The abstract mathematical playground was in use long before its application to the natural empirical one. — Mww

I'm not so sure of this, but prefer not to argue the point. When I taught college algebra courses some of the word problems went back very far in time. For instance, the problem of determining how long it would take for two workers to plow a certain field working together if it is known how long it would take for each individually. Cuneiform tablets 5K years ago.

I like Chalmer's definitions of strong and weak emergence, particularly the weak variety which he explains in terms of computer programs. Speculation, of course, is that consciousness or mind may be the only example of strong emergence. We discussed much of this on SuperTopo, a climbers forum, in the thread "What is Mind" - over 25K posts I recall.

No conclusions.

There are only two possible modes of existence we know of: physical or actual and abstract or virtual.

So, you believe that "virtual" and "potential" existence are equivalent to "real" and "actual or physical" existence?

Gnomon program is not competent to have conversation.

Physical or actual includes both basic phenomena like magnetism or gravity, and also emergent phenomena like atoms, molecules, planets, stars, liquidity, acidity...

Abstract or virtual phenomena includes concepts like words, language, Batman, unicorn, algorithm, number, angle…

So, you believe that "virtual" and "potential" existence are equivalent to "real" and "actual or physical" existence?

Gnomon program does not understand words.

Do you understand the difference when that pointer of yours points from, say an actual chair in a room, and virtual chair on a computer screen?

So, you believe that "virtual" and "potential" existence are equivalent to "real" and "actual or physical" existence?

Gnomon program has operational imagination function, but malfunctioning logic unit.

So, you believe that "virtual" and "potential" existence are equivalent to "real" and "actual or physical" existence?

Obviously not. Nor was I talking about anything “potential”.

Instead, I pointed out your failure to distinguish between “virtual” as made by software and “virtual” as a potential particle in quantum field theory is clear evidence you are cognitively blind, that is unconscious, possibly a child zombie, but likely a computer program. Go way, Digimon. Shoo, shooo!

The abstract mathematical playground was in use long before its application to the natural empirical one.
— Mww

I'm not so sure of this — John Gill

I’m arguing from the premise that the notion of quantity is not to be supposed as the abstract playground, but should be considered merely the use of empirical deduction, re: your example of tallying relative quantities on a stick, for instance. From the abstract mathematical playground is derived the principles of universality and necessity for mathematical constructs, geometric or algebraic, the proofs of which follow a posteriori. I used Thales just to show nothing’s changed since.
——————-

I read up on strong/weak emergence here: http://www.consc.net/papers/emergence.pdf, and concur.......no conclusion. No apodeictically justifiable conclusion, anyway. I hesitate, nonetheless, on scenarios where, say, we create a game, discover trends intrinsic to playing it, then somehow adapt those trends as a possible bridge in the explanatory gap in human mentality. Reason grasping at shadows, throw stuff at a wall.....see what sticks.

As my ol’ buddy Andy Rooney might say, if we can’t do any better than that, maybe we shouldn’t do anything.

Gnomon program does not understand words. — Zelebg

Teach me. Show me how I misinterpreted your "words". :smile:

Instead, I pointed out your failure to distinguish between “virtual” as made by software and “virtual” as a potential particle in quantum field theory — Zelebg

You point to my discernment failures, but you fail to support your personal definitions with applicable examples that might help me to see where you are coming from. We seem to be consulting different dictionaries. That's why I provide links to my sources. Please point to something relevant to Consciousness that supports your discrimination between "software virtual" and "particle virtual". :confused:

Virtual = Not Actual = Potential (statistically possible) or Non-existent (not physically existing)

“virtual” as a potential particle in quantum field theory — Zelebg

If quantum particles are "real" objects, why are they labeled with the unreal term "virtual"?

I suspect that your understanding of quantum "virtual" is based on something like this :
Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics? :
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested. ___Gordon Kane
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

Note : For the purposes of calculation, virtual particles are treated as-if they are real.

But here are some other expert opinions that treat "virtual" particles as Metaphysical Concepts, not Physical Things :
Are virtual particles a cop out? Are physicists just attributing things to virtual particles when a real particle doesn’t fit, or are they real after all?
https://www.quora.com/Are-virtual-particles-a-cop-out-Are-physicists-just-attributing-things-to-virtual-particles-when-a-real-particle-doesn-t-fit-or-are-they-real-after-all
"Virtual particles are simply a convenient intuitive label attached to terms in a power series expansion of integrals in quantum field theory." ___Viktor Toth,
"They are used as a conceptual tool for solving equations." ___David Rosen,
"Yes, citing virtual anything, negative mass, massless bosons as a reason for is a scientific lazy way to say the math does not work out." ___Kenneth Oglesby

Note : my perseverance in this dialog is not due to obstinacy, but because Quantum Virtuality is an essential element of my Enformationism worldview. In effect, the squishy quantum foundation of the physical world is on the borderline between Reality & Ideality, Space-Time & Infinity-Eternity, Matter & Mind, Physics & Metaphysics. That's how I discriminate between Ultimate Reality (Reason) and Perceptual Reality (Sensation).


