the omnipresence of cons — ucarr

Clarify this phrase (in context, of course). Thanks.

For the sentient being (presumably alone in creation the category capable of science/humanities) cons being a state insuperable (you can’t know outside of it), thus finds cons omnipresent.

This is the strong argument for the omnipresence of cons.

If you believe existence is complete, i.e., not strategically incomplete, then knowing the universe exists means knowing everything about existence in terms of a categorical abstraction or set, with a microscopic volume of concrete details filled in. Via abstraction, cons is omnipresent.

This is the weak argument for the omnipresence of cons.

Humans will forever fight over morals because adaptation is ruthless and desires are dictatorial. — ucarr

I think it's much more complicated than that. One has to distinguish the proffered reason for the fight and what's actually going on. The interplay between morality and self-interest is very complicated but morality is always a more respectable reason for a fight than self-interest. But self-interest is a more effective motivator.

The social contract is a necessary prerequisite for a peaceable society, so an effort towards moral standards is also necessary. — ucarr

The social contract is not always a contract. Sometimes it is a peace treaty and the stronger imposes the contract.

For me, independence = distinct things running on parallel tracks that don’t intersect. The tracks might converge and diverge at points along the way. — ucarr

OK. .So long as they don't intersect, I suppose.

Regarding “from within,” knowing, i.e., cons, is insuperable. As for the question of the existence (ex) of an external (ext) world, this conversation is deeply concerned not with the question of an ext world , but with the deep interweave connecting the two. This translates to the question of the two great modes: subjective/objective. — ucarr

Fair enough. I'm still not sure what "insuperable" means here. I've already mentioned, I think, that I don't see that as the same problem as the Science/Humanities issue. Fortunately, there's no chair to rule things off topic.

I suspect what QM has done, in essence, is manipulate quantity, i.e., discrete measurement, towards existential ambiguity. That’s fascinating because scientific discovery of discrete particles for seeming continuities like radiation and vice versa for seeming things like elementary particles was a drive toward definitive boundaries, with opposite result of real boundary ambiguity affirmed. — ucarr

Yes. It was a nasty surprise.

Is a purely objective world out there? The answer to this question is ambiguous, and cons plays a central role in the fact of existential ambiguity instead of discrete boundaries being the picture on the scientific view screen. — ucarr

Are you possibly confusing our opportunities to discover things with hindrances to perceiving them? What does "purely" objective mean? (In what ways is the objectivity that we know and love impure?)

Part of the difficulty of The Hard Problem is the global question whether cons is insuperable. If it is, then the “what” of experience is forever compromised by subjectivity who partially contradicts and nuances it. — ucarr

I still can't work out what "insuperable" means, so I can't comment. This problem is not what I understood to be the Hard Problem, except that in some way, it is concerned with the interface between consciousness and it's objects (to put it that way).

Insuperable in my context here is simple: you can’t know things outside of being cons, so you can’t know yourself outside of being cons, so as long as you persist as yourself, the cons that empowers you to be yourself is, for you, insuperable.

The Hard Problem acknowledges that what it’s like to be an enduring self is resistant to the objective exam and manipulation of materialist science.

A big part of the reason for the hardness of the problem is the insuperability discussed above. Another problem of materialist science vis-a-vis selfhood is the insuperable selfhood of the scientist thwarting materialist objectivity.

This conversation is an exam of how the the two great modes differ, and The Hard Problem is that difference under a microscope.

How about a (commonplace) synonym for "cons"... ?

Insuperable in my context here is simple: you can’t know things outside of being cons, so you can’t know yourself outside of being cons, so as long as you persist as yourself, the cons that empowers you to be yourself is, for you, insuperable. — ucarr

Saying "you can't know things outside of being conscious" is like saying "you can't see things without your eyes/walk without legs." "Insuperable" implies an obstacle, but consciousness enable us to know. I simply don't get this.

The Hard Problem acknowledges that what it’s like to be an enduring self is resistant to the objective exam and manipulation of materialist science. — ucarr

That's like complaining that sciences like physics are incapable of explaining chess or that a car can't fly. It was not designed to do that. An enduring self knows perfectly well what-it's-like to be an enduring self in the only sense of "what-it's-like" that assigns any sense to the question. It's not as strange a use of "know" as you might think. "I know Taylor Swift" may be false, but it is true of many people and there's no difficulty establishing that it's true. But it isn't propositional knowledge.

A big part of the reason for the hardness of the problem is the insuperability discussed above. Another problem of materialist science vis-a-vis selfhood is the insuperable selfhood of the scientist thwarting materialist objectivity. — ucarr

What would it be like to thwart materialist objectivity?
Actually, doesn't relativity solve the problem, at least in one sense, by developing and solving equations that cover all possible points of view/observers?

This conversation is an exam of how the the two great modes differ, and The Hard Problem is that difference under a microscope. — ucarr

The Hard Problem was developed in order to disprove materialism and prove dualism. So I doubt it can be solved. Certainly it would be a lot easier (though still not easy) to dissolve it.

