Kevin's Watch

Wosbald wrote:
Consciousness is not an empirically verifiable fact. You have to believe in it to know it. Or know it to believe in it.

Are you sure? I mean, I'm just as amenable as the next guy to go on a journey through the Philcasso Blue Period [How do we know blue I see is the same as the blue you see?]

But if you have a corpse and a non-corpse in a room and ask "Are you dead yet?," it is empirically demonstrable that only one of them hears your question and responds.
With a good scanner, you can look at the electrical activity in a persons head and KNOW for a fact what state of consciousness they're in: Coma, one of the several sleep stages, awake listening to Blue Velvet, working on math or reading Kant.
If you have a GREAT machine, it can "read" the signals, decode, and create an image of it.
We may not know the deep foundations yet, or whether it has agency-capacity/causal power...but we sure as hell know consciousness exists.
[[and, again, same point as on other posts by folk, if it is fundamentally unknowable, and/or non-existent, neither option [or any of the imaginary positions that become possible to take in such circumstances] makes the god/creator-problem easier to solve or more rational, or even leap-of-faith worthy---it does precisely the opposite]]

hahahahaha .. irrefutably compelling argument right there lol

touche

Kudos

+JMJ+

Vraith wrote:[…]

[[and, again, same point as on other posts by folk, if it is fundamentally unknowable, and/or non-existent, neither option [or any of the imaginary positions that become possible to take in such circumstances] makes the god/creator-problem easier to solve or more rational, or even leap-of-faith worthy---it does precisely the opposite]]

Didn't say "unnkowable". Said "empirically unverifiable" which, in my context here, would equate to something like "materially irreducible".

But that's prollly enuf about that, at least for me. Just cuz I reference other threads doesn't mean I want to rehash them. "Thread-confluence" shouldn't hafta mean "thread-overspill". Or is that "overkill"?

You've been on the Watch for two years, and you haven't yet learned that rehashing and overkill are the top priority? Do you have a learning disability or something?

+JMJ+

Fist and Faith wrote:You've been on the Watch for two years, and you haven't yet learned that rehashing and overkill are the top priority? Do you have a learning disability or something?

That's ok. You're a nice boy.

And a very clever boy ...

But I would suggest V has demonstrated that consciousness is verifiable and given the tests outlined pretty much materially irreducible.. no

But youre a lot cleverer than moi ... so I may have missed a link

Wosbald wrote: Didn't say "unnkowable". Said "empirically unverifiable" which, in my context here, would equate to something like "materially irreducible".

But that's prollly enuf about that, at least for me.

On the second: it ain't enough for me. The reason is part of following:

On first: you can say they're a mix of synonyms and mislabeling--I don't care about that...though they're really all the same for people most of the time, so I'll do this, which I've tried to do before--don't think you're a target, you're just the instantaneous moment, and many who don't agree with you about anything still make this thing go on....

Do you know the 3 body problem? Its pure, "materially maximally reduced" state can be "reduced to" this:
They have NO properties, obey NO rules except 1.
If there are more than two of them, you are fucked---cuz if you don't know EVERYTHING, then you know NOTHING [in the "system"/"universe" of people who think "materially irreducible" is anything other than a Very Certain Person/Perspectives "proof"/"counterpoint" of something.]

When everyone so far---you, Z, Fist, lately, but everyone generally---says "materially irreducible" they CAN'T be right...even though they all intend to mean slightly different things.

Or, more accurately, you can't KNOW you're right, and "reduce" things to the, for some reason dismissive/limited/insulting, label "materially irreducible" [[read how you want, a restricted infinity or unrestricted finity, blather]].

As if "only" applies to "material" as a meaningful description when you don't KNOW, aren't even CLOSE to knowing what "material" means.
[[The real world has way more than the one property, and nearly infinitely more bodies than the insoluble 3 body]]
As if "reducible" is a meaningful description when you reduce a force/rule to ONE effect and STILL can't know what effect it has.
[[the real world has more than one force, with more than one effect, most of which aren't even close to understood...and they don't act in isolation.]]

Materially irreducible, in the innocent usage, is a translation of "I'm kerfluffled, and so is everyone I know..." In the power/political/in-groupifying sense is a semi-smart persons translation of "common sense"---meaning a plati-tool of zero effect other than demeaning or casting out/labeling other people.

I made an semi educated guess at materially reducible ... lol .. and now Im going to have to really work at following your post V ..

