What came first?

[Kharakov]

What exists either exists on its own or is caused to exist by something else.

Nothing just exists on it's own.

Nothing existing within time is eternal. That is an invented religious concept. It is not a rational possibility.

So without doubt all that we can observe in some way was caused to exist.

And caused by something unknowable.

Something that does not need a cause to exist.

Sure unter, whatever you assert without reason is logical, as long as you state it is reasonable and logical while providing absolutely no support for it. That's the way it works. Glad you're here to teach us.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Nothing just exists on it's own.

Nothing existing within time is eternal. That is an invented religious concept. It is not a rational possibility.

So without doubt all that we can observe in some way was caused to exist.

And caused by something unknowable.

Something that does not need a cause to exist.

"Nothing just exists on it's own" and then there's "something that does not need a cause to exist"?!

Seems like a straightforward contradiction to me.
EB

 

[untermensche]

What exists either exists on its own or is caused to exist by something else.

Nothing just exists on it's own.

Nothing existing within time is eternal. That is an invented religious concept. It is not a rational possibility.

So without doubt all that we can observe in some way was caused to exist.

And caused by something unknowable.

Something that does not need a cause to exist.

Sure unter, whatever you assert without reason is logical, as long as you state it is reasonable and logical while providing absolutely no support for it. That's the way it works. Glad you're here to teach us.

It's all been defended ad nauseam.

No rational argument can be made against it.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing just exists on it's own.

Nothing existing within time is eternal. That is an invented religious concept. It is not a rational possibility.

So without doubt all that we can observe in some way was caused to exist.

And caused by something unknowable.

Something that does not need a cause to exist.

"Nothing just exists on it's own" and then there's "something that does not need a cause to exist"?!

Seems like a straightforward contradiction to me.
EB

Nothing that we can observe exists on it's own.

All we can observe cannot have caused itself.

That would mean it existed before it existed.

And all we can observe cannot have existed forever. That is irrational nonsense.

Only one option left.

It was caused by something else. Something we cannot observe or understand in any way.

 

[Kharakov]

Ignoring unter's standard thread flooding baseless assertions, I'm still wondering if we can arrive at the idea of whether there has to be a qualia organizing principle that is preeminent to all other physics.

If we could determine that there has to be (for some logical reason like, it would be madness otherwise... maybe we should ask Qualia Soup about it...) for our intellects to exist, we could progress to other questions like:

Are qualia contained as potential in hadrons? Are there specifically shaped 3+ dimensional "symbols" or mathematically shaped objects or fields that allow them into spacetime? Do they have an inverse square law transmission radius? Does spacetime consume them, does matter let them loose, is it the opposite?

What are the physics of qualia?

 

[untermensche]

Ignoring unter's standard thread flooding baseless assertions, I'm still wondering if we can arrive at the idea of whether there has to be a qualia organizing principle that is preeminent to all other physics.

If we could determine that there has to be (for some logical reason like, it would be madness otherwise... maybe we should ask Qualia Soup about it...) for our intellects to exist, we could progress to other questions like:

Are qualia contained as potential in hadrons? Are there specifically shaped 3+ dimensional "symbols" or mathematically shaped objects or fields that allow them into spacetime? Do they have an inverse square law transmission radius? Does spacetime consume them, does matter let them loose, is it the opposite?

What are the physics of qualia?

If they were baseless you and any others who tried to dispute them but could not would just in unison show the errors of the positions that have been defended for hundreds of pages. Several times.

Eternal existence of all that can be observed in some way is a religious invention. It defies reason and of course has no evidence or argument to support it.

 

[Kharakov]

Holy crap- since unter argued against the eternal existence of all that can be observed (all qualia), they must exist eternally.

Does this mean that there exists something that determines which qualia can enter our conscious experience? Is there a way that qualia can be created without some basic form of material that they exist within as potentialities that can be unlocked?

Don't they have to exist as part of a whole that can be partially blocked, rather than created brand new from something that is entirely unlike themselves?

 

[bilby]

Holy crap- since unter argued against the eternal existence of all that can be observed (all qualia), they must exist eternally.

Does this mean that there exists something that determines which qualia can enter our conscious experience? Is there a way that qualia can be created without some basic form of material that they exist within as potentialities that can be unlocked?

Don't they have to exist as part of a whole that can be partially blocked, rather than created brand new from something that is entirely unlike themselves?

No, it just means that unter doesn't require validity (much less soundness) of his logical constructs, and is therefore able to prove to his own satisfaction anything he chooses to believe.

Sadly for him, reality is not so accommodating. But as long as he doesn't have to expose his ideas to anything resembling reality, it all works for him.

 

[Kharakov]

So you're saying that unter's consistently being incorrect about almost everything is not evidence that things unter opposes are likely to be true?

 

[untermensche]

Holy crap- since unter argued against the eternal existence of all that can be observed (all qualia), they must exist eternally.

As far as I have seen your incredible argument consists of.

Nothing can begin. Therefore all that can be observed is eternal.

Or some form of this.

It is not a rational argument.

It does not consider that all that can be observed could have been started by something that is nothing like all that can be observed.

