Banned
The answer would be we would have to all have the same consciousness, but my experience tells me otherwise. What a mind makes up, would have to be an asymptotic phenomena of another. But my mind is quite clearly independent of yours.Originally Posted by pzkpfw
Banned
You know what mean.
Order of Kilopi
We all? You never dreamt of other people?
Order of Kilopi
Well, it's your choice. We can either have you state an experiment, then i can state that i might as well just be dreaming about performing it (or dreaming about some other person performing it), then you can state another experiment, to which i can reply in the same way, all the way until we have covered the entire field of neuroscience, and ultimately all of science. Or you could just admit that this line of argument fails to support your position.
Banned
I've never had an identity issue in a dream, no. But then if I did, I wouldn't be surprised. It is a dream after all. Like I wouldn't get too serious over a movie... because you know... it's a movie.
Order of Kilopi
I didn't say dream about being another person, i said dreamt about other people, ie having other people populate your dream with you.
I'm going to assume you did, which implies that the mind is certainly able to construct other people to populate the world it can construct.
Ergo your argument based on the probability of "all of us" having the same consciousness fails.
Established Member
Bold mine.
This is an unsubstantiated assumption. You must remember that even a sub dimension can have a subset that would not necessarily be its own dimension.
Bold mine.Let us denote consciousness (and everything related to) as a set. Let the universe then be the set
. Thus if
It is taken for fact that
That consciousness isn't an exact copy of the universe does not lead to statement that it cannot be an exact copy.
Conjecture is fine, but please don't insist that this is scientific proof.No subsystem can model precisely the larger system it is made of. This is conjectured because I believe that
An interesting conjecture. How would you explain how the mind perceives the universe when psychedelic compounds (such as LSD) are introduced into the brain?
However, the interpretation of the universe is very much observer dependent.
problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)
Banned
Ah good, fresh questions. I will get to you in a minute. I think I need a cup of tea!
Order of Kilopi
All good and well, but i do still expect either an experiment that actually differentiates between the two hypotheses or a retraction that either hypothesis is scientific.
Banned
This is an unsubstantiated assumption. You must remember that even a sub dimension can have a subset that would not necessarily be its own dimension.
Yes, but that does not destroy the order of the expression. For if the mind is a subset of the universe, and you further found a sub-set in the mind, there is no order broken. It would just be a new dimension.
That consciousness isn't an exact copy of the universe does not lead to statement that it cannot be an exact copy.
That conjecture is typically a set theory conjecture. No sub-system can precisely model the system it is a part of. It's not my own which I created for the argument.
Conjecture is fine, but please don't insist that this is scientific proof.
I believe, assuming my direction of the expression is true, then it kind of proves itself. If you like, from now on I will use conjecture, if people are happier with that.
An interesting conjecture. How would you explain how the mind perceives the universe when psychedelic compounds (such as LSD) are introduced into the brain?
It effects the synapses of the brain - the normal physiological functions such as chemical translations and signals carried from one neurotransmitter to another are simply impaired by the use of psychoactive compounds. One possible way to explain it, is when an electrical signal reaches a synapse, it may trigger release of tiny bursts of chemicals called neurotransmitters - when you induce the brain with certain chemicals, you are changing the entire chemistry of the brain's ability to function properly.
However, the interpretation of the universe is very much observer dependent.
The universe is exposed to our degree of describing it. It's material physical foundation had to be there independent of the mind, for... if it was not, our brains which depend on matter could never have came about.
Banned
One that differentiates between knowing we are not in a dream state? Hold on. There are plenty experiments which actually probe the mind when we are asleep. There are unique differences between being asleep and being awake.
Banned
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/...ep-brainwaves/
In this, it shows how certain brain waves act differently in different situations
http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/i...rainsleep.htm#
Established Member
But it can. If you assume that consciousness is a sub dimension of the universe, then it could be argued that consciousness would be every bit as rich as the universe. If however, you assume that consciousness is only a sub set of the universe then you must then define boundaries of that sub set before you begin to attribute any properties to it. Either way, it is an assumption, which is okay until you start to claim cause and effect due to these assumptions.
Which is fine, for set theory. However, conjecture, like assumptions, should not be used to claim cause and effect.
Once again, you're offering an assumption as evidence to support your belief.
Now you're making the assumption that every human brain operates exactly the same way and contains exactly the same chemical compounds in exactly the same proportions. However, we know that this assumption is incorrect because of the numbers of people who suffer with what we define as "mental illness".