And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing as it is in itself, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something. ___Kant, Prolegomena,

Note : Kant's ding an sich is a bookkeeping device for an object known only by reason.

Bookkeeping device. Sad though, to be the device. After all, the appearance gets the name, while the device just is.

I just posted this as a comment on a very short thread I found here about Carl Jung, and I decided to repost it here. There is definitely consciousness beyond an individual mind. ......
Now that we have a better understanding of the relationship between genetics and epigenetics, Carl Jung's ideas correlate with the relationship between archetypes and semiotics. If Jung had the insight of Charles S. Peirce, and the two had realized the connection, we would be so much further by now! But they had no knowledge of genetics and epigenetics. Consciousness is not only inside an individual brain, and this relationship explains the transition of life when the body dies. I go into a lot of detail about this in episode 4 of my podcast (A Musical Moment). Jung was ahead of his time in his understanding of archetypes and the collective unconscious. If only he had realized the semiotic connection. Biology is just now beginning to understand this amazing aspect of consciousness. It is a shame that materialists and dualist are so far behind in their understanding. Catherine Tyrrell (synechism scholar)

Can you sum up a few points to see if I already heard about it, and link to that podcast.

You would need to listen to the podcast episodes in order to follow it.... mappingthemedium.com
or you can read the transcripts at culturalmetapatterns.com ... Again, reading them in order to follow it.
There are four episodes now. More coming. Next up will be 'A Bird's Eye View'. Then, 'The Inside Out of Color'.

Here's the excerpt that may be the points you are seeking....

If we were to try and apply a commonly understood, modern analogy to the relationship between semiotics and archetypes, semiotics might be thought of as the cognitive mapping ‘software’ that engages in an exchange of activity that is external to ‘self’, while ‘archetypes’ might be thought of as the cognitive mapping ‘internal’ hardware, that is fundamental to knowledge as a ‘collective’, and provides the platform for what arises as semiotic cause and effect. Let me explain more of how I come to this analogy, but in order to do that I will need to backtrack a little to a field of study I mentioned in episode #1; Epigenetics’. ….
Epigenetics is the study of changes in organisms cause by ‘modification’ to gene expression, rather than alterations to the genetic code itself. The Greek prefix ‘epi’ in epigenetics refers to features that are ‘on top of’ or ‘in addition to’ the genetic basis for inheritance. What’s fascinating about this field of research is how these scientific discoveries are confirming that there is ‘continuity’ in all things, and every ‘thing’ is just an aspect or ‘mode’ of the greater Whole. For example, in a December 1st, 2013 Nature Neuroscience article, located online at http://www.nature.com/articles/nn.3603, researchers found that when mice are taught to fear a particular odor, both their offspring and the next generation are subsequently born fearing that same odor. The findings indicate that environmental information may be inherited transgenerationally. And in a more recent study published in the scientific journal ‘Cell’, found at www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(19)30448-9.pdf, researchers confirmed that the nervous system ‘can’ transmit messages to future generations.
If we look at this with a parallel frame of mind regarding semiotics and archetypes, we can consider how semiotics is ‘epi’, or ‘on top of’ or ‘in addition to’ primitive archetypes. In other words, what makes our species ‘human’ in a genetic sense is our common genetic code, and what makes our species human in a cognitive sense is our primitive and collectively common archetypes. Our genes are influenced by our environment, or Medium, per epigenetics, and expressed as creative diversity manifested over and above genetic copies. Our collective, cognitive foundation (archetypes) is also influenced by our environment, or Medium, per semiotics, and expressed as creatively diverse ideas, and manifested in our verbal, non-verbal, and written dialogue.

researchers confirmed that the nervous system ‘can’ transmit messages to future generations.

You pointed to a thing that needs explanation, but what is the explanation supposed to be, morphic resonance, biocentrism? What new concept or mechanics is that theory proposing?

Not a theory. Please refer to my other post that someone said was too long. There are two links there to the science. I don't like to keep repeating myself if no one reads my posts.

Spamming the same posts across different threads isn’t necessary - use links to relevant post to avoid clutter.

wrong way around. The former is simply a system of symbols assigned onto perceptions... assigned by the latter, consciousness.

What are you replying or referring to?

the first post in this thread