Author Topic: Freedom and Free Will  (Read 7671 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

January 13, 2016, 03:41:11 AM
Reply #60

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
@Steve: That gave me a great laugh right after waking up and checking my phone :D. I hope it's clear I didn't mean you but some average Bob out there :D.

January 14, 2016, 01:43:34 PM
Reply #61

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Quote
This is important to the topic because it is an accurate way we can model consciousness and what will is.
Are you fucking kidding? I don't even know where to begin with this. How about no scientist, or group of scientists, whom have much grander credentials, skills, and experience than you have, has been able to crack the code on consciousness. You can't just up and make something and think that you're modeling it after something that nobody else can figure out.

Your friend is driving. You're in the passenger seat. You come to an intersection. Going left will take you to his favourite restaurant. Going right will take you to yours. Each of you really wants to go to your favourite restaurant, but he's driving. You *could* use telepathy to influence him to drive to your favourite restaurant.

You can telepathically influence a decision a person makes via manipulating the experience associated with that decision. That is the idea behind telepathic illusions - or any illusion, really. In other words, an experience can be mapped to a decision so that the decision is a function of that experience. That fits into what I have been saying, for I've been saying experience is a vector where a decision is a function of that vector. A telepathic illusion would thus take advantage of that mapping. In other words, the entire situation you set up would utilize, mechanically, what I have described. An illusion plays around with the perception of something which has a mutual relationship with how the experience is apprehended where this is mapped to the decision so that the decision is a function of that experience. This is the framework I have outlined. In terms of Biology, when mutation happens that changes the perception of an organism(like things that change sensory organs or how it is interpreted), it is typically accompanied with behavioral changes, too, so you have empirical cases in nature.Really there is no form of telepathic suggestion that is not contingent on impacting the experience of a person to manipulate their choices in whichever paradigm you operate in, because whatever choice a person makes is a function of their experience. The ability for me to optimally influence that friend would lie in me taking for granted that whatever choice they could make takes place in the context of them having consciousness that has experiences.


This is the definition of function that is being used:
Quote
In mathematics, a function[1] is a relation between a set of inputs and a set of permissible outputs with the property that each input is related to exactly one output. An example is the function that relates each real number x to its square x2. The output of a function f corresponding to an input x is denoted by f(x) (read "f of x"). In this example, if the input is −3, then the output is 9, and we may write f(−3) = 9. Likewise, if the input is 3, then the output is also 9, and we may write f(3) = 9. (The same output may be produced by more than one input, but each input gives only one output.) The input variable(s) are sometimes referred to as the argument(s) of the function.

Secondly, I do agree that I am not the arbiter on how other people will discuss things, but I am the arbiter for my own intended meanings. So when you say "infinities in relation to mathematics", and I say "infinities in relation to linguistics", then we may hate each others definitions and tell each other to get on track with what each of us is talking about, but I can't go ahead and redefine your use of the term infinities in relation to linguistics unless you just don't bother to relate it yourself. Which you often don't do as you assume I know which definition you're using out of many.

So on that topic, have you ever heard the word "Jargon" before?

I don't believe in grounding paradigms such as psi in semantics or convention, alone, because it leads to arbitrary frameworks that lack objectivity, so you really are not going to get me discussing this outside of it. I believe that mathematical frameworks are the most objective, so I am going to ground what I am saying in it. Sorry. If my use of jargon or the paradigm I operate within bothers you, don't read or respond to what I have to say. For example, I found several of your comments inflammatory and inappropriate(the uncalled for profanity is very uncouth), but I am not responding to them specifically; you have the same freedom. I believe how you are modeling things is inferior, so I will not be using it and I explained why I would not. I am also not redefining what you are saying; rather, I am acknowledging what you have said and am, instead, proposing a different paradigm and interpretation to use where I believe what I am proposing is more accurate. After this sentence, I will not be repeating myself on that matter like I am deciding to not respond to other points I find repetitive.

If you sincerely believe we are at an impasse or that this conversation is not meaningful, you do not have to participate in it just like I am deciding the scope of what I will respond to. My responses have kept with my stance that people do have free will. I have endeavored to support my stance. The topic is about free will. The issue is that we disagree and we disagree because of how we are modeling it. You can't just tell a person to use your model if they disagree with you about that model being used. I am not going define free will normatively because I believe normative definitions of free will are lacking, so you will just keep getting jargon from me.   
« Last Edit: January 14, 2016, 07:14:16 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 14, 2016, 08:01:44 PM
Reply #62

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Quote from: Rayn
You can telepathically influence a decision a person makes via manipulating the experience associated with that decision.
Thank you for not jumping into minute details about things that don't need to be gone into in order to get your point across.

Quote from: Rayn
In other words, the entire situation you set up would utilize, mechanically, what I have described.
Could. It "could" utilize what you described. One method I utilize is a very different method whereby I push my thoughts into their head, and overlay them over their thoughts with such intensity that they follow those new thoughts because I just plain overwrite their thoughts. Another way I do is to mess with their awareness, by manipulating their awareness of their physical perceptions, and inserting perceptions into their awareness that are not actually present in their environment, etc. Also, have a conversation with themself in their head; if they don't know telepathy is real, they'll tend to think that my thoughts are just another one of their own mind's voice, and I'll help them "reason" through things, with emphasized weight upon my thoughts such that they more readily accept them as valuable/trustworthy/whatever (usually towards whatever bias I am looking for). Another method is to touch upon their subconscious mind and hijack their thought process before it even touches their conscious mind, and then manipulate their various associations between thoughts ("oh, you associate red with anger? Let's now associate red with calm").

And then there's fake "telepathy" via energy work, where I work "backwards" from the energy. Ie normally actions follow thought patterns because the energy is the mechanics/conduit that enacts the thoughts into action, but the energy in the "middle" can be manipulated in such a way as to modify the actions and the thought patterns. It's a tricky business, but amazingly works. Yi directs Chi (and then the body follows Chi), but Yi also follows Chi in an undeveloped person's being (which, most people are undeveloped). As an analogy, Yi creates the blueprints, Chi builds the path to follow, the body naturally follows the path. Hijack the path, the body will follow; the mind will then become confused, and undeveloped people will generally start to think they meant to do it that way and will change their thought processes to match their actions.

So in my methodologies, I'm typically stealing away free will from the other people. I'm usurping their ability to make choices, and making my own choices through them. But since I'm a fierce individualist, I mostly only did it to see that a variety of different methods were possible.

Quote from: Rayn
Really there is no form of telepathic suggestion that is not contingent on impacting the experience of a person to manipulate their choices in whichever paradigm you operate in, because whatever choice a person makes is a function of their experience.
Ehm..., see previous. Also, there are people who think in terms of pure words, so manipulating their wordiness-thought-processes wouldn't have to touch upon their experiences either. In fact, if you could pull a person's awareness inside of themselves, like a person can do when meditating, then you could manipulate their entire world view from within the confines of their own thoughts, and create entirely new false "experiences" with which to shape them (Descartes' demon). Not that I'd suggest a person do that >_>

Quote
I don't believe in grounding paradigms such as psi in semantics or convention, alone, because it leads to arbitrary frameworks that lack objectivity, so you really are not going to get me discussing this outside of it. I believe that mathematical frameworks are the most objective, so I am going to ground what I am saying in it.
Okay, so you limit your views of psi to what you can figure out of mathematical viewpoints of it. That's one way of doing it. But... for something that's supposed to defy the physics of the universe, wouldn't that be an unnecessary limitation? I'm not ragging on your for this; just asking. I apparently "unnecessarily" limit myself, according to others, to some degree by noting that some/many of the things I accomplish via metaphysics seem to be very strongly limited by distance; other people don't like that concept so much. I've been able to do some things across arbitrary distances, over the internet, but I can't for the life of me get certain other things to work past certain distances.

Quote from: Rayn
Sorry. If my use of jargon or the paradigm I operate within bothers you, don't read or respond to what I have to say.
No no no. I asked because if you've got even one bachelor's degree, let alone trying for two more, you need to learn why jargon fucks up conversations.

Quote
For example, I found several of your comments inflammatory and inappropriate, but I am not responding to them specifically; you have the same freedom.
Yes I do. I have responded to some of your comments that seemed inflammatory and inappropriate, and others I have ignored. I know I've done the same, and that you have done the same. But that's not what I'm talking about when I mention jargon.

Quote
I believe how you are modeling things is inferior, so I will not be using it and I explained why I would not.
Then we're in agreement, because I also think your methods of modeling things are inferior as they are incredibly limited. But then, another word for limited can be specialized, and a specialized discipline can achieve things that a generalist cannot, and vice versa.

Quote
because it leads to arbitrary frameworks that lack objectivity
Welcome to Language 101. So long as you're making the decision consciously, and others are aware of it to, and that you acknowledge that there are other frameworks to discuss within than just the one.

Quote
If you sincerely believe we are at an impasse or that this conversation is not meaningful, you do not have to participate in it just like I am deciding the scope of what I will respond to.
Yep, I've been doing that too. Most people do that when the posts get long enough. We only respond to the points we consider the most worthwhile, because of how much time it takes to write out a post. (Unless a person is feeling particularily nitpicky and has time to kill)

Quote
My responses have kept with my stance that people do have free will. I have endeavored to support my stance. The topic is about free will. The issue is that we disagree and we disagree because of how we are modeling it. You can't just tell a person to use your model if they disagree with you about that model being used. I am not going define free will normatively because I believe normative definitions of free will are lacking, so you will just keep getting jargon from me.
Well, it's not really "my" model, since it's the normal one that much of the world uses.

Lastly, I didn't ask for a definition of function. I asked for:
Quote from: me
exact scientific definition of freedom, free will, consciousness, and whatever else, as accepted by the Scientific Community
If you would be so kind.

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 14, 2016, 10:22:35 PM
Reply #63

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
@Rayn: Just about that something you edited out: If you were so kind and took a deep breath about what you write just before submitting the post would be great. It would show you have at least basic social skills and self-control worthy of a human being. It would also help to hide the fact about how arrogant you really are.

Another benefit would be that my e-mails wouldn't be flooded with insults and belittling of other people, which I would greatly appreciate.