I’m going to try NI for natural intelligence.

:up: :up:

:meh:

Our context is talking about the interweave of existing things and NI (natural intelligence). This approach is intended to aid in our examination of the big differences between the “what” and the “how.”

As we’ve been talking about the “what,” we’ve been looking at the boundary of NI. I see it as the world of the pure “what.” This is a world without NI and without AI.

When we speculate about the nature and content of this world, of course we’re doing it within the scope of NI. This leads me to say we don’t and can’t really know a non-NI world. While it’s easy to think we can imagine this world as an earth-like planet devoid of life, it might be the case our NI mechanisms involve heavy filtration and alteration of incoming signals. This might distance us greatly from the raw signals. Also, even as we think about this possible distance, we’re, again, thinking about it within the scope the NI that makes our thoughts possible.

For these reasons, I speculate to the claim our NI is for us insuperable. So, yes, non-NI might be an obstacle in the form of a boundary.

It’s extremely interesting to me you see the knowing capacity of NI as a powerful tool that pushes aside obstacles. We know NI overcomes obstacles, so it’s interesting to think it cannot push aside itself, and thus, ironically, its greatest obstacle might be itself.

Also interesting is how this irony re-enforces the thought the experience of NI instills a feeling of omnipresence about itself, as well as imparting a feeling of omnipresence for the subject of the NI, namely, the self holding possession of the omnipresence of the NI.

The enthusiasm about finding the T.O.E. is more evidence of this.

If you think my exam of the chief difference between “what” and “how” (i.e. what it’s like knowing the what of the world of my knowing) trivial, then the sense of omnipresence imparted to you by the expansiveness of your NI re: your boundless cognitive travels, puts a smile a on my face.

What would it be like to thwart materialist objectivity?

It might be like: moving a step further towards the T.O.E. and then losing your train of thought towards the big revelation as your little daughter tip toes into your study. You’re smiling as she’s holding up your glass of lemonade from her birthday party.

G.U.T. =/= "T.O.E." (both in physics and anatomy :smirk:) because the latter is pop-sci / metaphysical hype and the former is a scientific research program.

When we speculate about the nature and content of this world, of course we’re doing it within the scope of NI. This leads me to say we don’t and can’t really know a non-NI world.

So you're "absential materialism" (or "strategic incompleteness") is Kantian?

The uncertainty, or imprecision of our knowledge of things in themselves is another support for strategic incompleteness.

The narratives of NI can’t end. Things in themselves, like their cognitive parallels, axiomatic systems, fund the generative narratives that make intelligent life possible.

Logical incompleteness, like Standard Model measurement uncertainty, stand as evidence we don’t and can’t know things in themselves directly or completely.

Speculation tells me knowing being not strategically incomplete parallels acceleration of matter to light speed; the equation goes to an unmanageable value.

This excess of matter and info, present stragically absentially, is always partially accessible and, as suggested by entropy, no systemization is perfectly efficient i e., no system is complete.

The second law of thermodynamics leads directly to Gódel’s Incompleteness.

Perhaps l should look at dark: matter_energy through this lens.

... Perhaps l should look at dark: matter_energy through this lens. — ucarr

I guess I'm a broken record ...

Bad philosophy derived from bad physics. :roll: — 180 Proof

Sorry, I don't know what G.U.T. and T.O.E are. Could one of you explain?

"GUT"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory

"TOE"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

Thanks. Obvious once you know. I can see the rationale for both projects. Beyond that, I'm not competent.

because the latter is pop-sci / metaphysical hype and the former is a scientific research program. — 180 Proof

I had the impression that Einstein pursued the T.O.E at one point. So how come you are so scornful of it? Especially as the G.U.T. looks like a stepping-stone to the T.O.E.

"So scornful?" Why do you ask? Read the links I provided (the articles are simplified, non-technical summaries).

Well, I skimmed them. I'll read them more carefully.

The relationship between things-in-themselves (TIS) and NI is semi-symmetrical mirroring. This discrete symmetry transformation across the change from TIS to NI might be related to non-commutative geometry.

Example: Gödel’s Incompleteness shows semi-symmetrical-like “mirroring” of an axiomatic system’s functions and derivative functions thereof not covered in the grounding functions. The semi-symmetrical inconsistency is general to first-order logical expression.

Math, like NI spins out a generative (first-order) narrative incommensurable with its source. The narratives of NI do not end, as designed by strategic incompleteness.

The material parallel to logical semi-symmetry is the entropy of inherently incomplete systemization.

If the 2nd law of thermodynamics is true, then there are no complete systems.

There is no complete work, so there can be no working towards completion of anything (GUT, T.O.E.).

Yes, Incompleteness Cosmology is bad physics. Elegant simplicity and the wholeness of validity are idealizations.