Yes, but you have not proven your assertion presented in the OP. My point is this, you are basing your position on assumptions and conjectures that have not been established in the context of your assertions.
problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)
Banned
But it can. If you assume that consciousness is a sub dimension of the universe, then it could be argued that consciousness would be every bit as rich as the universe.
I don't see that happening, since our scope of the universe is fascinatingly limited at any time. True, when we observe the world, our brain tries recollect all the information it can from these photons hitting our retina's, but there is a lot of quantum information occurring in which we cannot observe, therefore, our consciousness is not an exact copy. To be quite blunt about the situation, it's many magnitudes off being as such.
Which is fine, for set theory. However, conjecture, like assumptions, should not be used to claim cause and effect.
In the past I have been argued to not present work well without math. In this instance, I am being argued with because I am using math! Trust me, set theory is a brilliant way to make a proposal - especially a scientific one which may require cause and effect. A very good example, would be Bells Theorem. It is a product of set theory, and it's theorem proves the inequality.
Once again, you're offering an assumption as evidence to support your belief.
My assumption is based on what we know from science which is then strengthened by my mathematical conjectures. I don't know what else you want me to do?
Now you're making the assumption that every human brain operates exactly the same way and contains exactly the same chemical compounds in exactly the same proportions. However, we know that this assumption is incorrect because of the numbers of people who suffer with what we define as "mental illness".
No, I never said every brain operates the same way. You are putting words into my mouth. I was generalizing what can happen. Drugs can effect people in different ways, but it still messes with the synapses in the same way - just the experience of the chemical changes maybe perceived differently. This is why one hallucination may differ to another person on the same drug. The dynamics are the same however, because we all have synapses and my electrical signals are transported just like yours. Just like if you cut me, I bleed like you. I may have a better pain threshold however, from you. Just like my experience of drugs might have a different side-effect to you.
Yes, but you have not proven your assertion presented in the OP.
As I said, if there is no question about which way the expression should be read, then the rest proves itself. As I said, if you have a problem with me using ''prove'' that is fine. We can stick with something else, like ''offers itself as a strong evidence'' for.
Established Member
Your first mistake: a subset is not a "subdimension". A subset is a set constructed by selecting objects from another set.
Sets do not have dimensions. A subset does not have a smaller number of dimensions ("subdimension"?) than a set.
Letting consciousness or the universe be sets is ridiculous because they are not sets. You could have a set that has one member (consciousness) and denote that as the set B. You could have a set that has one member (the universe) and denote that as the set A. Then you have the trival result that A and B have the same number of members!
Banned
The very fact I have used math shouldn't even be brought up in these arguments. There is no speculation when it comes to math, only to the situations it is being applied to. The only speculations (which are based on hard science) is that the universe preceded the mind. Now, normally someone would not argue that - so the math which can describe this best is set theory, by stating that the mind is a sub set of the universe. In doing so, then we can use the axioms of set theory to state things like ''the subset cannot copy itself of the whole completely''. This works well with our experiences, because we can be damn sure that whilst our brain tries to copy this world around us, what we see is only a fragment of a much greater whole which we call the universe. Saying stuff like ''but that doesn't stop a consciousness from being an exact copy'' is utterly meaningless... and itself a speculation without merit or justification. Whilst all mine do have merit and even a logical justification.
Banned
According to this work, the universe could be a causal set, or modeled as such http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9811053v2.pdf
I can very well describe the universe as a set. And anything inside that set defined as a subset can be treated as though it where a subdimension. In fact, I remember reading a paper which did just that, albeit, it was a totally different approach I used.
Banned
In fact, you can refer to element subsets as subdimensions if my mind correctly remembers this stuff. Hold on while I find a link.
Banned
At the moment I can only find this... and it's a horrible page...
'' you can also refer to element subsets by using subdimensions''
http://www.xjtek.com/anylogic/help/i...Equations.html
Banned
Let me prove this in a new way.
Think of the human perception as a subspace. It has it's own degree's of freedom - and I may not mean real ''physical degree's of freedom here''... as I said, the mind recreates the outside world, projects what it see's ''in here'' and we observe what can be described as a three dimensional vector space. What is a subspace? I can give a quick mathematical example...
Our equation should be of the form.
Thus if we have:
then
We make them equal, 1,1 and 1, and we may see it is a solution to the value. We set it to zero:
We require two solutions, and to check if it is linearly independent, thus we can have:
and
they are not linearly independent so the general solution of the entire form is:
And this is a mathematical description of a linear subspace in a matrix. Now, a subspace of is a subset that is a vector space itself and a subset of a vector space is just a set of elements from the vector space - so not every subset is a subspace, but every subspace is a subset. The mind surely would be a subset in this case. And, assuming we are talking about vector spaces, we may call the mind a subdimension, just for clarity to remind ourselves that in this bubble of perception, we do realize a three dimensional image. It is almost like as if the mind is trying to make an exact copy of what it is observing, hence why I use the set theory logic that no subset can model it's larger superset precisely.
