Modern Ontology: Is everything quantity?

[mrswdk]

Is nietzsche caught in a landslide?

Does the landslide exist?

[2dimes]

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?

Hotdog eating contest!

[Dukasaur]

Is nietzsche caught in a landslide?

Does the landslide exist?

There's no escape from reality.

[DoomYoshi]

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.

You are the one who made this topic about idolizing thinkers. I don't even get what you are so puffy about.

This topic is about how to categorize information, not about dead white people.

[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.

You are the one who made this topic about idolizing thinkers. I don't even get what you are so puffy about.

This topic is about how to categorize information, not about dead white people.

if it is about how to categorize information then change the tittle to Modern Epistemology.

[DoomYoshi]

That doesn't make sense.

[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.

You are the one who made this topic about idolizing thinkers. I don't even get what you are so puffy about.

Certainly I was already upset about all this when I read your post, it was only the last straw. Macbone wasn't mocking the idea I was trying to explain to him (first to mrswdk but she was not following, then macbone started to ask). I was playing ball, defining terms when he asked and all, when he disagreed on certain terms i did not mock him, but tried to show him how, and then he started on a path that I thought was mockery, but now I understand he was just in a rush to go.

So I was already upset.

But the truth is that it's always this way! What truly bothers me is that people conclude something is true because it's on a popularized book (ESPECIALLY in these topics). I don't care for big, smart sounding terms. I care for smart questions, honest answers.

[DoomYoshi]

Ok, so here is my question: can you describe anything in the world in a non-quantifiable sense?

Traditionally, the answer has been no. I can say 4 apples, but none of the apples are quantifiably different from one another. Even if you consider that mass is quantifiable, it is the mass that is different, not the "appleness" of an apple.

What I am posing here is that since all matter appears to be made of subatomic particles, and those subatomic particles can only be described in terms of their unique mathematical properties, then does that mean that all matter is actually just quantity?

I mean, common sense approach I can describe the quantity of something, I can describe its emergent properties, I can describe what it is doing, I can describe where it's from. I am trying to say all these other things are just different ways to describe quantities.

On the second point is the immaterial nouns. Do they exist? Can we describe them without quantity?

I have a feeling I'm wrong about the first point, but I am not sure I am making myself clear enough on that point.

Here's an example of how mind would be quantity:
I can describe a point on a Richter scale, let's call it AoG's sister. That designation is useless without the quantity of the point on the Richter scale. If your mind had a value of "mindness" or "selfness" or whatever and the only other property that it had was that it was yours... and you, being material, have already been shown (or not) to be pure quantity, then the mind or sense of self which exists can be shown to be only quantity, and the argument holds.

One more attempt to make it clear: an electron is nothing without its spin. Therefore, electron spin is a real thing (coincidentally a quantity) and electrons are only a convenient description of this and other properties.

[nietzsche]

Ok, so here is my question: can you describe anything in the world in a non-quantifiable sense?

Traditionally, the answer has been no. I can say 4 apples, but none of the apples are quantifiably different from one another. Even if you consider that mass is quantifiable, it is the mass that is different, not the "appleness" of an apple.

What I am posing here is that since all matter appears to be made of subatomic particles, and those subatomic particles can only be described in terms of their unique mathematical properties, then does that mean that all matter is actually just quantity?

I mean, common sense approach I can describe the quantity of something, I can describe its emergent properties, I can describe what it is doing, I can describe where it's from. I am trying to say all these other things are just different ways to describe quantities.

On the second point is the immaterial nouns. Do they exist? Can we describe them without quantity?

I have a feeling I'm wrong about the first point, but I am not sure I am making myself clear enough on that point.

Here's an example of how mind would be quantity:
I can describe a point on a Richter scale, let's call it AoG's sister. That designation is useless without the quantity of the point on the Richter scale. If your mind had a value of "mindness" or "selfness" or whatever and the only other property that it had was that it was yours... and you, being material, have already been shown (or not) to be pure quantity, then the mind or sense of self which exists can be shown to be only quantity, and the argument holds.

One more attempt to make it clear: an electron is nothing without its spin. Therefore, electron spin is a real thing (coincidentally a quantity) and electrons are only a convenient description of this and other properties.

Answer my questions first.

This is what I mean about having an honest conversation. I join your game, responding as best as I can to your questions, knowing that I might be making a mistake, but you don't want to answer my questions, because of fear of being wrong or why? What's the problem with trying?

You concluded this

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.

I objected to that, and had a few questions for you, care to try to answer them? They are not questions that require a big level of philosophy knowledge, they're jsut questions that make you think and give your honest answer, your answer.

[DoomYoshi]

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?


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.

