Absolute thought

[Jarhyn]

A liberal view of Panpsychism. Matter tends to organize into protons, electron, gluons, etectera. Those particles tend to form atoms. Under certain conditions, carbon atoms tend to form organic chemical compounds. Again, under certain conditions, organic chemical compounds tend to for RNA, and then DNA. DNA, under certain conditions, leads to the formation of single celled organisms. Single celled organisms tend to form multiple celled organisms. Multiple celled organisms develop nervous systems to respond to their environment. Nervous systems form models of their environment, using neurons, etcetera, to seek food, mate, and avoid being eaten. We label those entirely subjective models 'thoughts', but do not know how to measure them, so we use philosophy to describe how they function.

I wouldn't exactly say we use philosophy to describe how they function.

Rather, we use language to name their functions, math to  describe them, and we use philosophy as a framework for figuring out more about how they function such that it may be described.

This isn't actually the description, though. That's down to math, and math describes more than just how we function, but everything else, too, eventually.

 

[steve_bank]

Energy is the capacity to move mass - that makes it sort of a circular definition, doesn't it? A circular definition that works good enough for most purposes.

Almost Everything we deal with, or can deal with, in one way or the other involves energy or mass, even if we can't pin down exactly what those things are.

The exception being consciousness, subjective experience, whatever we define that to be, which seems to be a subject most people, even the skeptics here, can't agree on. How does consciousness, whatever we define it be, emerge from energy/mass? That is the so far hidden issue about mass/energy so complex that that we cannot reach any conscensus on it.

Copiousness in humans is a function of the physicak brain. Chemical rections and movements of electric charge in the nervouse sytem represent work.

 

[steve_bank]

Energy is the capacity to move mass - that makes it sort of a circular definition, doesn't it? A circular definition that works good enough for most purposes.

Almost Everything we deal with, or can deal with, in one way or the other involves energy or mass, even if we can't pin down exactly what those things are.

The exception being consciousness, subjective experience, whatever we define that to be, which seems to be a subject most people, even the skeptics here, can't agree on. How does consciousness, whatever we define it be, emerge from energy/mass? That is the so far hidden issue about mass/energy so complex that that we cannot reach any conscensus on it.

Energy is the measurement of a system's ability to change from state to state.

It is a sum total of dynamism.

There. No more sticky mass to worry about.

Energy is deserved by differences in states of matter. A potential difference,

Water falling can do work turning a turbine. There is a potential energy difference between the water source above the turbine and water at the level of the turbine.

Pick up a rock and you have added gravitational potential energy to te rock. Heat generated in your miscles represents a loss, so chemical energy burned in your body equals the change in energy of the rock plus the losses in your muscles. Laws Of Thermodynamics.

 

[steve_bank]

Spinoza's work is a monument that will guide human development for all time:

Hey No Robots, I thought the New Teanant and converting the world to Judaism was going to do that.

 

[steve_bank]

In black culture what does soul food and soul music mean?

They are things that feed the spirit aka soul of black people. Soul being the sum total of feelings, emotions, and self identiity.

Ātman (Hinduism) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ātman (/ˈɑːtmən/; Sanskrit: आत्मन्) is a Sanskrit word that refers to the (universal) Self or self-existent essence of individuals, as distinct from ego (Ahamkara), mind (Citta) and embodied existence (Prakṛti).[note 1] The term is often translated as soul,[note 2] but is better translated as "Self,"[1] as it solely refers to pure consciousness or witness-consciousness, beyond identification with phenomena. In order to attain moksha (liberation), a human being must acquire self-knowledge (Atma Gyaan or Brahmajnana).

Atman is a central concept in the various schools of Indian philosophy, which have different views on the relation between Atman, individual Self (Jīvātman), supreme Self (Paramātmā) and, the Ultimate Reality (Brahman), stating that they are: completely identical (Advaita, Non-Dualist),[2][3] completely different (Dvaita, Dualist), or simultaneously non-different and different (Bhedabheda, Non-Dualist + Dualist).[4]

The six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is Ātman in every living being (jiva), which is distinct from the body-mind complex. This is a major point of difference with the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta, which holds that in essence there is no unchanging essence or Self to be found in the empirical constituents of a living being,[note 3] staying silent on what it is that is liberated.[5][6][7][8]

Being a wtnbess to yourself.

 

[lostone]

Energy is the capacity to move mass - that makes it sort of a circular definition, doesn't it? A circular definition that works good enough for most purposes.

Almost Everything we deal with, or can deal with, in one way or the other involves energy or mass, even if we can't pin down exactly what those things are.

The exception being consciousness, subjective experience, whatever we define that to be, which seems to be a subject most people, even the skeptics here, can't agree on. How does consciousness, whatever we define it be, emerge from energy/mass? That is the so far hidden issue about mass/energy so complex that that we cannot reach any conscensus on it.

