Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theory Of Metaphysics' (SCTOM)
On 9/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, you said All comments welcome.You asked for it.First, there's a lot to read here, so I assumed you were presenting the basic gist of your ideas in the first few paragraphs, and so I have afew comments about those paragraphs.I commend you for trying to explain values as part of the framework.I've whinced before when I've read some thought experiments on this list that depended on accepting the existence of such ideas as good andbad.I believe in the existence of good and bad, but one needs tosupport his/her belief in good and bad and not take them as a given. It seems that your limitation of reality to meaningful existence isactually rejecting Mathematical Platonism.Why is consciousnessrequired to make a mathematical truth real?I thought that you aretrying to deal with all of existence, not just meaningful existence, since your theory tries to explain how the most fundamental propertiesof existence facts fit together into a unified metaphysical framework.And yet here you limit existence to what we can perceive. The core assumption is that existence without perception ismeaningless. Reality requires not only raw data but something to*interpret* that data, to supply meaning to it. This can only be done by consciousness of *some* kind. If something was hypothesized to existthat could in no way directly or indirectly affect the consciousperceptions of *any* possible observer, then in what sense could it besaid to exist at all? Even if it could be successfully argued that it did have some kind of abstract philosophical existence, it could neverhave any possible value to sentient minds. For the purposes ofunderstanding general intelligence, it suffices to define that whichexists as that which could directly or indirectly ( i.e. in principle)affect the perceptions of *some* possible conscious observer.So you've eliminated the whole realm of unperceived reality in thesuperset of existence.You've eliminated the motivation to bring unperceived reality into the realm of perceived reality, since theformer does not exist.Reading these metaphysical theories doesn't really impress me when Irealize that these theories really don't have anything new in them that the ancient Greeks (for instance) didn't have.Of course the big gap in all of these theories, which I believe willnever be filled, is the integration of consciousness (in general) intophysics.Even if we integrate human consciousness into it (which I don't think is going to happen), that doesn't cover the whole gammit ofwhat consciousness is in the whole universe.Who knows, there's somuch we don't know about stars (and they are so big) that perhaps some stars have consciousness of some kind that is outside of the definitionof how we would define it, but may be even more enlightened about theuniverse, and yet we may never know.Tom What I wrote there may be misleading. By 'perceivable' I don't necessarily mean 'perceived by humans', what I mean is 'perceivable *in principle* ( i.e. by some mind, somewhere in the universe). Reality can only ever be understood from the perspective of a mind. Therefore only things capable of (in principle) making a difference to perceived reality need to be taken into account when devising ultimate theories of metaphysics. If you read what I wrote I made it pretty clear that I believe in a kind of mathematical Platonism. My proposed noumenon (raw fabric) of reality was something I called 'Mathematico-Cognition' (a hybrid of mathematics and information processing). I don't think the 'perceivable in principle' requirement contradicts mathematical Platonism. What makes you think that mathematical objects aren't perceivable? True, most *humans* can't perceive mathematical things, but that's probably just a limitation of the human mind. I think that a mind sufficiently talented at math *could* in principle directly perceive mathematical objects. Kurt Godel claimed that it was possible to directly perceive mathematical objects. He even thought the mind was capable of directly perceiving infinite sets.-- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.orgScience, Sci-Fi and Philosophy---THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,For, put them side by side,The one the other will includeWith ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson'The brain is wider than the sky'http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html
Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theory Of Metaphysics' (SCTOM)
On 9/22/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By 'perceivable' I don't necessarily mean 'perceived by humans', whatI mean is 'perceivable *in principle* ( i.e. by some mind, somewhere inthe universe).I admit my misunderstanding, and that you are talking about theunperceivable rather than the unperceived, so the argument abouteliminating the motivation to discover does not apply, although it does apply to those that reject the existence of an objective reality. Reality can only ever be understood from the perspective of a mind.Are you willing to admit that you have to be agnostic (by definition!) about the fact that there could be reality that can't be understood bya mind? Yes. But only minds can perceive and comprehend reality. Only minds can value. The parts of reality that are beyond the comprehension of all possible minds cannot by definition be directly dealt with by any metaphysical theory. And what value could they possibly beto us? That's why I called my theory the 'Sentient Centered' theory.A mind is the most important thing inthe universe because without mind there can be no value (values come from minds). What I'm asking is: Why do you limit metaphysics, at the outset, tobeing for the purposes of understanding general intelligence? On the other hand, how do we know what general intelligence is if all wehave is our human understanding?Thus my example of conscious starswhich are enlightened about the universe in ways that don't even fit into our mind's capability of understanding what enlightened can mean. Only a general intelligence (a mind capable of fully reflective reasoning) can value things, perceive things and comprehend things. Therefore any metaphysical theory needs to deal with those aspects of reality that can in principle impinge on the mind of a general intelligence. You make a good point about kinds of consciousness that may be beyond human understanding. But my theory does not attempt to provide a full explanation of what general intelligence is. It is simply meant to serve as a logical scaffolding to which new scientific and philosophical information