January 15, 2016, 04:34:46 PM
Reply #64

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Quote
I don't believe in grounding paradigms such as psi in semantics or convention, alone, because it leads to arbitrary frameworks that lack objectivity, so you really are not going to get me discussing this outside of it. I believe that mathematical frameworks are the most objective, so I am going to ground what I am saying in it.
Okay, so you limit your views of psi to what you can figure out of mathematical viewpoints of it. That's one way of doing it. But... for something that's supposed to defy the physics of the universe, wouldn't that be an unnecessary limitation?

No, because the physical law that psi defies is statistical. Pretty much, you can start off a billiard game with the balls in an ordered formation. Later, the balls are all moving about in a disordered way, so we can say at the start, they are ordered, and towards the middle, they are all moving around in a disordered way. We would establish this statistically, and that is pretty much the second law of thermodynamics, but when the game is over and you start a new one via putting the balls back in formation, the universe is in an even more disordered state, statistically speaking, than if you left them alone after that game. Psi pretty much orders the balls back into formation without increasing the disorder because the thing that says disorder will increase is statistical. This pretty much implies that in terms of the laws that reality operates by, that it seems physical laws are emergent and not fundamental. Pretty much, things like  precognition create order it should not, in a net way, where virtual particles can't explain this. The reason is that virtual particles result in a conservation of a value; things equal out. With psi, there is an observable net change that can't be explained away with hypothetical virtual particles where it pretty much breaks the statistical physical laws. It is one of those very problematic properties of psi for mechanistic paradigms. The problem with ordinary language is that there is intrinsically a certain level of ambiguity attached to it. Mathematical language allows one to map and see patterns even if no one knows what those patterns are or mean.

Quote from: Rayn
You can telepathically influence a decision a person makes via manipulating the experience associated with that decision.
Thank you for not jumping into minute details about things that don't need to be gone into in order to get your point across.

Quote from: Rayn
In other words, the entire situation you set up would utilize, mechanically, what I have described.
Could. It "could" utilize what you described. One method I utilize is a very different method whereby I push my thoughts into their head, and overlay them over their thoughts with such intensity that they follow those new thoughts because I just plain overwrite their thoughts. Another way I do is to mess with their awareness, by manipulating their awareness of their physical perceptions, and inserting perceptions into their awareness that are not actually present in their environment, etc. Also, have a conversation with themself in their head; if they don't know telepathy is real, they'll tend to think that my thoughts are just another one of their own mind's voice, and I'll help them "reason" through things, with emphasized weight upon my thoughts such that they more readily accept them as valuable/trustworthy/whatever (usually towards whatever bias I am looking for). Another method is to touch upon their subconscious mind and hijack their thought process before it even touches their conscious mind, and then manipulate their various associations between thoughts ("oh, you associate red with anger? Let's now associate red with calm").

The methods you described mechanically fall under what I said, though. For example, I am aware of the experience of me thinking about what I want to say to you. This means I have an experience of being aware and I have an experience of thinking where being aware is reflexive in terms of my experience of thinking. This means that if one were to manipulate my awareness, they would be manipulating my experience, which, in turn, would manipulate the vista of possible choices I could make. If you were to have a person aware of your thoughts where an illusion is created that their thoughts are your thoughts, this would be manipulating the perception of your thoughts as their thoughts in such a way what they might decide is impacted. If you were to overwrite them, the thought they have, which is an experience, would be changed which, in turn, changes their decisions. In these different methods, experience is integral where changing the experience changes the corresponding decision that is a function of that integral. Whether or not people think in words or not is not relevant. In the examples you provided, experiences were integral to the decision you wanted them to do. The examples of telepathic suggestion you gave mechanically operate by having experience as an integral.

Pretty much, I am saying that one experience(which encompasses perceptions, thoughts, emotions, and awareness) is different than another where these experiences change(regardless of if there is telepathic suggestion or not). In this, we also can map a decision to these experiences. We can call that a function. This means that as we change the experience, we also change the decision, because the decision is mapped to it. So that we can account for infinitesimal changes in terms of what is different, we would model it in the sense of an infinite-dimension. The point in doing that is not so you can say it keeps going on and on and on; rather, the point is so that you can see how it changes infinitesimally(differentiation). In this, it is intrinsically unbounded. An example of something unbounded is a number line that goes into positive and/or negative infinity. This roughly means there is a non-zero possibility for a decision to be made about anything where the decision is a function of that experience. Interestingly enough, you can actually interpret such an integral to be analogous to time non-physically where the "history" of a construct is in respect to experience(which frames one's intention) as an integral.   

You said some other things that are mechanically incorrect, but they are outside the scope of this posts, so I am not going to address them.

I think everyone's wires are getting crossed because they don't really understand the infinity part. If I say that x is not 4, I am really saying that x can be any real number that is not 4 where this would result in a union of negatively infinite and positively infinite sets that do not include 4.





This does not mean that 3, for example, is an infinitely long number; rather, it means that it can be 3. The domain is infinite. We can mathematically demonstrate it with something like 2/x-4. If x=4, then you get 2/0 which results in something undefined(the value approaches infinity). Similarly, I am simply stating that we can get any experience and thus derive any particular decision where there is no particular reason as for it to be bound based on the arguments presented. If I said I don't have an experience of being in Canada, for example, I could possibly have any other experience that is not the experience of being in Canada where that can be modeled in terms of an unbounded domain. If I am in slavery and don't have the experience of being free, an experience of being in slavery would be one experience out of any other experience it could be that would simply exclude freedom within an unbounded domain(it goes on to positive infinity). It could be anything just so long as it is not the experience of being free. This means it is intrinsically unbounded and goes on for infinity. The result, of course, is a positively infinite interval/set which excludes the experience of freedom but can include any other experience to infinity. Yes, I am aware that I am speaking of something qualitative; however, if one were to model experiences in terms of real numbers that describe a probability of having an experience, it would still be an unbounded probability distribution.





Lastly, I didn't ask for a definition of function. I asked for:
Quote from: me
exact scientific definition of freedom, free will, consciousness, and whatever else, as accepted by the Scientific Community
If you would be so kind.

My argument is not predicated by semantics. I also have been largely ignoring your attempts to make it a semantic one. My argument is predicated by mathematics, so I just have to give you an approximate theoretical framework. I have done so. Within Science, the theory behind consciousness is that it is chaotic, dynamical, and reflexive. In that sense, you have not raised an objection to that. The objections you have raised is that you don't wish to talk Math or Biology.  For example, none of your points address why consciousness is not reflexive. None of your points address why it is not chaotic or dynamical.

As for a source:

Neurodynamics of Consciousness

That source uses a theoretical construct for consciousness that casts it as a chaotic and dynamical system.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2016, 05:13:45 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 18, 2016, 12:19:47 PM
Reply #65

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Akenu
Quote from: Akenu
@Rayn: Just about that something you edited out: If you were so kind and took a deep breath about what you write just before submitting the post would be great. It would show you have at least basic social skills and self-control worthy of a human being. It would also help to hide the fact about how arrogant you really are.
To be fair, he did edit it out, and he's not the only one who does that (I do too. Though I don't send people rude PMs out of nowhere).


Rayn. I'm going to start off with this one:
Quote
My argument is not predicated by semantics. I also have been largely ignoring your attempts to make it a semantic one.
Actually, it is. A lot of (but not all) disagreements between you and others are entirely based on your choice of specialized definitions without telling anyone that. You flat out ignored the normal definition of freedom, denouncing it as "normative".

You'd said stuff like this, regarding the definition of freedom or free will:
Quote from: Rayn
Because of what I said above, I would then say your definition is not accurate due to the fact it is not empirically meaningful and it has not been proven via experimentation.
...
whereas I don't see any proof when it comes to this definition you put forth beyond it being how you would like this topic to be discussed
...
I am not going define free will normatively because I believe normative definitions of free will are lacking, so you will just keep getting jargon from me.
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, and you really should, many arguments are semantic when people are agreeing on the same point but saying it differently, or when there's any form of miscommunication due to language. Which we've done a few times already. Other times we've disagreed with the concepts being put forth. This is the nature of language, that is an inherent flaw between all communications between people; this includes communications within a mathematical or scientific framework, though a mathematical and scientific framework cuts down on a lot of that because it's been specifically set up to try to be universal. But then there's problems between scientific and layman definitions that causes miscommunications between scientists, pseudo-scientists, and pure laymen.

Quote
No, because the physical law that psi defies is statistical.
Well, apparently psi defies a lot of physical laws and properties, regardless of whether they are statistical or not. My point still stands though: You're consciously choosing to limit yourself to a mathematical framework to figure out psi. That's fine if that's what you want, and especially if it works for you. There's a few other things I could say about the paragraph that follows, but it's not that important when the main point is the same.

Quote
The methods you described mechanically fall under what I said, though.
Only if you use experience in a very generic fashion, which you seem to do, and which I did not realize you do during the previous post. Or maybe in this instance, I'm the one using the non-normative definition. Normally, experience relates to a person's involvement with real world events and topic; thus direct mental to mental communication that exists purely on the mental domain could be said to ignore that. Unless a person wants to define "experience" or "mental domain" or "physical domain" such that it does not ignore that. (thus, semantics again)

But by that definition, you're right and it technically wouldn't be inappropriate to say that manipulating specifics parts of an experience would be analogous to manipulating the overall experiences. Just less understandable. And more generic, because then can't you just say "I was manipulating my/their experiences" for literally everything? Ie, I'm manipulating your experiences right now, Rayn.

Quote
I think everyone's wires are getting crossed because they don't really understand the infinity part.
I can't speak for Akenu, but I understand what infinity and unbounded mean. What you've failed to do is show that decisions can be theoretically unbounded or infinite, but actions can't be, so as to show that there's a meaningful statement of saying that there's an unlimited amount of freedom in making decisions, as opposed to following them out, in such a way that you're not just erasing the term freedom from existence for lack of meaning to it.

Quote
If I say that x is not 4, I am really saying that x can be any real number that is not 4 where this would result in a union of negatively infinite and positively infinite sets that do not include 4.
But you can't say that a decision can be literally anything other than 4. There are real world limitations that you're failing to account for; such as the limitation of number of neurons that can fire that can allow for more complex thoughts, which thus means there is a hard limit to the complexity of thoughts a person can have. Thus, it would not be an unbounded line, but one that would reach very very far, say into the trillions, but not entirely unbounded; one could simply define it as unbounded for the purpose of scope.

