Tell me what you believe.

Author: Wrick-It-Ralph

Posts

Total: 353
#91
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
You still haven't explained mathematical synergy.
False. Your still play your ego based mental blockages to ignnorance of truth with regurgitating a false-gum, mind game. Sad :--(

PLease take a hike until you can,

1} place your ego to the side, and,

2} actually use any signifciantly rational, logical common sense, that,

3} addresses my comments as stated/presented,and,

4} stop your false accusations in regards to me.

Topic's author
#92
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
False. Your still play your ego based mental blockages to ignnorance of truth with regurgitating a false-gum, mind game. Sad :--(

Okay, if you've explained it, then cite specifically where you explained it to me instead of just saying "false" like that means anything.   I'm being quite patient with you in trying to figure out what you're talking about and you're making every effort to ensure that I never do.  So just give me the comment number or internet link showing what mathematical synergy is and be done with it.  Otherwise, you're just being rude. 
#93
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I would explain it to them because that's how people work.

Been there done that and your ego blocks all access to my explanations of truth  to you Sad :--(

Topic's author
#94
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness

Been there done that and your ego blocks all access to my explanations of truth  to you Sad :--(

The only thing blocking me from knowing about your position is you.  I've asked several times for an explanation of mathematical synergy and you will not explain it, nor will you provide me with a comment number of when you explained it, nor will you provide me a link that explains it.  so who's really blocking whom here? 


Just provide me with the information and put your ego aside please. 
#95
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Unless everyone has the same cues we are talking about something that is subjective to the individual. Admitting that different species have different moral cues is tantamount to admitting that morality is subjective when we examine the fact that people don't even necessarily share them well... As for universal morality that would be the only objective morality and I don't believe that exists.
Topic's author
#96
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Unless everyone has the same cues we are talking about something that is subjective to the individual. Admitting that different species have different moral cues is tantamount to admitting that morality is subjective when we examine the fact that people don't even necessarily share them well... As for universal morality that would be the only objective morality and I don't believe that exists.

That's not how objectivity works.  Objective doesn't mean "the same for every person"  That's universal.   


Objective means "true regardless of one's opinion"

So it doesn't matter how many cues there are or who has them.  If the cues function the way they do regardless of our opinions, then they're objective.  

Now if you want to say our assessment of those cues could be subjective, then I would agree.  

But what you're really saying is that the cues aren't universal which has nothing to due with objectivity. 



#97
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Okay, if you've explained it, then cite specifically where you explained it to me
OMG, 50 or more posts  later you want me to put out the effort to point you to messages by me that you,

1} truly did not read,

2} read and ignore,

3} read ignnored by blocking out truth and then,

4} falsely accuse me of not supplying you with clear and concise explanations.

I think you not only immoral in these regards by lazy also.  More signs of immaturity.

Here is list of my posts referencing synergetic processes;

1} #33

2} #41

3} #53, --take special note of LINK you appear to have ignored--

4} #76 ---take special note of LINK you appear to have ignored--


#98
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
If the cues function the way they do regardless of our opinions, then they're objective.  
That is very like saying "if the mechanisms by which we form opinions function the way they function  regardless of our opinion then they are objective.

Sounds a little silly and renders the word objective and subjective mostly meaningless. Perhaps I am misinterpreting something but if so You will have to explain exactly what it is.
Topic's author
#99
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Sure, so.  It's true that I could form an opinion off of the objective cue and it would completely be subjective, you got me there. 

However.  Because the cue is objective, we can develop a standard of assessment that is universal.  A good example would be math.   2 + 2 = 4 is objective even though our definitions of the numbers are subjective.  The idea of addition is subjective.  The idea of equality is subjective.  But once we have made these subjective ideas, We can then make objective standards off of them.  


So there's a kind of trade off between the two.   The part that makes it objective is once we all agree on the standard.  So once we all agree that morality is based on this objective cue, while it's true that us naming it morality is technically subjective.  The assessment we make off the standard is objective because we're not leaving it to opinion anymore.  

I'm not saying that morality is intrinsic or universal or a living breathing thing.  I'm just saying that when people talk about morality, in some way or another, they're talking about that objective cue that we get.  