What we can know is always incomplete due to semi-symmetrical mirroring between TIS and NI.

Strategic Incompleteness lends a hand to skepticism.

If formalisms in their abstraction start looking too much like immaterial coefficients of generalizations of properties of TIS, a violation of naturalist materialism, then perhaps arguments can take recourse to the incompleteness of semi-symmetrical mirroring. Since there is no complete agreement between TIS and NI, the reality of the appearance of immaterialism might be undecidable.

I can't follow any of this ...

Imagine a math space such that : 6+9 =/= 9+6; semi-symmetrical mirroring.

So, TIS =/= NI, and the difference i.e., imprecision_incompletion, keeps the generative narrative of cognitivity-supported human life going without a discrete ending.

I can't follow any of this ... — 180 Proof

Here's an article on pseudoprofundity that might be more worthwhile.

:up:

The second law of thermodynamics leads directly to Gódel’s Incompleteness.
Perhaps l should look at dark: matter_energy through this lens — ucarr

And off he goes, where he is led nobody knows. :smile:

Imagine a math space such that : 6+9 =/= 9+6; semi-symmetrical mirroring. — ucarr

A non-commutative operation. Lots of them in math. For example, function composition in general: f(g(z))=/=g(f(z)). Also called non-abelian.

Does an equation exemplify symmetry?

Does an equation exemplify symmetry? — ucarr

More or less. Here is where you find reference to the term.

:up:

Imagine a math space such that : 6+9 =/= 9+6; semi-symmetrical mirroring. — ucarr

As jgill clarifies, this is a non-commutative operation.

What happens if we change the operator:

6+9 ~ 9+6

This is what I mean by semi-symmetrical mirroring. Since an equation exemplifies symmetry, as noted above (with some wiggle room) by jgill, we can take a statement of approximation of equivalence to be an expression of an an equivalence within a margin of error. So, let us imagine in the above statement the left side of the equation is approximated to the right side of the equation, as expressed by the right side of the equation, with, say, a 4% margin of error for the uncertain value of the right side. Instead of a discrete value, the right side is a range of possible values.

When Natural Intelligence (NI) looks at things-in-themselves (TIS), the rendering of TIS is an approximate mirroring which can be called semi-symmetrical mirroring.

We see the world through our senses and our brain as a sample of overwhelming complexity made manageable by the sample. Well, the sample is a compression algorithm, and a compression algorithm cannot compress all of the overwhelming details of uncompressed reality, and thus our perception of the world, which for us is insuperable, is necessarily incomplete.

Science Vs Humanities

“What” as a pronoun characterizes the focus of discovery within the sciences:
• What exists
• What functions and behaviors do things exhibit
• What’s the relationship between parts and wholes
• What populates the big picture

“How” as an adverb characterizes the focus of discovery within the humanities. The center of action, the actor giving meaning to the verb, emerges as the enduring point of view of the personal self in possession of a unique personal history. In short, “how” describes “what it’s like” to be a self with its own point of view, feelings, values, and judgments. Personal narratives have a short list of major turning points within the personal history of of an evolving self. This evolving self typically narrates the “how” or the “what it’s like to be” of:
• Birth
• Knowing oneself as separate from the world
• Friends & Foes
• Goals
• Sexual awakening, rite of passage (adolescence) into adulthood
• Work, love, marriage, family, home, world
• Letting go of children
• Retirement, old age
• Death

Science and Humanities are the two great modes of consciousness and behavior.

These two faces of reality look across the 180 degrees of line separating the circle of wholeness into the two semi-circles of the facing realities.

The focus of this conversation has been the mirroring of the two realities facing each other: “things-in-themselves (TIS) and consciousness (NI:natural intelligence).

“What” is about the content, nature and workings of existence.

“How” is about the conscious experience of what exists, especially including the existence of the self-referential self.

When “How” and “What” face each other, there is an equation that establishes itself as the connection linking the two half circles together into wholeness.

The “What” and the “How” share an essential attribute: incompleteness. This incompleteness characterizes how they examine “What” and “How” respectively, and also how they perceive each other. They both spin out narratives that have no ending.

It’s an outrageous violation of convention and common sense to say of existence in general that there is no wholeness.

Complexity, however, can be thought about in a way that makes this very suggestion.

The mirroring symmetry of NI looking at TIS is degraded by entropy. In consequence, humans do not see the existence of the world, the “What” of the world completely.

Instead, humans see a sample of TIS. This sample has a compression algorithm that ejects some of the information of TIS.

General existence, acting through entropy, makes the incomplete transfer of information across the line dividing the semi-circles necessary, and it stands as the main premise motivating my initiation of this conversation.

Life will always ask you questions you can neither answer nor avoid. These unanswerable questions elevate life to something more than information. They are the spine of your personal history. They introduce you to three things you must try to make peace with while you live: what you know is incomplete, what you are is incomplete and the world is incomplete.

All three categories are waiting for you to add something, so try to be creative.