A perfectly logical argument.

 

[fromderinside]

Just how does nothing begin? Forget it. It's nothing. So...... nothing to begin.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing means no thing.

 

[Kharakov]

Just how does nothing begin? Forget it. It's nothing. So...... nothing to begin.

Nothing never happened.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ignoring unter's standard thread flooding baseless assertions, I'm still wondering if we can arrive at the idea of whether there has to be a qualia organizing principle that is preeminent to all other physics.

If we could determine that there has to be (for some logical reason like, it would be madness otherwise... maybe we should ask Qualia Soup about it...) for our intellects to exist, we could progress to other questions like:

Are qualia contained as potential in hadrons? Are there specifically shaped 3+ dimensional "symbols" or mathematically shaped objects or fields that allow them into spacetime? Do they have an inverse square law transmission radius? Does spacetime consume them, does matter let them loose, is it the opposite?

What are the physics of qualia?

I would make the distinction between the issue of qualia as representation and that of the qualia in themselves.

As representation, the physics to uncover is the one explaining what it is the brain does exactly, one the one hand, and then why it is that we should experience what our brain does as qualia.

Qualia in themselves? That's a very different question. As I see it, qualia are the only things we know, and therefore the only things we're sure exist and exist as we experience them. Compared to that, our perception of the physical is second hand because we only become aware of the physical world through our qualia. It seems more reasonable, therefore, to assume that reality overall is quale-like, and this is a very different perspective from the one we currently have. Consequently, it is the physics of the physical world which has to change, and in a radical way.

Yet, I'm rather pessimistic as to whether we're up to the task.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

<snip>
As I see it, qualia are the only things we know, and therefore the only things we're sure exist and exist as we experience them. Compared to that, our perception of the physical is second hand because we only become aware of the physical world through our qualia. It seems more reasonable, therefore, to assume that reality overall is quale-like, and this is a very different perspective from the one we currently have. Consequently, it is the physics of the physical world which has to change, and in a radical way.

Yet, I'm rather pessimistic as to whether we're up to the task.
EB

Just as a back bencher making an observation physical understanding is the only way qualia can be reasonably organized. After all it is physics at the base of providing our ability to represent qualia and for experiencing qualia at all. Also it would help if we remembered philosophers named qualia as elements of experiencing information humans process from the outside world. Rather than reorgainzing physics we should be discussing how information gathered is organized in the NS.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The thought process can cause illogical reasoning to cause people to think that uncaused things can begin to exist. Do you really want to attempt to defend such an illogical idea?

Clearly, you're at a loss to explain what would be illogical exactly in the idea of uncaused existence.

I don't need to defend the logicality of this idea. All I have to do is ask you to point at any logical contradiction there might be between the ideas of being uncaused and of being in existence. It's up to you now.

Appeal to ignorance doesn't lead to "logical" reasons for something to spontaneously start existing without cause. Perhaps you're thinking of things that exist as potential until the right conditions are meet in which they can become actuated- but existing as only a potential to exist is still existing.

No. I just admitted I don't know of any logical contradiction in the idea of uncaused existence. So, if you think you know better, we're all listening what contradiction you think there is.

Just to give you an idea of the difficulty of the task, the idea of God is also the idea of something that would exist without having been caused to exist.

Things aren't eternal if they are caused by something else. They started to exist- this means they didn't always exist. Playing fast and loose with words (eternal things started) is the formula for... well, using words incorrectly, not arriving at valid conclusions/concepts about reality.

It's you who is using words wrongly. I talked of "eternal things being possibly caused by something else", I didn't talk of these things as "started". And indeed, in my view, something eternal couldn't be said to have started.

Rather, the idea is that the cause would exist in a different time dimension and it would be the whole dimension that would be caused to exist. So, whatever eternal would exist in it wouldn't have to start and could have always existed within that dimension.

Frankly, I would have thought that people familiar with mathematical reasoning would understand that kind of ideas straight away.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Just as a back bencher making an observation physical understanding is the only way qualia can be reasonably organized. After all it is physics at the base of providing our ability to represent qualia and for experiencing qualia at all. Also it would help if we remembered philosophers named qualia as elements of experiencing information humans process from the outside world. Rather than reorgainzing physics we should be discussing how information gathered is organized in the NS.

Go for it, you Bright Angel.

That being said, I can't see how physics as we currently think of it could possibly be underpinning our qualia.

I think it's also fair to say that nobody can, at least for now.

And I'm not aware of even the beginning of a scientific explanation.

But, yeah, go for it. What's stopping you?
EB

 

[untermensche]

Ignoring unter's standard thread flooding baseless assertions, I'm still wondering if we can arrive at the idea of whether there has to be a qualia organizing principle that is preeminent to all other physics.

If we could determine that there has to be (for some logical reason like, it would be madness otherwise... maybe we should ask Qualia Soup about it...) for our intellects to exist, we could progress to other questions like:

Are qualia contained as potential in hadrons? Are there specifically shaped 3+ dimensional "symbols" or mathematically shaped objects or fields that allow them into spacetime? Do they have an inverse square law transmission radius? Does spacetime consume them, does matter let them loose, is it the opposite?