It's not that people have different opinions about murder being wrong.  Everyone who has that cue (which is everyone but psychopaths) believes murder is wrong.   But once we add opinions to it after the fact, then people get bogged down in the details and add up at conclusions that don't match their cues. 


That's why I made the comment about peeling the layers off.   People take that initial objective thing and then add cultural opinions to it.  But when we don't do this, we get an objective morality.  


For instance.  A Christian sees the bible as a book with moral edicts, so they conflate biblical morality with that cue and this adds their opinion.   


If we just took the cues as they were and applied particularism to them, we get something the equivalent of moral math.  That's about as objective as it gets.  


#100
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I never said we could not make objective statements about morality provided we can agree on a subjective standard. Is that your main objection? 

If it is not then let me address this
Everyone who has that cue (which is everyone but psychopaths) believes murder is wrong.
The part in parentheses is tantamount to admitting that murder is only subjectively immoral.
#101
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
That we have these cues may be an objective fact (if human beings can ever know objective truth) but the morals derived from them are indistinguishable from subjective opinion.
Topic's author
#102
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
That's my objection, you saying it's subjective because It's not universal.  That doesn't make it subjective.   People's opinions about murder don't change the cue.  That's the part where we disagree because I fully believe that you're mixing up objectivity with universality. 
Topic's author
#103
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
You can't say the psychopath has subjective morals because the psychopath doesn't have the cue and therefore has no opinion about it whatsoever. 
#104
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
...doesn't have the cue...
Cue = initiating factor{ signal } and that factor can be an occupied space experience by self or other.

 Objective experience precedes subjective metaphysical-1, morals.

Simple, not complex to grasp. 
Topic's author
#105
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
indeed.  what's your point?  Subjective can precede objective as well.  Chess is a good example.  The rules are subjective and the assessments are objective.  
#106
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
indeed.  what's your point?
Read and reread again. Untill you get all points of what is stated.
Cue = initiating factor{ signal } and that factor can be an occupied space experience by self or other.

 Objective experience precedes subjective metaphysical-1, morals.

Simple, not complex to grasp.

Subjective can precede objective as well.
Human has to exist prior to any "subjective" being applied.  You really need to get past obvious truths first.

Human purpose

1} objectively harvest information { bits } via occupied space existence as a human,

2} sort  the incoming information,

3} winnow out patterns and principles,

4}subjectively apply those patterns and principles to technologies that support humans, the ecology that sustains them and the integrity of Universe.

Simple, not difficult to grasp

Topic's author
#107
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
Yes, humans have to exist first.  That has nothing to do with a baseline subjective leading into an objective.  Do you deny that it goes both ways.   Can Objective go into subjective and then back into objective?  Because that's all I'm really saying. 

#108
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Yes, humans have to exist first.
Great now we have three win/wins beetween us.

  That has nothing to do with a baseline subjective leading into an objective.
The baseling is occupied space existence and oll human experiences thereof..

  Do you deny that it goes both ways.   Can Objective go into subjective and then back into objective?
Ive already made clear in #4 below.  You appear to have missed, or consciously ignored.
Human purpose

1} objectively harvest information { bits } via occupied space existence as a human,

2} sort  the incoming information,

3} winnow out patterns and principles,

4}subjectively apply those patterns and principles to technologies that support humans, the ecology that sustains them and the integrity of Universe.

Simple, not difficult to grasp


Topic's author
#109
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
fair enough 

#110
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
fair enough
So 4 win/wins between us. Alos ive never ever attempted to be anything but "fair" { ergo moral } with others.

#111
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Do you think your consciousness is ultimately physical or metaphysical? 
I really don't know. What would make more sense for my belief to be true, is that my consciousness is incorporeal (i think that's what you mean by metaphysical). There are a whole bunch of platforms that would make this possible, mainly in the monism spectrum. All those (or most) platforms would give me what i believe too. These platforms also fit into your collective consciousness too. There are other platforms that give me my belief where i'm physical, matrix type stuff, and/or a platform where i'm a human somewhere else but i've chosen this simulation. However, here is my reasoning for why i don't think those platforms are true. 