To me it doesn't matter whether any non-material thing is non-quantifiable. Given enough time, statisticians and researchers can quantify anything, so I'm not surprised. What I'm more concerned about is whether or not their actually is a consciousness. I'm not convinced there is, so quantifying it like counting Mordor's armies.

Thinkers have put some far out thoughts out there, so I'm sure that thinkers of generations bygone have thought that consciousness is an illusion.

It's not that great minds or international writers are the smartest people ever. Some are, but some are just good at clarifying other people's ideas. The reason the idealizing happens is something that happens for the same reason they become famous. Through luck and some skill, say you write a book about philosophy that has everyone talking. It could be about concepts that freshmen talk about it in dorm rooms stoned. It could be a brand new concept that most people haven't thought about - it doesn't matter. The book becomes famous, you go on "Between Two Ferns" and Seth Myers makes jokes about you. Now, when people want to talk about that concept that you wrote in your book, we now have a common launching point. Let's say everything in your book was 100% wrong. As communities, local and globally, we can now address the problems and move on to the next philosophy. Now that everyone knows your name, girls want to sleep with you (just because) and then some guys want to live vicariously through you.

The other reason the idealizing happens is because a lot of teenagers and children read these books too. Let's say there is a problem I've been struggling my whole life to truly grasp completely. Right now that problem for me is diffusion. I can understand diffusion in an application sense, and in a mathematical sense, but not in a completion. Now warmonger writes a book about diffusion that clearly addresses the conceptual problems I have struggled with. I will idealize him a bit for giving me that eureka moment. Eventually the euphoria will die down, but warmonger will always hold a special place in my heart.

Another reason that people are idealize is that they are witty.

Finally, it's the accomplishments IRL that people idealize. I can write all the coolest blog posts or books or whatevs, but it doesn't mean anything until I have replaced Ben Franklin on the hundie... or won a prize or whatever.

In summary, there are 4 goals to being a great writer/thinker:
-help society by advancing thought
-help individuals grasp concepts that eluded them
-be witty
-profit

[waauw]

Ok, so here is my question: can you describe anything in the world in a non-quantifiable sense?

Well, the classical answer to that has been human emotion. A Likert scale is applicable, but has difficulties concerning accuracy.

[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?


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.

. What I'm more concerned about is whether or not their actually is a consciousness. I'm not convinced there is, so quantifying it like counting Mordor's armies.

Thinkers have put some far out thoughts out there, so I'm sure that thinkers of generations bygone have thought that consciousness is an illusion.

Now, to me that's of greater value that any clever wording. That's the point from which we can discuss and share ideas and quote thinkers and discuss their ideas, etc.

It's a better starting point that. "The smartest fellows blah blah so we can conclude that blah blah".

Indeed I feel that it's some sort of consensus, that consciousness is an illusion, among those smartest fellows and people who have read their work.

IMO, they would love to give a different answer, they just can't find one that adapts to their understanding of things ought to be explained.

I've found that even after reading those books, I don't get an excellent understanding of my mental world, yes, their explanations of certain things are very good and to the point they've acomplished stuff, is all well and good. Much better understanding can be gained from reading William James. And venturing into more "esoteric" knowledge, into books that are labelled as spiritualistic or eastern philosophy, I've come to understand my mental world much, much better.

One key for instance, is how you become aware of different things while on "altered" states of consciousness, brought about by different breathing techniques. Or the separation of consciousness from thought, or the importance of considering the effect of attention. There are quite a few revealing experiences that there's much more about this than what we currently accept as valid scientific knowledge.

I'm not restricted or intimidated by the fact that this knowledge I've come about is not scientific. I have a few 50 years left, don't have the time to wait. But I understand you have other priorities.

It would be interesting to know now, if you would like to answer, what implications does it have for you, as you experience it, that consciousness is an illusion in matters of materialism and determinism. How do you couple all that, if you have a clear answer in your mind.

And also, if you adapt this knowledge for your life, if your system of beliefs borrows from this, or it's simply trivia for you.


And finally, regardless of any explanation of consciousness, say one day scientist come about a certain (just an example for color) new state of matter that forms or whatever, that is the seat of consciousness, it would mean not that the question is answered. Because, I would still feel special, still feel like me, I would still enjoy playing with awareness, etc.

Our mental world is an amazing playground: placebo effect, hypnosis, altered states, out of body experiences, lucid dreaming, belief systems. Then not so accepted extra sensorial perception (made sort of accepted by the work of the CIA on it), stigmatas, etc.

Yes, yes, I understand you guys are waiting for a scientific study to prove everything I just listed. I'm not waiting for permission.

[mrswdk]

Is nietzsche caught in a landslide?

Does the landslide exist?

There's no escape from reality.

^5

[DoomYoshi]

It's really just trivia to me. Same as Free Will. Whether my mind or free will exists or not, either way I am going to go about my day doing the same things. One of which is thinking about mind.