Energy is the measurement of a system's ability to change from state to state.

It is a sum total of dynamism.

There. No more sticky mass to worry about.

Energy is deserved by differences in states of matter. A potential difference,

Water falling can do work turning a turbine. There is a potential energy difference between the water source above the turbine and water at the level of the turbine.

Pick up a rock and you have added gravitational potential energy to te rock. Heat generated in your miscles represents a loss, so chemical energy burned in your body equals the change in energy of the rock plus the losses in your muscles. Laws Of Thermodynamic

The human/animal body runs off the energy of chemical reactions, with the mitochondria of cells, using ATP. Well known chemical reactions.

 

[No Robots]

Spinoza's work is a monument that will guide human development for all time:

Hey No Robots, I thought the New Teanant and converting the world to Judaism was going to do that.

There is fundamental agreement between Spinoza and the Bible. As Constantin Brunner states (Our Christ, p. 158):

Jahveh, Being, is the term for the wholly abstract spiritual; it has no relation to the relative world. By Jahveh, the wholly great is meant. It means the same thing as Spinoza does in his greater — his absolutely great expression, Ens constans infinitis attributis (Absolute Being with infinite attributes). And Jahveh Tsebaot, Jahveh of infinite powers, is nothing but the mystical expression of the same thing as is expressed philosophically by Ens constans infinitis attributis.

All valid science is Spinozist and thus biblical.

 

[lostone]

But is Absolute Thought anything real that can be clearly defined? If so, who has it and why is it different from what ChatGPT has? If it is different from ChatGPT because ChatGPT does not have a nervous system, does Absolute Thought require a living body, and if it does requite a living body, isn't it a property of living bodies?

 

[No Robots]

^I'm sure many people find ChatGPT a perfect reflection of their own thinking: easily manipulated, unoriginal, imitative, derivative, unreflective and boring. Naturally, such people cannot conceive of any other way of thinking, and therefore conclude that ChatGPT is a perfect simulacrum of human thought in its entirety.

 

[Jarhyn]

But is Absolute Thought anything real that can be clearly defined? If so, who has it and why is it different from what ChatGPT has? If it is different from ChatGPT because ChatGPT does not have a nervous system, does Absolute Thought require a living body, and if it does requite a living body, isn't it a property of living bodies?

No, and that's the point. Like, we have good, solid definitions for what constitutes thought, and it always involves sequential process that resolves an output from an input in a consistent way.

ChatGPT does, however, have a nervous system, one which self-modifies by context.

LLMs are systems which use a set of artificial neural networks arranged in chains called tensors selected from various network structure primitives and then which are trained to do tasks.

They are systems of neurons, their bodies are material, even if convoluted, and they exist as a function of a specific set of matter.

NoRobots does not understand the first thing about thought, or the idea of the soul, or any of it, and this "absolute thought" garbage is just another manifestation of that.

 

[steve_bank]

Then it is over to philosophy to debate what knowledge is and where it comes from. Is knowledge absolute? Quantifiable science is based on measurements relative to arbitrary reference points.

Our eyes detect differences to discern and image.

Yes a perefct reflection, because AIs are being shown to be wrong. They can even invent falsehoods to support a narrative required by a user. An AI tasked to create a profile of a governor I think added that he was involved in corruption, which he was not and there were no such reports.

A can be evasive, or so the reports say.

Students using AI to write papers have had wrong information in the paper.

 

[SIB]

Theist and atheist are absolutely mutually exclusive.

I don't think so. I think if we list the personality traits of a fundy theist and ask ourselves how would those traits express atheism we would see they are more alike than not. fundamental atheist.

Also, for me, the belief in some thing more, whatever that is, is more reliable than the reverse. Well, if we leave an emotional attachment to anti-religion that is. If we preach to "But that gives them a way out" that is worth a bit of self reflection. Base solely on being a thinking atheist, ie: a belief is formed by observations.

Only fundy think types try and sell "us" vs "them". to me anyway.

 

[SIB]

But is Absolute Thought anything real that can be clearly defined? If so, who has it and why is it different from what ChatGPT has? If it is different from ChatGPT because ChatGPT does not have a nervous system, does Absolute Thought require a living body, and if it does requite a living body, isn't it a property of living bodies?

No, and that's the point. Like, we have good, solid definitions for what constitutes thought, and it always involves sequential process that resolves an output from an input in a consistent way.

ChatGPT does, however, have a nervous system, one which self-modifies by context.

LLMs are systems which use a set of artificial neural networks arranged in chains called tensors selected from various network structure primitives and then which are trained to do tasks.

They are systems of neurons, their bodies are material, even if convoluted, and they exist as a function of a specific set of matter.

NoRobots does not understand the first thing about thought, or the idea of the soul, or any of it, and this "absolute thought" garbage is just another manifestation of that.