In those platforms, if i'm physical... i probably am also finite. If i am a finite being simulated into this reality, then i know 100% i wouldn't choose this reality based off who i am. If i have a finite time to watch movies or play video games... i'm going to play my favorites. That's a loose analogy bc i do watch some stuff i don't like... but, downloading into simulations is a lot different bc i know what i'm doing... playing realities until i die. I wouldn't bother playing this reality, however i would be here if i'm infinite. Now, if i'm infinite in a physical form... that can also be the case like matrix... but, then, i don't see any difference bw if the platform is corporeal or incorporeal. It basically be the same thing. However, being incorporeal kinda fits better into being infinite... it's just a logical guess. 

I've heard of your collective consciousness belief and it seems to be backed up by some science. However, i don't understand why you stop at just here, or a cycle of this reality. This reality could be just one of either many or infinite. In monisitic type platforms, we are a collective too, however, there is a source consciousness behind it that is everything... i think even that has some scientific correlations too.. but mainly in the form of collective consciousness. I just don't understand why you would be hesitant to make that jump.

It could be just who i am. As far back as i can remember as a child, i "knew" i'm not from this reality. I lost that child for awhile, but i'm starting to get back to him. He was a smart little turd. But, it's not only these memories that have steered me to what i believe... i've had multiple "spiritual" experiences that seem to line up with what i believe too. Now, i can't directly correlate them but they do give me clues such as precognition type experiences. So, i'm working with the best evidence i have so far to make this tentative conclusion. If it was "only" a collective consciousness, it wouldn't make sense of all my experiences.

I believe there is a "self" that has always been you... a self that has been consistent throughout the years and hasn't changed. I think that self will continue after death. Not your identity...etc. Things that have been created here. I think you can tap into remembering this experience, but as an outside observer. So, i believe i have a true self in that sense. Does everyone... i have no clue (and don't really care). But it would fit into the platforms if they did. I say i don't care, bc everyone's experience is their own. Just like i can't figure out why someone would drink their own urine to stay young... i really don't want to try and figure out everyone's afterlife the same. I have no clue why people do what they do, or what they are to the platforms. All i know is in an infinite consciousness type platform... every type should exist and that's what it seems i'm looking at.   

Btw... i'm at work so i didn't have time to read back or make sure i'm using words carefully.. so that's that. Let me know you questions or if you want me to elaborate on anything. 
Topic's author
#112
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@Outplayz
incorporeal would be one example of something that's metaphysical yes.  metaphysical simply means "at or beyond the limit of physics"  So it could be something that we know 100% but in this case I was talking about that which goes beyond our knowledge.  My only real problem with being incorporeal would be if it was define as being non interactive, that is to say it can't affect reality. 

My problem with that would be that if something cannot interact with reality, it could not affect it either, so this causes a problem of "how is it making me conscious if it doesn't interact"  so for me.  Being incorporeal would have to have some physical aspect to it at least enough for us to interact with it even if we can't necessarily observe it directly.  That also means that it could ultimately be detected with the best possible technology. (hypothetically speaking)

Do you believe that we're in a simulation? I'd be interested to discuss that as well. I have pretty good personal reasons why I don't believe that, but a lot of people disagree with me because of the nature of skepticism in the modern era. 

I personally think being corporeal can fit into infinite existence.  Not if you believe in singular minds having afterlives.  But if you believe in a collective consciousness like I do, then a corporeal and infinite cyclic universe works.  I know most people cite heat death here.  but heat death assumes that we're in a closed system which is unprovable with our current technology. 

That's a good question.  the reason I stop at the physical is because I've seen no good evidence of anything beyond the physical.  I would be willing to entertain the idea if we had some sort of scientific jump off point, like if we could get the right data out of near death experience for instance.  But so far, such attempts have not yielded sufficient results in my opinion. 

Basically, I'm sticking with a physical model until it is apparent to me that physical is not enough to complete the model.  If I reached the point where it just couldn't work without something bigger, then I would probably start asking the supernatural question to myself.  I'm trying to find the right metric between healthy skepticism and healthy acceptance of apparent proofs. I believe going in either end too far is vacuous.   It's not that I wouldn't welcome things like alternate realities and such either, but I would need a reason for it to be in the model and I would expect us to approach it scientifically regardless of how much mystic it might have.  I know this limits my imagination a hair.  But I'm okay with it. 

