Mathematics, Discovered or Invented?

[muhammad_isa]

As I see it, our minds are like the software running on the hardware of our brains..

That is how I see it too..

Software 'affects' the physical hardware (obviously) and the hardware affects the software (again, obviously). So yes, our thoughts can affect our bodies and vice versa..

Again, we agree..

But the software cannot run without the hardware.

No, it can't.

Our minds only exist (as processes--running software) when there is the hardware to run them.

That would appear to be correct .. but it might well be able to "run" on a variety of hardware.
Naturally, interfaces with physical sight/smell/sound etc. are necessary in this universe, just as a display or printer would be for a PC.

So, the study of computer software is different than the study of computer hardware. So yes, the study of the mind is more than the study of the brain. But just as we cannot have running software without the hardware, we cannot have a mind without a physical substrate (for us, the brain).

At least, that is how I see it.

We seem to agree for once!

 

[Polymath257]

That is how I see it too..


Again, we agree..


No, it can't.


That would appear to be correct .. but it might well be able to "run" on a variety of hardware.

Might? Any actual evidence of this possibility? As far as I know, we have only seen minds 'run' on one type of hardware: brains. We *might* be able to get that complexity in silicon, but not soon.

Naturally, interfaces with physical sight/smell/sound etc. are necessary in this universe, just as a display or printer would be for a PC.

Yes, if we want any information about the real world, we need to have information coming from the real world. The mouse, keyboard, camera, etc for input (corresponding to senses) and display, printer, etc as output (corresponding to voluntary movement--signals to muscles, etc).

So, what are the concepts? They are 'subroutines' in our minds.

Conclusion: 2 is a concept and only exists in our minds. It is NOT independent of our minds.

We seem to agree for once!

 

[muhammad_isa]

Might? Any actual evidence of this possibility?

No .. no physical evidence .. but why would we need PHYSICAL hardware, in a non-physical environment?

You can of course ask what evidence I have of an alternative environment to this physical one.
..but these calls for physical evidence of the non-physical are pretty pointless.
i.e. I wouldn't expect to find physical evidence

Conclusion: 2 is a concept and only exists in our minds. It is NOT independent of our minds.

Errr ..no.
I cannot come to that conclusion. I do not believe that the cosmos (known and unknown) is
effectively something that is "dead" .. has no soul .. has no awareness.

 

[Polymath257]

No .. no physical evidence .. but why would we need PHYSICAL hardware, in a non-physical environment?

You can of course ask what evidence I have of an alternative environment to this physical one.
..but these calls for physical evidence of the non-physical are pretty pointless.
i.e. I wouldn't expect to find physical evidence

So, as far as evidence goes, it is completely equivalent to non-existence.

I *would* expect to find evidence of something that actually exists.

Errr ..no.
I cannot come to that conclusion.

And yet you admitted concepts exist only in our minds and that 2 is a concept. I am confused about your position.

I do not believe that the cosmos (known and unknown) is
effectively something that is "dead" .. has no soul .. has no awareness.

Well, there are *parts* of the cosmos that are aware (like human minds), but the vast majority is not. Stars, for example, are not aware in any sensible use of the term.

But I don't see why the cosmos needs to be aware. We are aware and that is sufficient for me.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I *would* expect to find evidence of something that actually exists.

How so? What sort of physical evidence would you expect to see?

And yet you admitted concepts exist only in our minds and that 2 is a concept.

No, I didn't .. a concept yes, but not confined to the human mind.

Well, there are *parts* of the cosmos that are aware (like human minds), but the vast majority is not. Stars, for example, are not aware in any sensible use of the term.

That is purely an assumption .. presumably based on the belief that awareness has its root
in the brain.
How does the size of the brain affect awareness, I wonder?

I believe that plants show signs of awareness, but have no brain.

But I don't see why the cosmos needs to be aware..

Not so much why, but more a question of what awareness actually represents.

 

[Alien826]

For example, if we use the 'taxicab' version of distance, circles are squares.

I looked this up and immediately noticed a flaw. It completely ignores the fact that a cab driver will choose the route that maximizes the fare. Therefore the shortest route is that taken by the most ethical driver, or the driver that has the least time to go before his lunch break.