For instance, if a person is counting the number of apples in their house, the possibility for their being trillions of apples in the world is an upper end that is so far away as to be commonly accepted as unbounded. But when we're talking about exactly those limitations, in regards to freedom and free will and freedom to make decisions, it's relevant to note them.

Because, when you say "We can mathematically demonstrate it with something like 2/x-4. If x=4," which is perfectly fine to say in math, it has little relevance to real world decision making. Real world freedom and decision making is not graphed like that.

Quote
Similarly, I am simply stating that we can get any experience and thus derive any particular decision where there is no particular reason as for it to be bound based on the arguments presented. If I said I don't have an experience of being in Canada, for example, I could possibly have any other experience that is not the experience of being in Canada where that can be modeled in terms of an unbounded domain.
Except that you have theoretically quantifiable limited number of experiences, in the real world, given the fact that you have experienced life only from the time you were born and have only had so many experiences in the world. It's a large number, but not considered to be unbounded unless you purposefully choose a limited scope.

In other words, you're looking at it backwards where you've started with the assumption that you have a nigh-unlimited number of possible experiences to choose from, except for those few that you haven't actually had. In reality, you've had a limited number of experiences to choose from, and that number grows every day with new experiences.

"Experience" as a concept can be graphed as unbounded, but your specific set of experiences cannot.

Quote
The result, of course, is a positively infinite interval/set which excludes the experience of freedom but can include any other experience to infinity
Except for every single experience that you have NOT had, which far outmatches the relatively few number of experiences that you have had.

Quote
Yes, I am aware that I am speaking of something qualitative; however, if one were to model experiences in terms of real numbers that describe a probability of having an experience, it would still be an unbounded probability distribution.
Well, I'm glad that you're aware. But it shouldn't be described as an unbounded probability distribution, because there are very real limits to what we can experience; it's just the sheer numbers involved between what humans can potentially experience versus what is beyond our ability to experience are both extremely massive. In other words, you're recognizing the vast potential for human experience without also recognizing the vast potential for human limitation.

Because if you did the exact same thing, using an unbounded scale, for the limitations that humans can experience, you'd derive a fairly similar outcome. The two are ever at odds, and humans cannot be truly appreciably free, even if you try to just discuss it in the circus of one's own mind while ignoring the implications of implementing decisions within the real world.

Quote
As for a source:

Neurodynamics of Consciousness

That source uses a theoretical construct for consciousness that casts it as a chaotic and dynamical system.
"One of the main outstanding problems..."
"...offers a powerful approach to this problem..."
"we advocate a neurodynamical approach to consciousness..."
"We begin by stating the basic intuition: Consciousness is an intrinsically dynamic phenomenon, and must therefore be studied within a framework that is capable of rendering its dynamics intelligible."
"We then review several neuroscientific proposals that make use of dynamical systems theory in characterizing the neurophysiological basis of consciousness. We continue by..."

So they're trying to put forth an argument for how to view consciousness. So that's a proposed scientific definition, but as noted in their own writing, it's not widely accepted yet nor is it the Standard. So we come right back to semantics, until such a time as the Scientific Community adopts a Standard for their definition of consciousness, with multiple competing definitions still outstanding. Thank you for providing a link with a definition, however. Is Neurodynamics the "definition" of consciousness that you're going to be using, going forward? I personally think that the field of neurology needs to gain a few more decades of experience before it nails down a strong definition; in the meantime, a tentative definition will likely be adopted within the next decade or two, then arguments will spring up regarding it, and it will be adapted over time, etc etc as many other scientific ideas and definitions have been in the past.

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 18, 2016, 01:02:26 PM
Reply #66

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Quote
No, because the physical law that psi defies is statistical.
Well, apparently psi defies a lot of physical laws and properties, regardless of whether they are statistical or not. My point still stands though: You're consciously choosing to limit yourself to a mathematical framework to figure out psi. That's fine if that's what you want, and especially if it works for you.

I think that is subjective, pragmatic nonsense, to be frank. In other words, you are saying I am limited by my objectivity all the while implicitly ascribing to pragmatic relativistic nonsense. Inductively, we can say it is likely better to create an objective theory and paradigm around psi that grossly cuts down on ambiguity than if we ascribe to subjective pragmatic applications in terms of things that have actually worked, so I think ascribing to subjective models is nonsense. You really can't start studying it as a scientific thing until you create an objective framework, and Science kind of does work, so it is just more practical.   

Quote
I think everyone's wires are getting crossed because they don't really understand the infinity part.
I can't speak for Akenu, but I understand what infinity and unbounded mean. What you've failed to do is show that decisions can be theoretically unbounded or infinite, but actions can't be, so as to show that there's a meaningful statement of saying that there's an unlimited amount of freedom in making decisions, as opposed to following them out, in such a way that you're not just erasing the term freedom from existence for lack of meaning to it.

Quote
If I say that x is not 4, I am really saying that x can be any real number that is not 4 where this would result in a union of negatively infinite and positively infinite sets that do not include 4.
But you can't say that a decision can be literally anything other than 4. There are real world limitations that you're failing to account for; such as the limitation of number of neurons that can fire that can allow for more complex thoughts, which thus means there is a hard limit to the complexity of thoughts a person can have. Thus, it would not be an unbounded line, but one that would reach very very far, say into the trillions, but not entirely unbounded; one could simply define it as unbounded for the purpose of scope.

For instance, if a person is counting the number of apples in their house, the possibility for their being trillions of apples in the world is an upper end that is so far away as to be commonly accepted as unbounded. But when we're talking about exactly those limitations, in regards to freedom and free will and freedom to make decisions, it's relevant to note them.

Because, when you say "We can mathematically demonstrate it with something like 2/x-4. If x=4," which is perfectly fine to say in math, it has little relevance to real world decision making. Real world freedom and decision making is not graphed like that.
Except that you have theoretically quantifiable limited number of experiences, in the real world, given the fact that you have experienced life only from the time you were born and have only had so many experiences in the world. It's a large number, but not considered to be unbounded unless you purposefully choose a limited scope.

In other words, you're looking at it backwards where you've started with the assumption that you have a nigh-unlimited number of possible experiences to choose from, except for those few that you haven't actually had. In reality, you've had a limited number of experiences to choose from, and that number grows every day with new experiences.

I've already addressed this point. After quoting myself, I will not be addressing this point anymore, because it will be repetitive(I can answer a reply with a quote made earlier in the same thread):
An improper/definite integral can have an infinite limit. Physics equations that utilize these integrals, that can have an infinite limit, are the Fourier Transform(this is used in equations that deal with signals, for example) or calculations that pertain to finding the gravitational or electrical potential for a field. Improper integrals can also be utilized to calculate speeds and positions at all given points. You see the really complicated ones in equations dealing with electromagnetism. The point is that you can describe a finite universe Scientifically via utilizing mathematics that has infinity as a limit, though it is a bit counter-intuitive. These types of integrals are utilized all the time when talking about physical fields and such. Another place where you would use this would be in things dealing with probability and statistics in regards to the degrees of freedom something has, for the record. Basically, the math works, fine, and Physics uses it all of the time. I did not respond to the whole it must line up with reality thing, because you always tend to do this and call Science not Science because you don't understand it while claiming you do. Like I said, you speak in generalities because you do not understand the more esoteric aspects of it. A lot of your field equations, in Physics, deal with infinite limits; check out the math dealing with electromagnetism and fields. It is pretty counter-intuitive, but you can't really presuppose that because the universe is finite it has finite limits, in terms of the calculus, so you can't dismiss utilizing the concept of infinity in an argument based on that, because it can be used in Science when discussing such things as fields.

The above is math like what I spoke about being used in the real-world. You know what else has an infinite field? Electromagnetism. That is responsible for the chemistry that allows neurons to fire(without that field, electrons would have no charge and bonds would never form). The infinite field imparts finite energy since you get a finite sum, though(inverse square law). You can get something like that in what I explained. I've already adequately addressed this point. Physics does this all the time, and Physics works quite well in modeling the universe. Physics uses math. Physics says things like electromagnetic fields are infinite yet impart finite energy all the time, so I can use infinity in similar ways because we use it all the time to speak about real-world things. The universe is finite(the universe was not always here - there was a t0), nor will it always be here; however, Physics can utilize models that say the electromagnetic field is infinite to accurately describe this finite universe. I've explained the nuances in past posts, like I did with the one I quoted, so I am not going to repeat them. You've also ignored an important point. I said that decisions are functions of experience. I then said that experiences are integral. In other words, decisions change in respect to experiences from which decisions are derived, so an infinite limit to experiences is only taken for granted in terms of differentiating things. No one cares about infinity(infinity is never included); rather, we only care about what is before it in terms of saying what changes. The point is that, theoretically(instead of semantically), we can have an arbitrary set of experiences and corresponding decisions that are not intrinsically bounded. The ability to decide is not frozen, in other words, if you are in jail; rather, your ability to decide will simply change in respect to your experience of being in jail where you can model this stochastically via an unbounded probability distribution. In other words, a person still has the capability to decide things indeterministically.

Quote
I think everyone's wires are getting crossed because they don't really understand the infinity part.
I can't speak for Akenu, but I understand what infinity and unbounded mean. What you've failed to do is show that decisions can be theoretically unbounded or infinite, but actions can't be, so as to show that there's a meaningful statement of saying that there's an unlimited amount of freedom in making decisions, as opposed to following them out, in such a way that you're not just erasing the term freedom from existence for lack of meaning to it.