I mean, I've had strange experiences that felt spiritual at the time, but seemed quite mundane when I looked back on it as a skeptic.  I used to think the walls were breathing sometimes.  But as an adult, I now know that's sleep deprivation.  I used to think I could meditate to control the weather, but I realized that my body could feel moisture in the air before it rained. etc. 

That's where we would heavily diverge.  I don't believe that my individual mind has always existed.   I believe that I'm just a collection of particles that have always existed and had consciousness and that when they break apart they'll form new minds that are nothing like mine except that they used a few of my particles.  So in that sense, I will live on I suppose.  There could be a case for maybe a collective conscious that has "agents" at their core.  So the agent is the individual mind and the collectives are kind  of like conductors or railroad tracks, however you want to think of it.  Extensions of the agents.  I'm not totally against that idea but it's an extra assumption so I'd need a good reason to assume it.  Give me one and I will, lol.  certainly agency would be nice if it was true. 



#113
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I believe that I'm just a collection of particles that have always existed and had consciousness and that when they break apart they'll form new minds that are nothing like mine except that they used a few of my particle
You believe particles have consciousness?

Topic's author
#114
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@keithprosser
I believe that some do yes.  At the very least, I believe they fully account for it.  i.e. the brain appears to be only particles.   The extra step further is merely a hypothesis, but it's intuitive to me and I can't force myself to not believe it, lol. 
#115
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I find the idea of conscious electrons very unlikely...
Topic's author
#116
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@keithprosser
Well, for me. It's a matter of necessity.  That is to say that when we attempt to account for everything, we have nothing to account for consciousness that is not a particle, so based on our current information, it seems likely that whatever causes us to "view" reality is contained within that set somewhere.  I'm not saying it has to be electrons.  It could be something less basic or possibly more basic.  It could be quarks when arranged properly, it could be proteins.  The reason I tend to sit on the atomic level because that seems to be the most likely spot for it to manifest. 
Topic's author
#117
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@keithprosser
I think carbon is a likely candidate since conscious things all have carbon as far as I know.  
#118
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
My hunch is that consciousness occurs in complex structures, not in individual particles...  I'd like to e ale to prove that by building a conscious computer... but I can't!   The failure to invent an 'artificial conscuiousness' is spectacular... computing maybe 'smarter' nowadays, but no one has the faintest idea how to give a robot subjective experience.   If monist physicaism is true it should be possible - so why hasn't it been done?  I have no idea, but I don't think it's time to give up yet...
Topic's author
#119
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@keithprosser
I think the main problem with AI is that we can't give it sensory ability on the level of organism.  Humans do all kinds of millions of micro assessment of their environment and we do it using organs that are preprogrammed to work a certain way.  computer programs don't have that intuitive function and have to be programmed so this makes sensory functions an issue.  I'm a coding nerd so the problems with AI are apparent to me as I've had to make AI for my crappy games that I make when I'm bored, lol. 

I think that the level of consciousness we experience definitely requires complexity.  However, That doesn't mean there can't also be a more basic form of consciousness.  

Amoebas appear to have good decision making skills and they're quite simplistic in terms of structure, so there is some small reason to believe that agency is not what we think it is. 
#120
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I think carbon is a likely candidate since conscious things all have carbon as far as I know.
Tetrahedral set of four electrons.  Simple consciousness is two or more entities. Aka otherneess.

Ex two electrons have a most basic awareness of each other via charge repulsion and gravity.  Simple, not difficult to grasp.

Woman is  most complex entity of Universe, barring ideas of two or more women ergo a planet or galaxey with many  people is of course more complex than any single individual.

Plants do not have a nervous system but are they conscious of the sun? Yes, it is a more simple version of consciousness, awareness aka otherness.

And we can keep reducing this most  complex set of  consciouness to least complex set the graviton and darkion as one quanta and my preliminary explorations arrive at 78 lines-of-relationship for the 13 nodal points of the truncated dipyramid I associate with the darkion//graviton quanta.

Simple not complex. Relatively speaking.