teach me anything, you can just remind me of whatever was already on my mind. (plato). I'm fortuantely a very quick learner, (although i forget everything rather quickly) but everything that I learn must make sense, I will not memorize something that I simply don't get for the sake of it.


Now, my time to question:

Do you think the answer Hoftstader gives is enough? The answer to what is consciousness, our sense of self. Would you settle for that?

or

If it's not a real answer, why settle for it? Do you think real thinkers of any time in the past would've settled for that answer?


--

And what makes you think they're the smarter fellows? What type of intelligence for instance, you grant Steve Jobs? How would you compare Hofstader or Hitchens or Dawkins to Spinoza, or Kant or Kierkegaard?

Why do I keep seeing people idealizing these guys? They are smart fellows no doubt, but there are smart fellows and there are geniuses.



--

Now, when you read, you basically lent your thinking machine to the the thought of the author. No matter how many critical processes you have going in your head, eventually, depending on the gift of the author in conveying his ideas, you will be thinkiing like him. Over and over he gets reinforced in your head, depending on the honesty of the author, he might hide the weaknesses of his theory, or downplay them, and you might simple end up adopting all the ideas, after he has you saying yes, like a car salesman, you're sold.

This is why, is important to consider many sources. Not the source that everyone in your circle says it's the right one. When you start reading a different approach, you say, "wait a minute, didn't this work differently", and you compare, and you then keep both ideas in your head, creating a tension that would stay there a while until you decide, or temporarily decide.

If, after considering many options you chose for that one, that's ok.

This is indeed what bothers me most about all this. I keep finding these ideas, people having adopted those theories as if they were da shit, because more and more people read these books and simply conclude they're right!! And there's some sort of nerd culture that these guys are the best and some sort of nerd bullying. Come on.

Even in the fucking cartoons.

Also, then they google certain philosophical idea, then they chew and rumminate some definitive argument without even grounding it. COME ON.

Seriously, it pisses me off. That's not what philosophy is for me, I'm not a scholar or anything, I'd rather watch tv than force myself to read something I don't want to. But philosophy interests me because I have these questions, and philosophy deals with them. I like having a big picture.

That's why I should'nt discuss any of this, keep it for me and that's it.


edit: grammar

[nietzsche]

I would say that currently the most commonly accepted idea in western thought is materialism, deeming mind as an epiphenomenom.

What I see is that the answer is not there, they're not even close, and it can be seen by a mile it won't be found there. By the very nature of the question, and who's making the question.

We are talking of a meta cognitive process, that's all it's reduced to, that's the best they've come up with. Not sure if Hofstadter talks about this meta cognitive process or leaves it all to parallel processing magic, I haven't read the Godel book, only indirectly on Dennet works and other philosophers of mind or cognitive science philosophers.

But even though the answer is not there, people seem to think: "oh ok, it's there i assume, I'm not sure how, but it's there, because they seem so sure of it, I must be not smart enough because I don't see it, but I'll act as if I see it because otherwise they'll think I'm dumb"

And what's so bad about cognition being an emergent property? You seem to have this strong aversion to the topic. Every time you you post criticizing me for materialistic thinking are you criticizing the actual validity or just denying something you don't like?

-TG

Nothing bad, except that it's secretly adopted as a solution by these guys, and it's not.

Yeah, it might be in the end, but meanwhile, it's fucking not. That you think that's the most ideal possibility, ok, that's up to you, but remember what question we're dealing with. Do you really think the answer will come up in this linear type of thought?

I've given it enough thinking time, the answer is not there.

But let me ask you now.

Do you think is there?
Can you be present fully, present for a moment in this, now. Feel it. Is not a different questsion we're dealing with? What is the question really? What makes you think this type of question is similar to why do I move my head when i hear a sound coming from my right?

[DoomYoshi]

Can either metsfanmax (for bringing it up) or nietzche (for specifically asking the question) explain Hofstadter's answer?