I said experiences, not decisions, could be modeled as extending into infinity, because it acts as an integral. I did not say that decisions, themselves, would have to have an infinite scope. I am saying decisions are functions of experiences(you know you can get a finite function from an infinite domain right?). I'm not counting the finite range as a lack of free will, because selection of what is in it need not be determined, for decisions can be modeled stochastically where there is always something going on in it regardless of how free a person is. I keep saying that people have free will, because consciousness is stochastic and dynamical. Abstractly, though, you could derive an infinite number of decisions from an infinite amount of concepts; however, you could make the function finite with an infinite domain. I said you can say experiences are infinite for integration. You also keep saying I am failing arguments I never made or intended to make, which is why I am not really addressing it. This should have been clear 2 pages ago... I am arguing a very narrow thing. I am not arguing anything that has to do with actions other than they are not required to decide things nor am I concerned with defining what makes a decision meaningful. In a few replies you proposed a definition of a meaningful decision that I disregarded which is why I did not respond to it. It was not relevant to the very narrow thing I am arguing. I am not arguing, I was not arguing it, nor do I ever intend to argue it in this thread, so I am not failing at something I never decided nor carried out to do. Semantics is about meaning and partially Philosophy, and in every response, I keep telling you I am largely ignoring semantics. I also have no interests in your justification of semantics; they are not relevant to what I am arguing. I am interested in one particular argument, which means I am interested in rebutting and actually arguing one particular thing. That thing is that people can make decisions stochastically. I am not concerned with the magnitude of these decisions. I am not concerned with whether or not they are meaningful. I am concerned with there existing that function that keeps creating mathematically definable decisions. This function describes that capability. That is it. I am being rather narrow and precise with my argument. I am saying people have free will because you can model the ability to make a decision stochastically in a dynamical system. You can model stochastic dominance in an unbounded probability space, mind you. I don't care about how free a person is, because it is not relevant to what I am saying. It is really not relevant, to be honest, because how free a person is does not really change what I said. Experience would still be an integral where a decision is a function that gives a person a way to decide things. All that would be different are the values. The constraints you want to apply would simply be changes in the values of that function. Yes, I'm aware people would have a limited amount of experiences, but the experiences would just change the assigned values of the function - it doesn't matter what you put in, for they can still decide where their decision is not determined.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 09:20:09 AM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 20, 2016, 04:55:07 PM
Reply #67

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Quote
I think that is subjective, pragmatic nonsense, to be frank. In other words, you are saying I am limited by my objectivity all the while implicitly ascribing to pragmatic relativistic nonsense.
Not objectivity. Paradigm. And yes, you are limited by it. Everyone is limited by their world view; if you honestly think you're above that then you're a fool.

Quote
Inductively, we can say it is likely better to create an objective theory and paradigm around psi that grossly cuts down on ambiguity than if we ascribe to subjective pragmatic applications in terms of things that have actually worked, so I think ascribing to subjective models is nonsense. You really can't start studying it as a scientific thing until you create an objective framework, and Science kind of does work, so it is just more practical.   
First, stop fooling yourself into thinking you're doing Science with regards to psi.

Second, "if it's stupid but works, it isn't stupid", and there are lots of different paradigms that work. You don't want to believe that, but that doesn't make other peoples' abilities any less real than when people don't agree with your paradigm.

Quote
I've already addressed this point. After quoting myself, I will not be addressing this point anymore, because it will be repetitive(I can answer a reply with a quote made earlier in the same thread):
You didn't deal with it very well, which is why I brought it up again. You can start ignoring it, just like you're ignoring limitations in favour of a pardigm that starts with the assumption of freedom, but whatever.

Quote
The above is math like what I spoke about being used in the real-world. You know what else has an infinite field? Electromagnetism.
The electromagnetic field theoretically goes on forever (what happens when it reaches the real edge of the universe? Do we "know" or do we "theorize" that it continues on from there? Does the edge of the cosmic microwave background stop at the edge of the universe, or continue on outward from there?), but you know what? There's a practical limit beyond which it has so little of an impact on certain things as to be realistically negligible for all intents and purposes. It becomes ignored beyond a point for the sake of most calculations because other factors greatly overshadow it beyond that point. For instance, your cell phone produces an EM field: do we care whether it's going to impact the electronics around it? Yes. This kind of thing has been thoroughly studied and applied back into newer iterations of cell phones. Do we care whether it's going to have an impact on India's electrical grid? No. The only reason anyone would bother attempting to calculate that is boredom or curiosity rather than practicality.

You keep saying "infinite infinite infinite" but keep failing to note when it stops making a difference to the topic at hand. Especially if something comes along and blocks it. So, back to the EM field and it's theoretically infinite range: it can be killed directly and entirely by placing a device within a Faraday cage. Suddenly infinite becomes forcibly confined and limited.

In a similar fashion, we humans live within certain limits; ignoring them doesn't make them go away. Because one aspect of reality does not live entirely in isolation from every other aspect such that you can talk about that one aspect entirely in theoretical isolation, unless you're purposefully limiting yourself to theoretical situations that have little to no bearing on the real world (which I'm not doing with a discussion about freedom and free will).

Quote
The universe is finite(the universe was not always here - there was a t0), nor will it always be here; however, Physics can utilize models that say the electromagnetic field is infinite to accurately describe this finite universe.
Or they can say it's finite but very very massive (to the point where it's entirely plausible to use an infinite range variable when performing calculations relating to anything more local, ie the entirety of existence within our solar system), or they can say we don't know. Utilizing a paradigm to describe something is not the same as factual knowledge; when you grow up to become a real scientist, hopefully you'll realize this.

Quote
Physics does this all the time, and Physics works quite well in modeling the universe. Physics uses math. Physics says things like electromagnetic fields are infinite yet impart finite energy all the time, so I can use infinity in similar ways because we use it all the time to speak about real-world things.
But see, it's improper to say that because some things in the universe can be modelled infinitely, that we should then apply it everywhere to everything. Should we apply infinity to apples because infinity exists within math? Should we apply infinity to how far I can drive, because infinity exists within math? It's a problem of application: I'm saying you're applying infinity to freedom incorrectly as it doesn't really make sense (and that bullshit about "science is counter-intuitive": No. Some science is counter-intuitive, mostly at the microscopic level, and in all senses science is counter-intuitive in very specific fields, not generally). Which means you then have to make a convincing case for why you should be allowed to appy infinity to freedom, and so far I'm not buying it, for reasons stated in my previous posts, and like you I guess I'll not bother to repeat them either.

Quote
You've also ignored an important point. I said that decisions are
And you've been ignoring the most important part of the entire conversation: decisions on their own are not an exercise of Free Will. They are only part of the equation. You can hide in your corner with statements like "I'm not talking about that other stuff" (exact quote: "You also keep saying I am failing arguments I never made or intended to make, which is why I am not really addressing it."), but that means you're the one who's refusing to take part in the discussion at large, instead favouring to discuss only a single part of the topic.

If you want to then turn around and say that you are talking about the topic at large because you're now talking about decisions impacting experiences and vice versa, then you need to sort this out in your own mind first because you're double talking the topic.

Quote
I said experiences, not decisions, could be modeled as extending into infinity, because it acts as an integral. I did not say that decisions, themselves, would have to have an infinite scope.
Quote from: Rayn
All that is required for a decision to be made is for something to be apprehended, and the amount of possible concepts to apprehend is infinite; therefore, you can't model this finitely.The system could be said to be finite; however, the amount of possible concepts, and thus possible decisions that can be made, are infinite.
http://forums.vsociety.net/index.php/topic,23599.msg225050.html#msg225050

Quote
I keep saying that people have free will, because consciousness is stochastic and dynamical.
Does repeating that help you sleep better at night?

Quote
Abstractly, though, you could derive an infinite number of decisions from an infinite amount of concepts; however, you could make the function finite with an infinite domain.
Abstractly, you can do a lot of things. I can abstractly view my car as worth money: can I use it like paper bills to buy coffee? Just cut off a $2 chunk of the mirror and get a coffee for it? So what's an abstract view worth in the real world?

Quote
You also keep saying I am failing arguments I never made or intended to make, which is why I am not really addressing it. This should have been clear 2 pages ago... I am arguing a very narrow thing. I am not arguing anything that has to do with actions other than they are not required to decide things nor am I concerned with defining what makes a decision meaningful.
It was clear two pages ago, and I rejected it two pages ago for the same reasons; decisions on their own that are never actualized are not Free Will. You're now saying that decisions implicitly modify experiences and that experiences implicitly modify decisions, which would be a poor way to try and work-around your own statement that you're trying not to deal with anything other than decisions, and also still does not address the point of Free Will as it relates to actually doing stuff, which you've stated again and again that you are steadfastly ignoring.

So once again, I'm telling you that by ignoring two thirds of the actualization process, your view of decision making, regardless of whether your ideas of it being infinite or not are actually valid/true, becomes meaningless to the discussion at large. Because even *IF* decisions are infinite, the ability to actualize them is not, and therefore I can easily deduce from just this alone that Free Will is not infinite/unbounded/however-else-you-want-to-phrase-it.

Human height can be measured and mapped to a graph, but if you ignore the values and just declare it to be theoretically unbounded at one end (because we obviously can't be -1cm tall) then a lot of people are just going to shake their heads at you. Freedom and Free Will don't have specific values that can be measured explicitly, empirically, and so other ways of "measuring" them would have to be devised (such as a ratio of numbers of freedoms versus numbers of limitations), unless you just stop with the bullshit attempts at treating everything in the world as empirical when it's inappropriate to do so.

Quote
It was not relevant to the very narrow thing I am arguing.
And yet you've argued so much more.

Quote
Semantics is about meaning and partially Philosophy, and in every response, I keep telling you I am largely ignoring semantics.
Except you're not ignoring semantics. You're using semantics. You've been using semantics from the beginning, as everyone does in order to have a conversation.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Semantics (from Ancient Greek: σημαντικός sēmantikůs, "significant")[1][2] is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, like words, phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they stand for; their denotation. Linguistic semantics is the study of meaning that is used for understanding human expression through language. Other forms of semantics include the semantics of programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics. In international scientific vocabulary semantics is also called semasiology.

The word semantics was first used by Michel Brťal a French philologist,[3] itself denotes a range of ideasófrom the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language for denoting a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation. This problem of understanding has been the subject of many formal enquiries, over a long period of time, especially in the field of formal semantics. In linguistics, it is the study of the interpretation of signs or symbols used in agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts.[4] Within this view, sounds, facial expressions, body language, and proxemics have semantic (meaningful) content, and each comprises several branches of study. In written language, things like paragraph structure and punctuation bear semantic content; other forms of language bear other semantic content.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics And I'll let you read the rest on your own if you care to.

You say you've been attempting to ignore the .. which part of semantics? The purposeful selection of meanings/definitions of words so that they support your views? You've been doing that with trying to bring everything into the purview of mathematics. You've literally declared that you try to think of everything in the objective senses of mathematics, which means you've already declared a very strong semantic position. And I'm saying the opposite; that I'm not arguing with you on those terms. I'm arguing on a much more normal platform of language.