What are the physics of qualia?

I would make the distinction between the issue of qualia as representation and that of the qualia in themselves.

As representation, the physics to uncover is the one explaining what it is the brain does exactly, one the one hand, and then why it is that we should experience what our brain does as qualia.

Qualia in themselves? That's a very different question. As I see it, qualia are the only things we know, and therefore the only things we're sure exist and exist as we experience them. Compared to that, our perception of the physical is second hand because we only become aware of the physical world through our qualia. It seems more reasonable, therefore, to assume that reality overall is quale-like, and this is a very different perspective from the one we currently have. Consequently, it is the physics of the physical world which has to change, and in a radical way.

Yet, I'm rather pessimistic as to whether we're up to the task.
EB

To talk about "qualia" is to make the human consciousness somehow the center and determinant of reality.

Qualia are a feature of brains, nothing else.

Qualia arrived long after there was existence and are not a necessary feature of existence.

 

[Kharakov]

Clearly, you're at a loss to explain what would be illogical exactly in the idea of uncaused existence.

Murkily, I never argued against uncaused existence. I said that it is illogical (include abductive reasoning) to think that something uncaused began to exist.

Yes, anything eternal would be uncaused, I guess, but this somehow seems to hide from you this other interesting idea that there could be things not eternal and yet uncaused.

I interpreted what you said as if you intended not eternal to mean "with a beginning" as opposed to being "with an end" because of the context. That should be an assumed premise (you mean 'with a beginning' by 'not eternal'), given the conversation, right?

I don't need to defend the logicality of this idea. All I have to do is ask you to point at any logical contradiction there might be between the ideas of being uncaused and of being in existence. It's up to you now.

Ehh, pretty sure there are plenty of uncaused things. There are plenty of unintended caused things as well. There are plenty of causally related things. Not really sure where the idea that I claimed something has to be caused to exist came into play, since I specifically referenced an argument that begins something like "anything that exists either is uncaused, or caused to exist by something else".

No. I just admitted I don't know of any logical contradiction in the idea of uncaused existence. So, if you think you know better, we're all listening what contradiction you think there is.

Logical includes abductive reasoning, so I'm not sure why you're hunting for a contradiction. We all know that it's logically possible to have an IPU in the room with us, and if it's the NCIPU (no clipping (clipping is collision detection) IPU) we can't even detect it by it knocking over the coffee table, since it won't.

We can use abductive reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that there isn't a NCIPU in the room, even though it is quite obvious that there is. It's breathing on your ear, you just don't feel it because it's a NCIPU.

It's you who is using words wrongly. I talked of "eternal things being possibly caused by something else", I didn't talk of these things as "started". And indeed, in my view, something eternal couldn't be said to have started.

I never started wrongly using words.

Rather, the idea is that the cause would exist in a different time dimension and it would be the whole dimension that would be caused to exist. So, whatever eternal would exist in it wouldn't have to start and could have always existed within that dimension.

Yeah, so what? The problem I had was the whole "not eternal but uncaused". The dimension, in the above cause, is caused by something in another dimension, so it's not uncaused, even though it is not eternal.

Frankly, I would have thought that people familiar with mathematical reasoning would understand that kind of ideas straight away.
EB

What, wrong ideas?

 

[fromderinside]

Just as a back bencher making an observation physical understanding is the only way qualia can be reasonably organized. After all it is physics at the base of providing our ability to represent qualia and for experiencing qualia at all. Also it would help if we remembered philosophers named qualia as elements of experiencing information humans process from the outside world. Rather than reorgainzing physics we should be discussing how information gathered is organized in the NS.

Go for it, you Bright Angel.

That being said, I can't see how physics as we currently think of it could possibly be underpinning our qualia.

I think it's also fair to say that nobody can, at least for now.

And I'm not aware of even the beginning of a scientific explanation.

But, yeah, go for it. What's stopping you?
EB

I think my discussion of what a person perceived as the color of a car in sunlight and sodium light goes to that point. We know the sky is blue. Yet, at night it is black. We know that the color of the car normally seen in sunlight if red, but, when seen at night illuminated by sodium light it is blue.

We have in our repertoire the quale red, blue, and car. If we afix red to the red car we are seeing it in sunlight. On the other hand when we see the same car as blue we are probably seeing it in sodium light at night. Yet when we come to describe the car it is experienced and represented, communicated, as a red car.

This leads me to rules for communication and the processing of the brain of the information received through our senses and kept in our memories. For one to communicate to another and for the other to receive the meaning of the information transmitted by the sender each must have common templates for processing what is being transmitted. Among those rules are common experience, reference, permitting the rise of individual Rosetta stones in each.

In the above example lies the basis for existence of quale which is also common to properties of light which related to how the brain processes the information received by viewing the light of objects and environments.

From here it is possible to project the processes through both abduction and induction by the brain that carry out parsing perceptions into quale and experiences.

I'd remove consideration of dirty qualia. Tha category is not necessary because they are deemed so for too apparent physical relationships. It becomes obvious that quale are physically derived from information processing and communication requirements.