Established Member
That is right so
is wrong because you missed out the word causal.
Now you have to show that consciousness is a causal set that is a sub set of the universe as a causal set.
Banned
You know, causal sets might be a very good approach since it can define a cause and effect in my expression. But that is for another time when I have studied the terminology a bit better.
Anyway, I feel you are missing the point. ''Causal'' or not, the word ''Causal'' implies an order. The real thing to remember here is that it is still a set. You flat out said that a universe could not be defined as a set, and I proved that in theory (and in practice) you were wrong.
Now there is absolutely no point getting hung up on the word ''Causal''. As I said, it just implies an order, and if anything, if you read my work carefully, I implied an order a long time ago. I just never explicitly wrote it for causal notation. But the universe in its most blatant form, is being treated as a set.
Established Member
Your notation is incorrect. You have not defined B as a proper subset of A. Indeed, you have done just the opposite. B using your notation may include all of A. Here is the reference:
Let us denote consciousness (and everything related to) as a set
It is taken for fact that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset
I think, at the very least, that you are misapplying set theory in a metaphysical idea.
Regards, John M.
I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.
"Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik
Banned
Oh yes that's quite right. Thank you.
I think, at the very least, that you are misapplying set theory in a metaphysical idea.
You're allowed your opinion. This is why I posted this here... but I am curious, what you think is metaphysical about this?
Banned
You know, I don't think I used that notation because I don't know the latex code for it.
Order of Kilopi
How do you know it is a photon giving you that information and your brain isn't just making that information up. Our brains make up stuff all the time. This is why many illusions work. It doesn't matter if they are visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory or tactile in nature.
This is the point. Everything you know stems originally from these senses. All these senses are products of our brain and our brain can and does short circuit the chain. Your universe is the sum of everything you've experienced. If someone else makes an observation you don't know about is it part of your universe? How do you know they made the observation? Once you know they made the observation how do you know your knowledge that they made the observation isn't generated by your mind.
caveman1917 is right. While you, me, caveman1917 and most other people accept our brain doesn't make up the universe around us it isn't a logical proof. Science is based on the fact that I am not just dreaming this but thee is nothing logically inconsistent with me being in some very vivid and self consistent dream. Like wise there is nothing inconsistent with me not being real at all but just some type of very advanced program running in some machine some where. There are some very strong arguments that we are more likely then not some type of simulation and not really real ourselves. How would we know?
So you can't disprove a philosophy if it is consistent with observation even if you don't think it is as likely as another philosophy that would amount to the same observations.
Banned
Because, as I explained to caveman, we have evidence showing us that when we sleep, it is quite different to being awake. Unless you consider being awake is another dream state, in which case create you own thread and peddle that psuedoscientific idea. Please, go right ahead, but not here please. Now discuss something else, I am sick and tired of that rubbish.
Order of Kilopi
But the point is you can't tell if your observation of the scientific evidence isn't also just in your head.
IE I can dream about seeing something. I can dream that while I'm seeing something some device shows my retina responding to what is thought to be photons. I can dream that same device records photons bouncing off my retina.
No one here is saying that science doesn't treat the world as real. What we are saying is that science can't prove the world is real or not because the 2 situations can have EXACTLY the same results.
So while science, and most of us hear agree with you in that the universe around us is real and not just in my mind, science can not confirm this. You seem to be frustrated by wanting to prove a philosophical view scientifically when science by its nature could not distinguish between a real universe, a really good dream, a really good simulation.
So science just assumes that the universe is self consistent and doesn't speak on something that can not be tested, even in theory.
Order of Kilopi
Really? Having worked in the mental health field I know people that see and hear people that I don't. They are convinced these people are independent of themselves yet from my perspective it is just them making stuff up in their head. But who knows. Maybe it is all just me having these delusions and the people that hear voices are just vivid multi sensory figments of my imagination. Just like you...I might have made you up without even knowing it while I'm in some 10 billion year or 2 second slumber.
Order of Kilopi
You've never cried at a movie? You've never been scared at a movie? You've never laughed at a movie? You've never had your heart race watching a movie? I mean they are just movies so why should you get scared, excited, happy, sad.
Posting Permissions