Not a doctor
Cue .. Scrubs ... closing credits

#outofmydepth

#notinyourleague

lol

Zarathustra wrote:Yeah, a supernatural, infinite being is infinitely harder to explain than the natural universe. It's the craziest idea you can have.

I get how religious people look at our universe and think that it is so incredible that it requires a God to explain it, but why does their wonder stop there? Why does God not require an even greater explanation?

Pardon, but I really can't see how it's harder to swallow the explanation the the Universe, as we can percieve it, was created by a supernatural being so much greater that we cannot percieve it unless allowed to;

Than it is to swallow "well, all the matter in the universe just expoded at some point and the universe sprang into existence as a result. Never mind that we have no clue where that matter came from to become the universe.

Sounds pretty supernatural to me

Rawedge Rim wrote: Sounds pretty supernatural to me

I bet it does.
But "god-things" will ALWAYS be supernatural no matter how much you know.
Natural things won't.
Despite your humorous simplification, [and it was kinda funny/made me chuckle] no one knows SHIT about "god," and many people know a ton about the Big Bang.

Hell, the freaking Pope doesn't really know ANY shit about God, but the average senior in high school knows SOME shit about the BB.

Rawedge Rim wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:Yeah, a supernatural, infinite being is infinitely harder to explain than the natural universe. It's the craziest idea you can have.

I get how religious people look at our universe and think that it is so incredible that it requires a God to explain it, but why does their wonder stop there? Why does God not require an even greater explanation?

Pardon, but I really can't see how it's harder to swallow the explanation the the Universe, as we can percieve it, was created by a supernatural being so much greater that we cannot percieve it unless allowed to;

Than it is to swallow "well, all the matter in the universe just expoded at some point and the universe sprang into existence as a result. Never mind that we have no clue where that matter came from to become the universe.

Sounds pretty supernatural to me

I get that it's difficult to wrap our heads around the fact that there is something rather than nothing, that matter can just spring into existence. But it should be even MORE difficult to believe that an all powerful immortal God just happens to be floating around Existence making universes. Where did He come from? Did he just spring into existence? Why is the most basic thing in reality some Dude who has the power to make universes? How does that happen? Why is it easier to believe that Super Dudes just exist but matter can't spring into existence? Matter is much simpler than all powerful immortal infinite Super Dudes. So our incredulity should be infinitely greater for the latter.

Besides, we have theoretical mechanisms for matter and/or universes springing into existence. We have absolutely no theories on how God came to be.

If you're willing to say that God "just is" and "always was," then you're not really concerned with understanding. Placing the origin of the universe on an unknowable, inexplicable source for which you have no hope or interest in ever explaining is not an explanation for the origin of the universe. It's a story, that's it. A myth. And our acceptance of it is no more meaningful than children accepting Santa myths.

The idea that science can coexist with myths, or that explanation can be consistent with non-explanation, it just contradiction. Religion at its root has no intention of explaining or understanding anything. It just uses placeholders for ignorance.

Skyweir wrote:#outofmydepth

#notinyourleague

Honest to god, if you don't stop dissing/self-deprecating all the time, you're going to become

#outofmydepthofinterest

#notinmyleagueofannoyed

[[hardly anyone can reach my league of annoyed, actually---so you were tangentially correct...and you don't want to make me annoyed...you wouldn't like me when I'm annoyed.]]

Just say what you want/think. It can be dumb as fuck or fucking brilliant and most won't know or care which...they'll still agree or dis...and that's all.

are you related to peter? peter likes to slide in implications that he's just some dumb hick, too.
No one believes him either.
Freaking Brits and Aussies...like to play dumb and pretend their accents aren't really the same. Must be an island thing.

Vraith

Ok fuck that then ..
However, I know what I know and know what I dont know is all Im saying

RR .. I hear what youre saying .. but do you .. you talk of a god we dont understand unless you are ALLOWED to. Are there peeps ALLOWED to and what is it they know. Genuinely interested to know.

As to Zs comments .. super dude

But well yeah ..

+JMJ+

Vraith wrote: […]

As if "only" applies to "material" as a meaningful description when you don't KNOW, aren't even CLOSE to knowing what "material" means.
[[The real world has way more than the one property, and nearly infinitely more bodies than the insoluble 3 body]]
As if "reducible" is a meaningful description when you reduce a force/rule to ONE effect and STILL can't know what effect it has.
[[the real world has more than one force, with more than one effect, most of which aren't even close to understood...and they don't act in isolation.]]

Materially irreducible, in the innocent usage, is a translation of "I'm kerfluffled, and so is everyone I know..." In the power/political/in-groupifying sense is a semi-smart persons translation of "common sense"---meaning a plati-tool of zero effect other than demeaning or casting out/labeling other people.