Quote
I am interested in one particular argument, which means I am interested in rebutting and actually arguing one particular thing.
Why do you keep (letting me pull you into) discussing other things then? Oh right, it's because I said you're wrong, provided my reasons for why I think you're wrong, and you feel the need to justify/defend your position. Pretty normal stuff, really. Oh, and then you see things I say that you think are wrong, and you decide to speak up about those too. Also pretty normal stuff. But it's stuff that you're doing, in contradiction to your fantasy that you've only been talking about one narrow thing this whole time :)

Quote
That thing is that people can make decisions stochastically.
Or they can make them unstochastically. Doesn't really matter. Point being that they can make decisions, which you say are infinite, and which I say are both not infinite and only part of the equation of Free Will, with the other parts of the equation being so finite enough as to entirely defeat the meaningfulness of whether decisions are infinite or not.

Quote
I am not concerned with the magnitude of these decisions. I am not concerned with whether or not they are meaningful.
Well, I'm not concerned with what you're concerned about, so thanks for 5 pages of back and forth between this very simple thing (which we've both acknowledged from the beginning).

Quote
I am concerned with there existing that function that keeps creating mathematically definable decisions.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but functions are defined by humans based on whatever arbitrary or semi-arbitrary or very-rational factors that we decide to define them by, yes? So literally, f(x) is for you whatever you want to define it as, and then I can jsut turn around and say "nah, f(x) should be this instead" and to me it's now what I want to define it as. Where's the objectivity in that again? I'm not looking for a long explanation "because you think I don't get it"; I know the answer already, so just a short and sweet will be sufficient.

Quote
I don't care about how free a person is, because it is not relevant to what I am saying.
Well, it kind of matters to a discussion about freedom. But, you know, if you don't want to talk about that, then that's fine. 5 pages of you saying you're not talking about it.

Quote
because how free a person is does not really change what I said.
Yeah. I agree. What you said has no relevance to how free a person is. I got that several pages ago. We agreed on that several pages ago. Do you get the little linguistic thing I did with the italicized part of this reply in order to make my point again?

Quote
Experience would still be an integral where a decision is a function that gives a person a way to decide things. All that would be different are the values. The constraints you want to apply would simply be changes in the values of that function.
Well, it's good that you're talking about values now. Remember at the beginning when you were talking about freedom as a boolean thing? Good times.

Quote
Yes, I'm aware people would have a limited amount of experiences, but the experiences would just change the assigned values of the function - it doesn't matter what you put in, for they can still decide where their decision is not determined.
Well, the limited experiences would also create a limitation on how far the values could possibly go. As an analogy; there's a certain range of human height; even the tallest human still exists within a certain range (though, they create that newest high end to the range each time a new tallest person is given the title). Any specific human won't be limited to a certain height from birth, but most of us don't get to choose our height, despite our continued experiences at our height and the decisions that some people make in order to try and be taller or shorter. But the limitations are an important aspect of what kinds of values could possibly come up within the various ranges.

On the other hand, a decision that doesn't lead to another experience will never become a new experience in order to modify future decisions >_>

As for the determined part at the end: are you talking about determinism again, or about (not) manifesting their decision?

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 20, 2016, 07:13:01 PM
Reply #68

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Edit:

I just ran the debate by one of my professors(I showed them this thread on my laptop). They said the problem with your argument is that you are proposing that free will is finite; however, for that to be true, we have to agree to that proposition being true(she actually vocalized "What in the world?" before she told me that). You are proposing that this is the case, but you are not actually proving it(you are arbitrarily making propositions and then defining things without proving it). They also said they would phrase what I said a little bit differently in terms of how I am modeling experience, but another professor walked in, they start talking, and I thought the polite thing to do would be to leave(it was after class), so I was not able to really get what points I said which were not too accurate. In this particular class, we are using some funky software, and I was asking her how to utilize the software to create a regression I could post in this thread(I was attempting to get a function from plotted points on the funky software we are using) which spawned why I was asking her which lead me to asking to run a theory by her which lead to me showing her this thread.

Edit:

First, stop fooling yourself into thinking you're doing Science with regards to psi.

Psi is testable; therefore, psi is not intrinsically unscientific, so there is no reason why science cannot be applied to it, and because it is testable, you can apply numbers to it, so there is no intrinsic reason why I can't apply math to it. There is nothing intrinsically unscientific about psi or anything about it that makes it so theories cannot be formulated about it and hypothesis about it tested. There is no reason why we cannot approach psi objectively where math is more suited for this than ordinary language, which is why all the little details of science are in math. I am not going to model it via mystical or vitalists paradigms(that have been disproven) when modeling it scientifically and mathematically is is more simple and elegant. There is no intrinsic reason i cannot; therefore, there is no reason why I am fooling myself in doing this. By the way, I believe religion has pragmatic uses, so I am not one of those atheists who says religion is  something that intrinsically does not work, so we should get rid of it; rather, I say let us use it socially and not really so much as to try and build technology with it. Sure, I could say how people model psi pragmatically works for localized and emergent things, but I would say it does not work well when you are trying to formulate unifying theories that dig into the more fundamental and basic stuff. That is what I am concerned with. Also, Science has an inductive track record over mysticism in that Science has made way more discoveries and facilitated way technological advancements, so one could make an inductive case for Science being what one should use pragmatically.

On the other hand, a decision that doesn't lead to another experience will never become a new experience in order to modify future decisions >_>

You're now saying that decisions implicitly modify experiences and that experiences implicitly modify decisions, which would be a poor way to try and work-around your own statement that you're trying not to deal with anything other than decisions, and also still does not address the point of Free Will as it relates to actually doing stuff, which you've stated again and again that you are steadfastly ignoring.

No... If y is a function of x, this means that x is independent of y and y is dependent on x. If a decision is a function of an experience, this means an experience is independent of a decision... I said, and have always said, that decisions are functions of and derived from experience which means that while decisions are dependent on experiences, experiences are independent of decisions. I never said experiences are derived from decisions. I keep saying decisions are functions of experiences which implicitly means that decisions are dependent on experiences where I explicitly said modifying experiences modifies decisions.

Human height can be measured and mapped to a graph, but if you ignore the values and just declare it to be theoretically unbounded at one end (because we obviously can't be -1cm tall) then a lot of people are just going to shake their heads at you.

...That makes no sense, for I can actually state that human heights can have an infinite domain for a graph. If I had a graph with the number of years on the x-axis and the height of people on the y axis, we can say that people have a particular range of heights without saying there is any year we are stopping at. In other words, we can keep going on and on(the domain is infinite) where we can have a finite range(the height of the people). The graph can be said to be unbounded because we assume we can keep adding years to the x-axis; we don't have a stopping point. Now, if I said I only want to plot data from 2000 to 2016, we can start to get into making it a bound graph. It only becomes problematic when we run out of data to add to the graph, but infinity just says we are including everything that is between a point and infinity(we don't actually have to include it), so the whole time being finite thing does not matter, because we are only looking at what is included before it(it pretty much means it is a set of everything you have in a direction where if you get more stuff, you can add that, too). It pretty much means so long as we have data, we can keep plugging it in. You're assuming that a graph of people's heights has to have a limit whereas most of the graphs people use everyday don't. In a lot of the graphs people use, the line keeps going and going to the edge of the graph where it is implicitly understood that it keeps going on and on with whatever functions it has. For example, graphs that deal with a projection of sales typically project in terms of unbounded domain where information is extracted in terms of the years they want to look at. In terms of your height example, we can say there is an empirically observable limit to how tall people get; however, if we observe people who are even taller, we can plug this into the graph no problem. For this height graph, we can pretty much use something like f(x)=x+0 where x>=0 and y>=0. That is a unbounded.

Edit:

Also, you seem to be making the mistake of assuming that if the domain is infinite, the range has to be infinite. In other words, if you have an infinite domain of years, this does not mean you have to have an infinite range of human heights. If we have something like f(x)=sin(x), we get a graph with an infinite domain and a finite range of two values(1 and -1). Applying this back to what I said, you can model experience kind of like that. Just because you have an infinite domain, this does not mean your range has to be infinite, for it can be finite. You can also get a finite range with something like f(x)=1. Experience can be treated as something like what is below.



Edit:

I don't think you realize why unbounded probability spaces are empirically meaningful. Unbounded probability spaces say there is an infinitesimal or greater chance you will get new data you did not know, and, if that is the case, you can include it in that set. If we make that space bounded, we are saying there is a finite limit to the data we can get; however, we don't know what that limit is, and if we get new data, you can't really plug it into that set. It makes it virtually impossible to model anything theoretically, because you have now closed the set in such a way you can't add your new empirical observations because you prematurely thought you got all the data that would exists. This means it is impractical to use what you are trying to use. Yeah, we know that humans only get so tall where we can plot this as a function of the year; however, there is the possibility that humans can get even taller, so you would leave it unbounded because of that so as to account for new empirical data. Scientific hypothesis and theories actually take place inductively within the context of an unbounded probability space, and trying to and close it mathematically implies we have observed everything significant about this universe that we can - that's absurd! The creation of a set that is infinite at one end allows for that set to be dynamic, and Science needs dynamic theories.

I actually can't help but think of the differences between Science and Religion. Religion pretty much starts off with an absolute idea of truth. Mathematically, you would model that as bounded, because the religious and theosophical teachings give you all you need to know. Science starts off with an approximation of truth based on what we can currently observe, because we don't know all there is. Mathematically, that is unbounded with our knowledge being a finite range of sorts. This means your thinking is actually closer to religion than Science in you attempting to place limits and such. I also can't help but notice your skepticism towards science and scientists... I can't help but wonder if your responses are framed by theosophical thinking... I am not saying they are. It just crossed my mind...

I'm not proposing definitions; rather, I am proposing a theory from which you are interpreting and deriving a definition, and theories and hypothesis about the real-world inductively take place within the context of an unbounded probability space, because there is always the chance the theory is inaccurate to varying levels. It is actually unrealistic and not real-world applicable to model theories based on empiricism in bounded sets and bounded probability spaces because it implies we have everything we need to make it complete

I am not explaining the Physics stuff, again, because you are too incompetent to actually appreciate what I am saying. This is not what I put forth. The physics I gave you is the Physics that scientists to use. I believe your skepticism is derived from your incompetence in such a way that you can't recognize the "right" answer. Any physicists will tell you that the electromagnetic field is treated as if it has an infinite field while imparting a finite amount of energy due to things like the inverse-square law.