 

[Polymath257]

How so? What sort of physical evidence would you expect to see?

Well, that would depend on how the non-physical interacts with the physical. Whatever interaction there is would have to apparently violate some law of physics. That violation would be physical evidence.

Part of my issue is that the notion of 'material' or 'physical' has a tendency to expand to contain *anything* that we actually have evidence for. Because of that, I am not at all sure it is even meaningful to talk about a non-physical thing that 'exists'. If it exists, it interacts. If it interacts, it leaves evidence of that interaction (by the changes induced from the interaction). That evidence *is* physical evidence. And that means that whatever interacted *is* physical, by the expanding definition of 'physical'.

Think of it like this: is light physical? Yes, it is. Why? Because it interacts with physical things in a way that can be detected.

How do we distinguish between something that does not exist and something that does? By having some symptom of the existence show up in some way (in other words, by an interaction). That is how we know neutrinos exist and what we do not know that unicorns exist. Until there is something that requires unicorns to exist to explain the phenomenon, it is unreasonable to assume unicorns exist.

The same is true of anything non-material.

No, I didn't .. a concept yes, but not confined to the human mind.

Where else do you see it?

That is purely an assumption .. presumably based on the belief that awareness has its root
in the brain.
How does the size of the brain affect awareness, I wonder?

Size alone isn't the relevant variable, as you know. Just like size of a microchip doesn't correlate with the abilities of the processor.

More relevant is the number and types of interconnections (for the brain, the neural connections).

So, any hardware is going to have to have complex connections between different pieces to allow the software to run.

I believe that plants show signs of awareness, but have no brain.

They show interactivity, but I'm not convinced that is the same as awareness. if that sort of interactivity is all you want, then we *know* that matter participates in that to a very great extent. Most of chemistry is looking at the specifics of those interactions.

Is a hydrogen atom 'aware' of an oxygen atom when it binds to help make a water molecule? In a sense, but not in the sense I find relevant.

Not so much why, but more a question of what awareness actually represents.

Well, matter is very interactive, contrary to the popular description of 'dead matter' (which is what happens when the main interactions have finished). The sun, for example, gets its energy from the interaction of protons with other protons and their derivatives. A very small fraction of that released energy drives almost all life on Earth (exceptions in deep sea vents).

Awareness, in my understanding, requires the ability to model an 'external world' and the individual's place in it. That seems to be limited to animals with brains.

 

[Heyo]

Circle only make sense if there is a notion of distance.

Is distance a concept that is invented or that is discovered?

For the circles you are thinking of, it probably requires a Euclidean plane. But we can define the concept in non-Euclidean contexts and beyond.

For example, if we use the 'taxicab' version of distance, circles are squares.

The "taxicab" version seems invented, while the Euclidean seems "natural" to me.

But we may get an answer to the question through AI. While it is impossible or at least unethical to raise children without a concept of numbers and see if they come up with it themselves (and if the concepts are congruent), we might be able to do it with AI. It won't be easy to find training data that isn't contaminated and one would have to be very careful when questioning the AI, but I see no reason that it can't be done.

 

[Polymath257]

Is distance a concept that is invented or that is discovered?

The "taxicab" version seems invented, while the Euclidean seems "natural" to me.

And yet, in many contexts, it is the taxicab metric that is more 'natural' and relevant.

I would say that both are invented to help us describe things we want to describe, just like in any language.

But we may get an answer to the question through AI. While it is impossible or at least unethical to raise children without a concept of numbers and see if they come up with it themselves (and if the concepts are congruent), we might be able to do it with AI. It won't be easy to find training data that isn't contaminated and one would have to be very careful when questioning the AI, but I see no reason that it can't be done.

I have no idea how that could be trained. Eliminating the concept of number from input would be tricky, to say the least.

But if that could be done (and, as you say, if the questioning is done correctly), I would highly doubt the concept of number would show up.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well, that would depend on how the non-physical interacts with the physical. Whatever interaction there is would have to apparently violate some law of physics. That violation would be physical evidence.