would continue to be added. In order for the words 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' to have an unitary meaning, there would have to be *some* general properties that all possible minds had in common. A metaphysical theory intended to serve as a 'logical scaffolding' simply has to deal with these general properties. Therefore only things capable of (in principle) making a differenceto perceived reality need to be taken into account when devising ultimate theories of metaphysics.Is not there a difference between things that (in principle) cannever make a difference to perceived reality (i.e. unperceivable bysome logical contradiction to perceivability, but yet existing somehow), and things that never will make a difference to perceivedreality because of the limitations of minds (in general)?I admit thatwe can't include the former, but what about the latter? The latter possibilitywould mean that there'san unbridgeable seperation betweenthething in itself and a mind's conception of a thing aka Kant. It's a logical possibility of course but I note that many modern philosophers reject Kant's idea. I don't think the 'perceivable in principle' requirement contradictsmathematical Platonism. What makes you think that mathematical objects aren't perceivable?True, most *humans* can't perceivemathematical things, but that's probably just a limitation of the humanmind. I think that a mind sufficiently talented at math *could* inprinciple directly perceive mathematical objects.Kurt Godel claimed that it was possible to directly perceive mathematical objects. Heeven thought the mind was capable of directly perceiving infinite sets.What if the proof of Goldbach's Conjecture was such that it could not be perceived by a mind?Doesn't our incomplete picture of the mindallow for such a possibility? I suppose so. But it seems unlikely to me. What does the word 'proof' *mean* if not that there are a series of logical connections each of which is capable of being comprehended (in principle) by *some* mind? Of course, there are likely proofs beyond human understanding but such proofs should not be beyond the understanding of *some* (in principle) sufficiently powerful mind. THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside.-Emily DickinsonIn all of the history of humans' exploration of the universe, theperpetual message that keeps coming back to us from the universe isthat the brain is not as wide as the sky.I think that trying to make an end run around everything and starting with the doctrine that itis, is not a new thing (even to the ancient Greeks), but it contradictsthe evidence.Tom *Given* that we want a metaphysical 'Theory Of Everything' (the name of this mailing list after all!) we must *assume* as a starting point that mind can comprehend reality.
Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theo...
THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside.-Emily DickinsonIn all of the history of humans' exploration of the universe, theperpetual message that keeps coming back to us from the universe isthat the brain is not as wide as the sky.I think that trying to make an "end run" around "everything" and starting with the doctrine that itis, is not a new thing (even to the ancient Greeks), but it contradictsthe evidence.Tom *Given* that we want a metaphysical 'Theory Of Everything' (the name of this mailing list after all!) we must *assume* as a starting point that mind can comprehend reality. Our assumption could be wrong.That's why it's called a *theory* ofeverything ;) Why couldn't the theory be that the mind can comprehend reality, but not all of reality. Wouldn't that be a theory of everything? What if that's the actual truth? We would be doing ourselves a disservice by theorizing otherwise.
Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theo...
THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside.-Emily DickinsonIn all of the history of humans' exploration of the universe, theperpetual message that keeps coming back to us from the universe isthat the brain is not as wide as the sky.I think that trying to make an "end run" around "everything" and starting with the doctrine that itis, is not a new thing (even to the ancient Greeks), but it contradictsthe evidence.Tom *Given* that we want a metaphysical 'Theory Of Everything' (the name of this mailing list after all!) we must *assume* as a starting point that mind can comprehend reality. Our assumption could be wrong.That's why it's called a *theory* ofeverything ;) Why couldn't the theory be that the mind can comprehend reality, but not all of reality. Wouldn't that be a theory of everything? What if that's the actual truth? We would be doing ourselves a disservice by theorizing otherwise.And I'm saying (see above) that the evidence is against the assumption that the mind can comprehend everything. The message we get from the universe is that its paradigm is always beyond our minds.
Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theo...
On 9/22/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Given* that we want a metaphysical 'Theory Of Everything' (the name of this mailing list after all!) we must *assume* as a starting point that mind can comprehend reality. Our assumption could be wrong.That's why it's called a *theory* ofeverything ;) Why couldn't the theory be that the mind can comprehend reality, but not all of reality. Wouldn't that be a theory of everything? What if that's the actual truth? We would be doing ourselves a disservice by theorizing otherwise. Well, of course, the question that arises is: what actually *is* a 'theory of everything'? By TOE I don't require that the mind can literally comprehend *all* of reality. Ijust think thatthere's some way to integratemental and physical concepts into afinite unified explanatory framework which *is* comprehensible. So for me, a TOE is a theory which explains the relationshipbetween Mind on the one hand, and Reality on the other. M (Mind) relationship - R (Reality).My theory is attempting to explain that relationship. What I'd likeis a *logical scaffolding* - a *finite* system whichis *universal* in scope -or at least applying everywhere in reality where sentient minds can exist and which explains the relationship between Mind and Reality. That for me isaTOE. I don't require that the theory literally explains everything. -- Please vist my website:http://www.riemannai.orgScience, Sci-Fi and Philosophy---THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,For, put them side by side, The one the other will includeWith ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson'The brain is wider than the sky'http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html