You should listen to this podcast from a scientists(I've met and spoken to in person) about people like you who try tackle these things semantically. Her name is Pamela Gay.

Ep. 147: How to Be Taken Seriously By Scientists

Quote
Pamela: The scientific method is the same no matter who you are, no matter where you are. If you have an idea the first thing you have to do is prove your idea. This means that you have to sit down; you have to do your homework. Find out what other people have already done, put your work within the context.

Do a compare and contrast essay basically of your work. Mathematically and observationally and experimentally test your idea. If you donít have the facilities to test your idea write down in detail what is necessary to test your idea.

One of the biggest problems with the emails that I often get from people is they start off saying Einstein was wrong Ė this is obvious Ė hereís my conceptional explanation of why Einstein is wrong using just words.

Then they go on to say I donít have the math to prove my ideas. Could you work with me in complete secrecy sharing no one my idea even though Iíve sent this to you without asking if I could and do all of the math for me?

Fraser: I think thatís a great example of sort of the extreme end. Where has that person gone wrong?

Pamela: Theyíve gone wrong in three different places. Their first was ďEinstein is completely wrongĒ because it makes me uncomfortable. Science isnít about emotional reactions to ideas. Itís about whether or not ideas are testable in real world environments.

You canít say that an idea that makes your stomach queasy that you canít visualize in your brain is wrong just based on your stomach and your emotions.

The next place they went wrong is they didnít do any math. They simply said here are a bunch of words. Well, you canít use words alone to prove a mathematical concept. I can say with words ďobjects fall towards the sunĒ.

Well, that is true if youíre inside Mercuryís orbit, you have the correct velocity Ė itís in fact true anywhere in the solar system if you have the correct velocity.

If Iím on the surface of the planet Earth itís not true. You can make statements and they may or may not be true, theyíre just words.

It takes mathematics to describe the situation carefully in a way that proves or disproves an idea. You canít just put an idea forward in words and say ďwell Iím not able to do the math; here you go do it for meĒ
.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2016, 07:46:08 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 21, 2016, 08:44:31 AM
Reply #69

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Well, good thing is that Rayn is a suitable patient for testing out simplish.org:
http://simplish.org/conversion/9333C06B/

January 21, 2016, 07:16:50 PM
Reply #70

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
I'm really not surprised anyone would say something like "What in the world?" when shown a thread that talks about telepathy.

First: I would like to apologize. Despite me saying I know what unbounded means, I was wrong. I was looking it up while at work today and realized I was stupid for saying that and using it entirely incorrectly. My apologies.

I was going to attempt from yet another point of view, whereby I ask you to go ahead and continue along the path you claimed you would go when you said you wanted to talk about freedom and free will (from here I'll refer to them as "F&FW") only in terms of mathematics and whatnot. I was going to ask you to go ahead and tell me what kind of measurements you use to measure "F&FW". But then you said you showed it to your teacher, so...

To Rayn's Teacher:
I don't know at what point Rayn showed you the thread from an until, but I do appreciate that you had limited time to view it. I now feel the need to point out that there's been a lot of things said by Rayn and I that were attempts to either bolster our own arguments or denounce our opponent's arguments, as happens in any debate. After all, as Rayn said that he is attempting to talk about the entire concept in no terms other than mathematical, I've said that I'm attempting to talk about the entire concept while entirely avoiding mathematics. There have been times when Rayn has pulled me into mathematical discussions, and times when I pulled Rayn out of mathematical discussions, but we keep going back to our own sides of the mat. The core of my side, however, is as follows:

-The background of the topic stems from a project I wanted to do, which Rayn didn't believe would work because I wasn't using his framework. I broke off a new thread about ethics since Rayn didn't want to talk about things without involving ethics. I then broke off a new thread about "F&FW" because it's a massive topic all its own and doesn't fit in a thread about ethics
-Philosophical question: Limitations restrict freedoms, so are we really free? Do we truly have free will? I say not really, but it's not like we're entirely unfree either. There's degrees or magnitudes of freedoms, which Rayn seems to have finally agreed to in his last post.
-Rayn is asserting that decisions should be the only thing to consider in a topic like "F&FW", but I disagree as I see decisions as being only the first part of the process of enacting freedom and free will (can you really declare yourself to be free just because you can think about something, when you can't manifest that thing into reality? Ie, thinking of walking out of jail versus being able to walk out of jail).

Other parts of the discussion involve:
-I think it is entirely inappropriate to discuss such rich philosophical concepts as "F&FW" only in terms of mathematics.
-Rayn constantly uses specialized jargon that causes confusion (not just here, but in other threads too), especially when I'm trying to talk about "F&FW" in normal terms and he's trying to talk about it in mathematical terms.
-We've been agreeing with each other on certain points for pages of the thread now, yet for some reason we keep going over those points again and again as if we're in disagreement.
-I've only had three hours of sleep last night so there might have been more to it, but eh.

If you agree with Rayn that "F&FW" can and should be talked about in terms of mathematics, then could someone illustrate a realistic example of this? I think Rayn proposed something like a multivariable infinite graph or something earlier in the thread (Rayn could fill you in, and I could go look for it when I'm not so tired), but that sounds just so generic as to be unrealistic. What kinds of things would you plot to each of the lines, for instance, and how would you track magnitudes of each?

Back to Rayn:
Quote
Psi is testable; therefore, psi is not intrinsically unscientific
No no no no no.

I said: "First, stop fooling yourself into thinking you're doing Science with regards to psi." I added emphasis this time. Does that make it more clear? I'm wondering whether I should go into the rant now or later about you not being a scientist just because you have a bachelor's degree. (I have one too. I know what they're worth, and I know what they're not worth)

Psi can be studied scientifically, and many people are attempting to. I'm all in favour of that.

Quote
No... If y is a function of x, this means that x is independent of y and y is dependent on x. If a decision is a function of an experience, this means an experience is independent of a decision
Okay, then I can just say you're wrong now.

If I'm driving along not paying attention to anything, then get hit by another vehicle, that's an experience. From that experience, I modify my decision: I decide to pay more attention while I drive. I avoid other traffic now. I created a new set of experiences through my decision. And the cycle continues. My decisions are dependent upon my experience; my experiences are dependent upon my decisions. So mapping it to a function where one is entirely independent of the other would then just be wrong, right? :)

In other words, "modifying experiences modifies decisions" and also "modifying decisions modifies experiences." Both of those are very much real world things and extremely easy to establish.

Quote from: Pamela
The next place they went wrong is they didnít do any math. They simply said here are a bunch of words. Well, you canít use words alone to prove a mathematical concept. I can say with words ďobjects fall towards the sunĒ.

Well, that is true if youíre inside Mercuryís orbit, you have the correct velocity Ė itís in fact true anywhere in the solar system if you have the correct velocity.

If Iím on the surface of the planet Earth itís not true. You can make statements and they may or may not be true, theyíre just words.
Well, technically, the entire earth is falling towards the sun, so everything on the earth is kind of falling towards the sun too. It just happens to be in such a trajectory as to not collide yet. So yeah, other people have done the math on that, so I don't have to. I can use words, not to "prove" but to argue a point that's already been made. So yeah, I'm not using words to prove a mathematical concept, but I am using words to illustrate a mathematical concept. (And yes, I get that that misses her point about proving requiring mathematics. It wasn't meant to hit on that point). Also, I'm not doing what she's talking about there.

Oh, and by the way, this part is a kick in the stomach:
Quote from: Pamela
The scientific method is the same no matter who you are, no matter where you are. If you have an idea the first thing you have to do is prove your idea. This means that you have to sit down; you have to do your homework. Find out what other people have already done, put your work within the context.
She says the italicized and then follows it up with the real science. Not a good move. Cause you see, real science is the study of reality. Proving ideas is a secondary.
(Here's some links to show I'm not bullshitting that:
https://www.colby.edu/biology/BI17x/expt_method.html
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
And if you don't like those, is there any source you would accept?)

Also ... *looks up* we're not on a scientific forum. So I'm not trying to impress scientists (KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE). As much as I likes me some science, this is a forum geared towards metaphysics, even if at times (And I know a few people are going to recoil at this) that means we put Official Science to the side in order to discuss what we've found to work for ourselves, and help others figure out what works for them.

~Steve
« Last Edit: January 21, 2016, 07:21:37 PM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 22, 2016, 06:17:34 AM
Reply #71

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
I said: "First, stop fooling yourself into thinking you're doing Science with regards to psi." I added emphasis this time. Does that make it more clear? I'm wondering whether I should go into the rant now or later about you not being a scientist just because you have a bachelor's degree. (I have one too. I know what they're worth, and I know what they're not worth)

I was trying to be nice and not drag the conversation here (that and I don't want to reveal too much about myself). All I will say is that you have made and are making a lot of assumptions about what I do with not that much information whereas you have made known what you do along with what educational institution you have attended. I will say this bit. No, Bachelors degrees in general or in the same field(or even the same degree) are not equally worth the same thing, for when I have been on hiring boards and candidates have had the same degree, I researched how rigorous the curriculum from whatever school they came from is(you just look up the information from the institution and look at what that particular program is like). I look into what are the required courses and how they relate to the position they are going for, so you having a Bachelors degree does not make it so you can say what mine is worth in terms of a career. You have made comments such as when I get out of school I need to learn to do what I am told(I'm paraphrasing). You also keep making comments such as I am not doing science because I am not a scientists, but you don't know what I do(you do realize that people with my credentials can work under scientists right?). I was attempting to be nice and not drag the conversation down here, but this is kind of the second time you aimed a personal attack at me in terms of my career(that you know nothing of).