[nietzsche]

Can either metsfanmax (for bringing it up) or nietzche (for specifically asking the question) explain Hofstadter's answer?

I haven't read any book by him, only indirect quotes or ideas from other books. So it's better Mets do it, he's a fan of the Godell book.

As far as I recall, his solution fits similarly in the group that either

1. Classify consciousness as a mental meta-process, not different that regular processes except that it's checking on every other process. They key here is that it's just another process.

2. Clasiffy consciousness as a some sort of magic (in the sense they don't explain it, simply say it must be there) event that happens after a certain number of mental parrallel processes get going.

[nietzsche]

I'm done with this or any other similar discussions.

Think what you want, I enjoy this too much to have a bitter feeling attached to it by the bullies of Dawkins, Hitchens and the like, if you want them to be your idol thinkers that's fine by me, could be much worse.

[Metsfanmax]

Can either metsfanmax (for bringing it up) or nietzche (for specifically asking the question) explain Hofstadter's answer?

I was addressing specifically Hofstadter's argument regarding the concept of a "strange loop," which is some sort of circular process that results in you getting back to the position you started at after only moving in one direction. In GEB Hofstadter references as a sort of example the type of statement involved in Godel's theorems, i.e. the type that say something like "This is a false statement." In order to evaluate whether the statement is true or false, you have to consider the statement at the meta level. If it is a true statement at the meta level, then the object level claim that it is false has been proven false -- but then it becomes true again, etc. At each level in this hierarchy you can go up another level and reverse your argument, and it never ends. Hofstadter's argument is something like the idea that consciousness must inherently be composed of these strange loops that are self-referent. In this paradigm, there is either a strange loop or there is not, so self-consciousness is at some level qualitative.

I actually don't like the argument very much at all, but Godel, Escher and Bach is certainly a thought-provoking book to read and is quite entertaining.

[Metsfanmax]

I would say that currently the most commonly accepted idea in western thought is materialism, deeming mind as an epiphenomenom.

What I see is that the answer is not there, they're not even close, and it can be seen by a mile it won't be found there. By the very nature of the question, and who's making the question.

In the year 1600 you would have been going on and on about how science can't possibly explain gravity, apples falling from trees is obviously the result of some conscious process telling them to fall. Your implicit lack of faith in a process that has explained vastly more phenomena than anything else is astounding, precisely because you are the one accusing us of lack of imagination. Somehow it is just impossible for you to believe that we can get the answers this way, but not because you have any good reason for it; instead because you have closed your mind to this possibility.

[nietzsche]

I would say that currently the most commonly accepted idea in western thought is materialism, deeming mind as an epiphenomenom.

What I see is that the answer is not there, they're not even close, and it can be seen by a mile it won't be found there. By the very nature of the question, and who's making the question.

In the year 1600 you would have been going on and on about how science can't possibly explain gravity, apples falling from trees is obviously the result of some conscious process telling them to fall. Your implicit lack of faith in a process that has explained vastly more phenomena than anything else is astounding, precisely because you are the one accusing us of lack of imagination. Somehow it is just impossible for you to believe that we can get the answers this way, but not because you have any good reason for it; instead because you have closed your mind to this possibility.

You know I have everything to lose, by going into this matter. I'm always aware of the weaknesses of my arguments as I type them, and not afraid to share them. Since it's coming from you, and you've been honest in this discussions with me (except if you know your argument has weaknesses you don't point them out), I will venture in it a little.

Your point is a valid one. My only answer is, again, is it the same type of question? I don't think so. Science will at some time come up with a better answer, but the way they're going, it's not there. That's the best they can think of right now, it's an attempt at a solution, I guess anyone can venture a solution. But that one is not right. Sorry. That's my opinion, if you like it, ok I respect it. I would respect you more if you considered other approaches though.

[mrswdk]

But does Mets' valid point exist?

Or is it just fantasy?