I don't know what you mean.
We know that "the mind" interacts with the physical, and can observe HOW it interacts..
..but we cannot "see thoughts" .. and a person who claims that we can observe activity in the brain
is all well and good, but I'm not aware of anybody who has made a device that can capture them.
..so theory only .. just like the non-physical that you object to .. theory only.

If it exists, it interacts.

What do you mean by exists .. in the "here and now" .. in this universe?

That evidence *is* physical evidence. And that means that whatever interacted *is* physical, by the expanding definition of 'physical'.

I think you're very confused.
There is no physical evidence of a phobia, but it still exists .. otherwise we could not discuss it.

So, any hardware is going to have to have complex connections between different pieces to allow the software to run.

Actually, for software to run, we only need a cpu & memory .. and a source of power, maybe 5 Volts

They show interactivity, but I'm not convinced that is the same as awareness..

..so many people say .. but as I don't think that a brain is necessary to experience awareness...

Awareness, in my understanding, requires the ability to model an 'external world' and the individual's place in it. That seems to be limited to animals with brains.

That's no more than an assumption .. just like it's an assumption that humans are somehow superior
to other creatures..
I wouldn't say that humans ARE superior to other creatures .. that would be a sweeping generalization.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't know what you mean.
We know that "the mind" interacts with the physical, and can observe HOW it interacts..
..but we cannot "see thoughts" .. and a person who claims that we can observe activity in the brain
is all well and good, but I'm not aware of anybody who has made a device that can capture them.
..so theory only .. just like the non-physical that you object to .. theory only.

Well, to a limited extent we *can* 'read minds' via brain scans. There is every indication that ability will only improve with improved scanners (not that I think we are wise enough to use that technology intelligently).

What do you mean by exists .. in the "here and now" .. in this universe?

What other definition do you offer?

I think you're very confused.
There is no physical evidence of a phobia, but it still exists .. otherwise we could not discuss it.

There certainly *is* physical evidence of phobias! Just watch someone who has a phobia: their *actions* will show their fear. That is a *very* physical effect of the phobia.

In fact, we very frequently detect *physical* evidence for emotions and thoughts: facial expressions, verbal descriptions, attraction or avoidance behavior. ALL of those are *physical* manifestations of the internal state.

Actually, for software to run, we only need a cpu & memory .. and a source of power, maybe 5 Volts

All of which are physical.

..so many people say .. but as I don't think that a brain is necessary to experience awareness...

Any evidence otherwise?

That's no more than an assumption .. just like it's an assumption that humans are somehow superior
to other creatures..
I wouldn't say that humans ARE superior to humans .. that would be a sweeping generalization.

Superior is a value-laden word. It assumes there is a fixed scale that is appropriate in all situations. That is clearly false.

 

[Heyo]

And yet, in many contexts, it is the taxicab metric that is more 'natural' and relevant.

I would say that both are invented to help us describe things we want to describe, just like in any language.

I have no idea how that could be trained. Eliminating the concept of number from input would be tricky, to say the least.

But if that could be done (and, as you say, if the questioning is done correctly), I would highly doubt the concept of number would show up.

A maths AI that wasn't told about prime numbers discovered them by itself. So prime numbers, as a concept, were discovered. (But that is with the axioms already in place.)

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well, to a limited extent we *can* 'read minds' via brain scans..

If you say so .. I don't believe it. I am not aware of any device that can translate brain-waves
into anything meaningful.
What language would they be in?

There is every indication that ability will only improve with improved scanners..

Yeah, but I will be dead by then .. I'm more concerned with that.

There certainly *is* physical evidence of phobias!

No .. that is observed RESULTS of a phobia.

You can say the same about love .. one can see the RESULTS of a person who "loves God",
but you can't actually see "the love" .. what the person is experiencing.

Superior is a value-laden word. It assumes there is a fixed scale that is appropriate in all situations. That is clearly false.

It IS false .. but the idea that we are intelligent, or more intelligent than others, and there IS no author
for all we see, is very common.

 

[Heyo]

If you say so .. I don't believe it. I am not aware of any device that can translate brain-waves
into anything meaningful.
What language would they be in?