Most scientists want to make society more involved in science, and one way to do that would be to get people involved. Science is not treated as so,e esoteric thing you have to be initiated into(you actually treat it as something analogous to religion or mystical orders), and there are people without Ph.D's doing amazing science. You have a weird idea of science in your head that is not actually what scientist is, and based on this, you are making assumptions about me that are not true(I have no desire to reveal anymore information about myself). In general, a person with my first degree with recommendations, referrals, and experience can work in labs under the direction of a scientist(they are pretty much your boss). For example, you have research technicians:

Quote
Many employers prefer applicants who have at least 2 years of specialized training or an associate degree in applied science or science-related technology. Some technicians have a bachelorís degree in chemistry or biology or have taken several science and math courses at 4-year colleges. Some schools offer internship programs, allowing students the opportunity to work at a local company or other workplace, while attending classes in alternate terms. Participation in such programs can significantly enhance a studentís employment prospects. Research technicians need a strong background in science and math courses. Science courses taken beyond high school, in an associateís or bachelorís program, should be laboratory oriented, with an emphasis on bench skills. Because computers and computer-interfaced equipment are often used in research and development laboratories, technicians should have strong computer skills. Communication skills are also important; technicians are often required to report their findings both through speaking and in writing. Additionally, technicians should be able to work well with others, because teamwork is crucial.

Research Technician

One of the degrees I have is a Bachelors of Science in Biology with a concentration in Genetics(I am kind of being vague on the concentration itself for privacy concerns), so for all you know, I could be or could have been a research technician. I actually do live where there are a lot of labs you know(I live in Atlanta which is a metropolitan area that has the Center for Disease Control - the CDC, here along with other places with labs which would need research technicians). The only thing you really know about me(career wise) are some of my credentials(which allow me to have jobs within science) and the fact I held a position which allowed me to have a say in who got hired, so you kind of are making a lot of assumptions. You are also assuming I did not have lab access. Well, I actually have had access to lab equipment around the time I was practicing using psychokinesis to manipulate genetics, so, yeah, I am not fooling myself into thinking I am actually doing science.

I think Rayn proposed something like a multivariable infinite graph or something earlier in the thread

I edited my response before this one to include a graph of an example using sine.

Quote
No... If y is a function of x, this means that x is independent of y and y is dependent on x. If a decision is a function of an experience, this means an experience is independent of a decision
Okay, then I can just say you're wrong now.

If I'm driving along not paying attention to anything, then get hit by another vehicle, that's an experience. From that experience, I modify my decision: I decide to pay more attention while I drive. I avoid other traffic now. I created a new set of experiences through my decision. And the cycle continues. My decisions are dependent upon my experience; my experiences are dependent upon my decisions. So mapping it to a function where one is entirely independent of the other would then just be wrong, right? :)

In other words, "modifying experiences modifies decisions" and also "modifying decisions modifies experiences." Both of those are very much real world things and extremely easy to establish.

Nope, not right, because I keep saying we are dealing with a dynamical and bifurcated system which can be modeled via a function, and you just gave me an example of one, so you are saying I am wrong by agreeing with me essentially; amusing. Here is the thing, though, below, you will see that x deals with all numbers less than 0, so you end up with an x that goes to negative infinity, which means part of the domain goes in that direction. I responded with an elementary way domain and range are described since you seemed to be having a hard time understanding what went to what. 

Quote
Bifurcation theory is the mathematical study of changes in the qualitative or topological structure of a given family, such as the integral curves of a family of vector fields, and the solutions of a family of differential equations. Most commonly applied to the mathematical study of dynamical systems, a bifurcation occurs when a small smooth change made to the parameter values (the bifurcation parameters) of a system causes a sudden 'qualitative' or topological change in its behaviour.[1] Bifurcations occur in both continuous systems (described by ODEs, DDEs or PDEs), and discrete systems (described by maps).

If you recall, I said that experience is integral and can be described as something like a vector field. You know what else falls into that category? Things like electric field lines.

I used the concept of two-dimensions for the sake of simplicity; however, if I use something three dimensional, we now have a z. In this, we would have z=f(x,y) where z is now our range and x and y are now our domains. With that mind, we can apply something like:

Quote
More generally, a bifurcation is a separation of a structure into two branches or parts. For example, in the plot above, the function R[sqrt(z^2)], where R[z] denotes the real part, exhibits a bifurcation along the negative real axis x=R[z]<0 and y=I[z]=0.

Bifurcation

This results in this image:



From the start, I have been saying consciousness is a dynamical and bifurcated system, which makes sense, because our consciousness is emergent from our biology where it is also dynamical. The property you spoke about in which decisions can impact future experiences is a chaotic property. This has been what I've been telling you. It is kind of absurd that you are telling me I am wrong about consciousness being chaotic(which involves a modeling of domain that goes to some sort of infinity in the case of bifurcation) by giving me a property of chaos! The funny thing about our consciousness, though, is that it is both stochastic and dynamical.

Also ... *looks up* we're not on a scientific forum. So I'm not trying to impress scientists (KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE). As much as I likes me some science, this is a forum geared towards metaphysics, even if at times (And I know a few people are going to recoil at this) that means we put Official Science to the side in order to discuss what we've found to work for ourselves, and help others figure out what works for them.

I'm not putting it to the side. Science treats our biology as dynamical, stochastic, and bifurcated, and our consciousness emerges from our biology. That is kind of a fact. When you argue with me, I am going to expect you to acknowledge basic scientific facts like biology is stochastic, dynamical, and bifurcated or that fundamental fields are pervasive. It doesn't matter if it is not a science forum or not! The whole subjective, pragmatic, relativists "works for them" approach is nonsense in my opinion. I am also finding it kind of insane that you said a scientists is wrong about science by giving me a source that supports what that scientists said... She is a prolific astrophysicists, so she practices "real science" and she was talking about formulating your hypothesis taking for granted that there was empirical data for it. Ironically, Pamela Gay thinks such things as String Theory should be thrown out based on lack of empirical evidence, so she is not too much into theory. This is from a source you posted:

Quote
Step 2. Form a hypothesis. Our observations tell us about the past or the present. As scientists, we want to be able to predict future events. We must therefore use our ability to reason.

Scientists use their knowledge of past events to develop a general principle or explanation to help predict future events. The general principle is called a hypothesis. The type of reasoning involved is called inductive reasoning (deriving a generalization from specific details).

https://www.colby.edu/biology/BI17x/expt_method.html

That means your hypothesis must at least be logical if it is not mathematical, and ambiguity is limited via logic by utilizing symbolic language, like mathematics. 

Here is another source you posted:

Quote
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

I'm starting to see a pattern.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2016, 07:52:17 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 23, 2016, 04:45:27 AM
Reply #72

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
You must be a masochist, Rayn. Neither of us wants me to talk in terms of mathematics and yet you keep trying to pull me into using that kind of language, and I keep falling for it. Why do you keep insisting I try to talk in those terms if neither of us wants me to?

Since I was tired last time and missed a couple of things from your previous post, I'm going to mention them now:
You took this to your professor and she (miraculously) commented similar things to what you've commented before, ie that I'm not mathematically proving what I say. You're the one who cares about the mathematical expressions here, not me. So if you care about mathematical proofs, then that's what you need to provide, not me. I'm not going to because I don't care enough to even try. I don't want to talk in terms of mathematics; you do.

And on that note, that Pamela Gay person you quoted even said something about, and you even bolded it, "The next place they went wrong is they didnít do any math. They simply said here are a bunch of words. Well, you canít use words alone to prove a mathematical concept. I can say with words ďobjects fall towards the sunĒ." Maybe I just missed it, but did you do any actual number crunching to prove that your "here are a bunch of words" was mathematically calcuable such that we should/could talk about F&FW in terms of math? Even if you never showed it here, which would be perfectly fine, did you do the number crunching in your own personal life? Or are you just providing mathematical concepts without actually seeing if the math fits? For instance, measurements: we can measure height in different units, whether arbitrary (inches and feet) or not (meters and centimeters), but we can deduce real, standardized numbers from the measurements. I've asked a few times: How do you measure F&FW? What units do you use? What do the numbers that you measure mean? You've thrown the bifurcation graph at me a couple of times now, but what are your x,y,z axis? What's a value of -2x freedom or free will relate to in the real world (because proper math does relate to the real world, especially when the general topic at hand that you keep trying to drag into math is a real world topic before it's a mathematical topic. But then, oh wait, you're using that graph for experience aren't you? Doesn't matter, same questions: what are the axis and what do the numbers represent?)?

So for a very simplified instance: I can use 2x=y to denote how many eyes to bodies a person has, where x is the number of eyes a human has, and y is the number of bodies a human has. 3 bodies means there should be 6 eyes. I look at three random people, and sure enough I count 6 eyes between them. If I do this long enough, eventually I'll find people with fewer (or more) eyes than the norm, so then the obvious question becomes: do I modify the equation to fit the observations, or do I throw a degree of error into it? (I'm sure you know the answer to this question already, so if you're not interested in just a little bit more insight into my thought processes, I'd suggest skip to next paragraph) To modify the equation to fit the observations, I'd be pretty much modifying the equation every time I meet a new person who doesn't have 2 eyes, so to get a "perfect" equation I'd have to check every one of 7 billion people on the planet and relate the equation to that... except many people are born and die every single second across the globe so that would be next to impossible. Thus, I'm sure we'd both agree that explicitly mentioning a degree of error is the more appropriate (and definately the lazier) route.

So back to the Pamela Gay thing and the scientific method: Observations come first, then calculations. Have you observed F&FW enough that jumping into mathematical concepts (even before you've done calculations, I'd assume) is the correct way of doing this? You want to think about concepts in terms of mathematics, but aren't you going just a bit overboard in attempting to drag others into it as well?


To your current post:
Quote
I was trying to be nice and not drag the conversation here (that and I don't want to reveal too much about myself). All I will say is that you have made and are making a lot of assumptions about what I do with not that much information whereas you have made known what you do along with what educational institution you have attended.
Well, you have mentioned your degree a few times, so it's hardly an assumption. It's also entirely fair to make comments on what I do know (in other words what you have said about yourself) rather than what I could speculate on.

Quote
You also keep making comments such as I am not doing science because I am not a scientists, but you don't know what I do(you do realize that people with my credentials can work under scientists right?). I was attempting to be nice and not drag the conversation down here, but this is kind of the second time you aimed a personal attack at me in terms of my career(that you know nothing of).
You almost say that as though you've never aimed a personal attack against me, for instance in terms of my intelligence... although, it seems you edited out the comment you made about me not being intelligent enough to understand what you're talking about. Aw, I'm gonna miss that little comment. Rest in peace, little buddy.