Would you consider yourself — at least, broadly or in part — to be a Transcendental Empiricist?

The reason why I ask this is because, seeing as you'd earlier queried me regarding Deleuze, I seem to be perceiving a number of Deleuzian resonances in your writing. For example, the way in which Deleuze spills a significant amount of ink in both Difference & Repetition and Logic of Sense criticizing "common sense" or the way in which you seem to locate the mystery (or the ontotheological anchor) in/through/beyond the Material/Empirical, itself.

Please note that I ask this less in order to pigeonhole you and more in order to to simply understand whether I'm reading your general gist aright.

Zarathustra wrote:

Rawedge Rim wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:Yeah, a supernatural, infinite being is infinitely harder to explain than the natural universe. It's the craziest idea you can have.

I get how religious people look at our universe and think that it is so incredible that it requires a God to explain it, but why does their wonder stop there? Why does God not require an even greater explanation?

Pardon, but I really can't see how it's harder to swallow the explanation the the Universe, as we can percieve it, was created by a supernatural being so much greater that we cannot percieve it unless allowed to;

Than it is to swallow "well, all the matter in the universe just expoded at some point and the universe sprang into existence as a result. Never mind that we have no clue where that matter came from to become the universe.

Sounds pretty supernatural to me

I get that it's difficult to wrap our heads around the fact that there is something rather than nothing, that matter can just spring into existence. But it should be even MORE difficult to believe that an all powerful immortal God just happens to be floating around Existence making universes. Where did He come from? Did he just spring into existence? Why is the most basic thing in reality some Dude who has the power to make universes? How does that happen? Why is it easier to believe that Super Dudes just exist but matter can't spring into existence? Matter is much simpler than all powerful immortal infinite Super Dudes. So our incredulity should be infinitely greater for the latter.

Besides, we have theoretical mechanisms for matter and/or universes springing into existence. We have absolutely no theories on how God came to be.

If you're willing to say that God "just is" and "always was," then you're not really concerned with understanding. Placing the origin of the universe on an unknowable, inexplicable source for which you have no hope or interest in ever explaining is not an explanation for the origin of the universe. It's a story, that's it. A myth. And our acceptance of it is no more meaningful than children accepting Santa myths.

The idea that science can coexist with myths, or that explanation can be consistent with non-explanation, it just contradiction. Religion at its root has no intention of explaining or understanding anything. It just uses placeholders for ignorance.

So we should reject the "Supreme Being" myth and insert the equally ludicrous "shit happened" myth?

See, in my case, I can accept that there may be a being so much further up the food chain that I'm incapable of understanding it. It makes at least as much sense as "shit happened".

+JMJ+

Vraith wrote:Wos...this place if fucking sucking lately. I don't know if you posted something that somehow passed the tech-test initially and fails on quotes...
But this is my last try. It's not as much fun.

[...]

Ah, that's me. Sorry about that. I have a habit of using ASCII code in order to bypass the filter, cuz I like to get exactly the characters that I want. I prolly assumed that others would use the Diacritics Removal tool. But if it's causing more harm than good, then I prolly should cut back on the habit. I won't promise to never use them, since I may occasionally really want some esoteric character. But I'll try to dial it back.

Funny thing is that, when I first joined, I didn't have to use ASCII code. I could format the text by simply typing the diacritics straight-up, and it would post with no problem. I wonder what's changed.

Vraith wrote:[...]

I love you remembered that brief exchange, and yea, I'd go with that if someone threatened my life if I didn't choose a "way."

fun fact..not as much fun as the way I originally played with it...
I was over 40 before reading my first D.

it was like walking into a strangers house and seeing a ton of your own stuff laying around the place.,,stuff you'd bought, stuff you'd inherited, stuff you'd built all by yourself.
Serious shock of recognition.
Yet, a lot of it was twisted...MY sandbox has the Silver Surfer, Wonder Woman, and Dr. Strange, not Wolverine, Torch, and Doc Savage....

Oh, yeah, I remembered. It's not every day that I meet someone familiar with Deleuze's name, let alone someone who's actually read him.

And thanx for the confirmation. That helps me to understand better. Of course, I can't say that I agree, at least not in toto. Though of course, I'll be able to agree in part, as I'm sure there are many point-of-agreement. Deleuze certainly had some valid concerns regarding the way that Difference has been excluded from much of the Western tradition, in favor of an ostensible "pure Identity".