Any language you like. AI makes non-invasive mind-reading possible by turning thoughts into text There are also AI assisted scanners which produce pictures. And while the above system requires an fMRI scanner, others work just on brain waves.
But even the most sophisticated brain scanner can't tell us if a concept is invented or discovered.

 

[Polymath257]

No .. that is observed RESULTS of a phobia.

And that is how we detect *anything*...by their results.

You can say the same about love .. one can see the RESULTS of a person who "loves God",
but you can't actually see "the love" .. what the person is experiencing.

Irrelevant. We detect neutrinos by their effects on other things. We detect the sun by the light it generates. We detect a couch either by sight (how it interacts with light) or touch (how it interacts with the sensors in our skin).

The *only* way to detect *anything* is by the results it produces.

It IS false .. but the idea that we are intelligent, or more intelligent than others, and there IS no author
for all we see, is very common.

Intelligence is a multi-pronged concept, not a singular one. For example, chimps are much better than humans on short term memory tasks.

 

[Ostronomos]

So, the study of computer software is different than the study of computer hardware. So yes, the study of the mind is more than the study of the brain. But just as we cannot have running software without the hardware, we cannot have a mind without a physical substrate (for us, the brain).

At least, that is how I see it.

And to my disappointment you would be wrong yet again. Again, the height of intellectual vanity.

The axioms, which you call woo, are logically sound. It is your atheist agenda that prevents you from conceding.

A novel metaphysical paradigm is knocking at our door. Christopher Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU), though it is currently underappreciated, is a theory of everything that has the potential to alter every facet of our world. In this short book, the author presents the core ideas of Langan's theory in a simple and straightforward manner, drawing stylistic inspiration from the illustrious philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343774593_Tractatus_Logico-Syndiffeonicus_Langan's_CTMU_in_Wittgensteinian_Format

The CTMU is logically sound. It's only flaw is that we lack the scientific technology to test it out. Hence where my axioms come in. I am hoping to bring Metaphysics into the realm of science one day.

 

[Ostronomos]

And I would say to to not go with the scientific method (test all ideas and require ideas to be testable) is to go beyond wisdom.

I like your pretentious appeal to authority here. The scientific method is very limited in its scope. It cannot even detect the parallel universes that were proven to exist by Langan and I.

You obviously lack wisdom, which is only found in God. Which leads me to believe you have an atheistic agenda.

 

[Ostronomos]

An introductory lesson on consciousness from the smartest man in America:

 

[muhammad_isa]

Any language you like. AI makes non-invasive mind-reading possible by turning thoughts into text There are also AI assisted scanners which produce pictures. And while the above system requires an fMRI scanner, others work just on brain waves..

Ah .. it appears to be legitimate .. May 2023.
..but not quite there.

In theory, there is no reason why it couldn't happen.
After all, the brain is a physical interface to our minds.

They might bring out a "wireless version" capable of operating at distances ~50 metres next.

 

[Polymath257]

And to my disappointment you would be wrong yet again. Again, the height of intellectual vanity.

The axioms, which you call woo, are logically sound. It is your atheist agenda that prevents you from conceding.

A novel metaphysical paradigm is knocking at our door. Christopher Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU), though it is currently underappreciated, is a theory of everything that has the potential to alter every facet of our world. In this short book, the author presents the core ideas of Langan's theory in a simple and straightforward manner, drawing stylistic inspiration from the illustrious philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343774593_Tractatus_Logico-Syndiffeonicus_Langan's_CTMU_in_Wittgensteinian_Format

The CTMU is logically sound. It's only flaw is that we lack the scientific technology to test it out. Hence where my axioms come in. I am hoping to bring Metaphysics into the realm of science one day.

Well, you are off to a very poor start.

First, you are very far from proving your axioms are sound. It seems to be your agenda that ignores that fact.

I like your pretentious appeal to authority here. The scientific method is very limited in its scope. It cannot even detect the parallel universes that were proven to exist by Langan and I.

No such universes have been proved to exist. At best, they are rather vague nonsense. At worst, they are simply meaningless.

You obviously lack wisdom, which is only found in God. Which leads me to believe you have an atheistic agenda.

No agenda except for finding truth. I see none in your claims.