Quote from: Rayn
Science is not treated as so,e esoteric thing you have to be initiated into(you actually treat it as something analogous to religion or mystical orders), and there are people without Ph.D's doing amazing science. You have a weird idea of science in your head that is not actually what scientist is, and based on this, you are making assumptions about me that are not true(I have no desire to reveal anymore information about myself). In general, a person with my first degree with recommendations, referrals, and experience can work in labs under the direction of a scientist(they are pretty much your boss).
So first thing I think I need to do is remind you of what I actually said:
Quote from: Steve
I said: "First, stop fooling yourself into thinking you're doing Science with regards to psi." I added emphasis this time. Does that make it more clear? I'm wondering whether I should go into the rant now or later about you not being a scientist just because you have a bachelor's degree. (I have one too. I know what they're worth, and I know what they're not worth)
Since you're the one keeping your qualifications secret, which is fine, I can only go on what you have said, unless you want me to actually do what you're accusing me of and start making up random qualifications for you? You've brought up your bachelor's degree a few times as though that was all that mattered (an exact quote was "In addition to the Genetics degree I already have, I am almost finished with an Engineering degree from one of the best schools around here. Trust me, I am familiar with this." Page 1), so I have to mention that a bachelor's degree alone does not make anyone a scientist. Well, any degree alone even all the way up to PhD doesn't make anyone a scientist. You expanded it a little more appropriately in your current thread with the comments about even people without PhDs doing amazing science; it's the people who are actually doing stuff that are scientists, not just people who have degrees and go into different fields (for instance, I didn't even bother looking for a job in my degree's related fields, not that my degree is scientific anyway). I knew the difference between holding a degree and actually doing science and being a scientist; I worded my statement the way I did because of that (I should also point out that I said you're not doing science with regards to psi. I did not say you're not doing science in general). You working with a scientist is much more qualification for saying that you're doing science than the degree itself.

As for treating science as an esoteric thing: what?

And for the record, since you mentioned that not all bachelor degrees are worth the same, the description you provided for a research technician's bachelor degree is pretty much the same concept as the bachelor of technology (equivalent to "computer information systems" for americans), but merely in a different field. Book learning, instructional classes, work experience, and practical skills. Enough to propel you a level above applicants who don't have a degree, and get your foot in the door at a decent or good job in the related field. It's a start to a career; it does not allow you to dictate your wages or haggle over your job duties or direction of career, for instance, like someone with a higher degree or very strong reputation could do.

Quote
so for all you know, I could be or could have been a research technician
For all I know, you're purposefully keeping it a secret. So I go by what I have to work with. You know, like a scientist does *cough* >_> Oh wait, no.. scientists make assumptions too, at times, don't they? You're working in the field, you could answer that question :)

On the other hand, for all I've typed above, I really don't care that much about you. You keep talking yourself up, I'm going to feel like making a few comments. You don't talk yourself up, I'll mostly ignore you in favour of commenting on topics you are talking about.

Quote
I edited my response before this one to include a graph of an example using sine.
Yes, yes you did. I'm still not seeing how the number relate to the real world, nor labels for x and y. You talk about what the type of graph is... but not so much on how it relates to experience or F&FW or whatever you were using it for.

Quote
If you recall, I said that experience is integral and can be described as something like a vector field. You know what else falls into that category? Things like electric field lines.
And if you recall I'm trying to talk about F&FW, so talking about electrical field lines makes me think about faraday cages that can impose very definitive limitations on the freedom of the electric field line. Suddenly not so infinite and free.

Quote
From the start, I have been saying consciousness is a dynamical and bifurcated system, which makes sense
Even before you were born, lots of people were saying lots of things about consciousness that "made sense".

Quote
The property you spoke about in which decisions can impact future experiences is a chaotic property. This has been what I've been telling you. It is kind of absurd that you are telling me I am wrong about consciousness being chaotic(which involves a modeling of domain that goes to some sort of infinity in the case of bifurcation) by giving me a property of chaos!
I didn't use that example to talk about you being wrong about "consciousness being chaotic". I used it to say you were wrong about experience being independent of decision.

Quote
I'm not putting it to the side.
Well, enjoy your misery on these forums then :)

Quote
I am going to expect you to acknowledge basic scientific facts like biology is stochastic, dynamical, and bifurcated or that fundamental fields are pervasive.
So sorry that I'm not living up to your expectations. Oh wait, no I'm not. Also, it's not that I don't acknowledge that stochatic, dynamical, and bifurcated things exist, or that fundamental fields are pervasive. It's that I'm saying you're using them wrong, and for how intelligent you keep making yourself out to be (and how dumb you keep making me out to be) you're not really good at convincing me that you are using them appropriately, especially when you can't answer basic questions that I've been asking and keep getting side tracked by other stuff.

Seriously: F&FW is a complicated subject, but you're trying to talk about it in all sorts of terms that are just unnecessary, and then also making assumptions that things like randomness equates to freedom and whatnot. How can I take you seriously when you can't have a normal conversation about it and just keep trying to drag me somewhere I've been constantly telling you I don't want to go to?

Quote
I am also finding it kind of insane that you said a scientists is wrong about science by giving me a source that supports what that scientists said
Are you insane? The sources all said she was wrong about the first step of science. How do you get that they supported what she said about that? It's that very first step that's the most important because it directs everything else. You're a perfect example of this! Science is supposed to start with observation, and yet you seem to enjoy starting with assumptions and assertions that you then go on to try and prove and don't even seem to observe the real world at all. Out of all the various conversations I've had with you relating to science and the real world, the majority of times that you talk about science, you talk about it in a theoretical sense that seperates it from the real world.

Quote
This is from a source you posted:
Yes, congratulations, I noticed you quoted from Step 2 when I was talking about Step 1. I'm glad your basic counting skill are not even adequate from a grade 1 child's class. Keep up the good science.

[EDIT]
I should probably mention this part explicitly, as I've mentioned other problems you have such as with language. You keep jumping around, and this is a perfect example of it. You quoted a few things from Pamela, I noted that the first step was wrong and provided some sources, and you jumped in and said she was right because the sources still mentioned the same stuff but in Step 2. My point was her Step 1 was wrong; you assumed she was right because the things she said were still part of the scientific method, but just step 2 instead of step 1. But it wasn't about whether what she said was still part of the scientific method; it was what step 1 was.

This is part of the reason I can't take you seriously as a supposed scientist (and yes, I will state that. If you feel it's an attack, I don't care), because you don't seem to be capable of seeing or holding a simple straight line of thoughts. So many arguments I've posted have tested this. Even things I knew I was wrong about, I still posted to see if you could just think in a simple straight line. A to B to C. 1 to 2 to 3. I know that more advanced science is far more complex, but the more complex stuff builds upon the simple/basic stuff (you should know that, what with the demand for mathematical proofs).
[/EDIT]

EDIT 2: I guess I should also explicitly mention that I recognize your credentials and achievements as a scientist are not impacted one whit from my views of them or of you. You should learn to recognize this as well, and stop taking things I say about your credentials to heart. Your reputation as a scientist will be determined by the actual Scientists around you that you impress, not random people on esoteric forums.

~Steve
« Last Edit: January 23, 2016, 05:12:23 AM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

February 16, 2016, 08:24:00 AM
Reply #73

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
He he.... Well, Rayn actually uses his silly jargon here as in any scientific community he would be quickly put back to his place,  but here he can "shine" :-P.

Anyway, I decided to do something similar as Rayn, but not today as I am already tired. Tomorrow I will speak about the freedom and free will from the perspective of hermeticism.

February 18, 2016, 11:30:52 AM
Reply #74

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
So, freedom and free will from the hermetic perspective.

First of all let's make a few definitions just to make it clear. We will be talking about elements. Namely Fire as the element normally associated with Will. To speak about the consciousness as Rayn tried we would have to mix all 4 elements together as the consciousness itself is the sum of its parts.. Actually, let's do it :).

As many of you know we are tetrapolar, which means we consist from 4 elements The story of creation of elements is like this:
First elements that emerged from Akasha were Fire and Water, two opposites, yet the opposite sides of the same coin. Considering their mutually exclusive values and the fact that they can destroy each other, another element emerged, Air, to split the two. As the finally element Earth was born, to limit all three.

This might sound strange but consider your anatomy: your head signifies your will (Fire), your digestive system is related to the Water and between your Fire and Water there is Air, your lungs. Of course your body as Earth limits these, keeping them together. We can also go a little deeper and associate the elements with veins and blood circulation and we canof course take these elements from the psychology perspective as well.

In terms of psychology Fire means your willpower, your ability to dedicate yourself to something and do it. Air represents the mental processes (thinking, memories, intelligence). Water signifies your emotionality and Earth the vegetative system (fulfilling basic necessities). If we connect all these we will get what we can call a consciousness.

Psychologically speaking all elements affect each other. Fire element can overpower  the remaining elements and often get us to trouble in either of the remaining categories. We call this "acting faster than thinking"

Other issue comes when Air overpowers the rest of the elements, then we become day dreamers, people who can hardly focus to make any hard work done. Water element on the other side can lead us to blissful or dreadful states, making any work or thinking nearly impossible.

All these elements can also affect the Earth element, we can of course dedicate to something so much that we forgot about the basic things like food, sleep or hygiene. But the opposite is true, as well, overworking Earth element will make us forgive the little marvels of the world as we become too overfocused on the basics.

So, we have already said how the elements affect each other and we should also say they do it all the time, just more balanced elements do it less harmfully. But what is also important to note is they do not do so only visibly. The more subtlle part that is nearly autonomous is called unconsciousness in psychology. Consciousness and unconsciousness affect each other the same way as their building blocks, elements, affect each other.

After all this basic explanation I believe it becomes apparent why the elemental cultivation is important for adepts of hermeticism, but it also does show another important factor related to the topic at hand Will is not free and is affected just as easily as the whole consciousness. Either by unconsciousness, health (physical and psychological as well) and even through food or sleep. Now imagine people who would be unable (due to time or economical reasons) to cultivate one or more of the elements, not only their consciousness as a whole would suffer, but their will couldn't be very free, either).

Well, for some people the limiting factor is their financial situation and for some it is their naivity. Ryan, you have said here that you possess a free will and in the pms I have provoked you to admit you are arrogant and you do think that youare better than anyone else here. As long as I can make you react in such a way, I can control you, therefore you do not possess a free will ;-).