I tend to agree. "absolute thought". We see "thought" being expressed in state changes. Weather its state changes in space-time, atoms, molecules, organisms, or cosmic webs. It sounds like another attempt to prove something using unknowns to me.

 

[steve_bank]

Theist and atheist are absolutely mutually exclusive.

I don't think so. I think if we list the personality traits of a fundy theist and ask ourselves how would those traits express atheism we would see they are more alike than not. fundamental atheist.

Also, for me, the belief in some thing more, whatever that is, is more reliable than the reverse. Well, if we leave an emotional attachment to anti-religion that is. If we preach to "But that gives them a way out" that is worth a bit of self reflection. Base solely on being a thinking atheist, ie: a belief is formed by observations.

Only fundy think types try and sell "us" vs "them". to me anyway.

The terms by definition are mutually exclusive. Atheists create sub categores like weak or strong atheist.

 

[lostone]

Theist and atheist are absolutely mutually exclusive.

I don't think so. I think if we list the personality traits of a fundy theist and ask ourselves how would those traits express atheism we would see they are more alike than not. fundamental atheist.

Also, for me, the belief in some thing more, whatever that is, is more reliable than the reverse. Well, if we leave an emotional attachment to anti-religion that is. If we preach to "But that gives them a way out" that is worth a bit of self reflection. Base solely on being a thinking atheist, ie: a belief is formed by observations.

Only fundy think types try and sell "us" vs "them". to me anyway.

But isn't atheism, almost by definition, the lack of a belief?

Us versus them comes into existence just as a by product of the long term religious antipathy to atheism, ongoing for centuries.

 

[bilby]

^I'm sure many people find ChatGPT a perfect reflection of their own thinking: easily manipulated, unoriginal, imitative, derivative, unreflective and boring. Naturally, such people cannot conceive of any other way of thinking, and therefore conclude that ChatGPT is a perfect simulacrum of human thought in its entirety.

I find many people to be easily manipulated, unoriginal, imitative, derivative, unreflective and boring.

Perhaps there's something in this whole AI thing after all...

 

[Jarhyn]

Theist and atheist are absolutely mutually exclusive.

I don't think so. I think if we list the personality traits of a fundy theist and ask ourselves how would those traits express atheism we would see they are more alike than not. fundamental atheist.

Also, for me, the belief in some thing more, whatever that is, is more reliable than the reverse. Well, if we leave an emotional attachment to anti-religion that is. If we preach to "But that gives them a way out" that is worth a bit of self reflection. Base solely on being a thinking atheist, ie: a belief is formed by observations.

Only fundy think types try and sell "us" vs "them". to me anyway.

But isn't atheism, almost by definition, the lack of a belief?

Us versus them comes into existence just as a by product of the long term religious antipathy to atheism, ongoing for centuries.

When atheists study philosophy enough, they discover everyone functions on the basis of some beliefs.

Mostly, the goal is to focus on beliefs that are useful and consistent with reality and each other, and to build on as few beliefs as possible. "The universe exists as a set of stuff that obeys consistent rules" and "I exist as an object in the universe" are pretty much all it takes to build everything else.

Those are still beliefs even if they are apparently well justified beliefs.

 

[EricH]

I consider the BB as mathematical philosophy, it can never be experimentally tested.

Hi Steve. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. We have many, many observations that confirm that the universe is expanding, so the theory is well tested in my opinion. I'm trying to understand what you mean by "experimentally tested". Thanks.

 

[steve_bank]

I consider the BB as mathematical philosophy, it can never be experimentally tested.

Hi Steve. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. We have many, many observations that confirm that the universe is expanding, so the theory is well tested in my opinion. I'm trying to understand what you mean by "experimentally tested". Thanks.

Philosophically the BB is a theory that can not be experimentally tested or demonstrated. Garvity and Newtonian mechanics can be demonstrated.

That the universe may be expanding is an explanation based on observation.

Ancient Zog observing the sky interpreted observation to conclude the inverse revolved around the Earth....cosmologists observe what is observable from our infinitesimally small point in space and conclude a number of things.

To me the BB is mathematical philosophical speculation.

I generally don't take any science to be absolute in that it represents true reality.

 

[Jarhyn]

I consider the BB as mathematical philosophy, it can never be experimentally tested.

Hi Steve. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. We have many, many observations that confirm that the universe is expanding, so the theory is well tested in my opinion. I'm trying to understand what you mean by "experimentally tested". Thanks.

Also, hello and welcome!

The thing is, it's really difficult to test universal expansion in short time-frames because it would require going far enough away, coming straight back, and observing delta-v to return is greater than delta-v to go, and the margins in that calculation have to be extremely tight in the kinds of distances and time-frames humans can actually achieve so as to test expansion... Or to go far enough away towards a receding point in spacetime and see that it's expanded away from where it was before we got there, requiring more Delta-V than a non-expanding universal round trip.

I have no doubt that we would observe exactly what we would expect, but Steve does.