METAZOA, Animal life and the birth of the mind, Peter Godfey-Smith

[mriana]

@write4u

Procreation is not deterministic, its probabilistic. You are citing a category error.

2 parents + 1 child = 3 humans.
2 parents + 2 children = 4 humans
How those children came to be is beside the point. It is just a simple addition.

Exactly, 1 parent + 1 Parent equals 3 humans with no birth control, sometimes 4 if there’s twins or in the case of octo mom 1 parent equals nine, because it was IVF.

So as I said, nature doesn’t do math like mathematicians do. 1 parent + 1 parent = 3 or more humans, with no birth control. With birth control only or no procreation does 1 human + 1 human = 2

@write4u

There is nothing “uncertain” or “mysterious” about addition.
1 + 1 = 3 does not equate, it is a false equation.

No it’s not a false equation without birth control and I just showed you how 1 + 1 does not always equal 2. Take away birth control the numbers, depending on the species, can equal 3 or more. With cats, 1 male cat and 1 female cat can equal 8 or more. Even Vets know this, thus why they encourage spaying or neutering your pet.

[write4u]

@mriana

No it’s not a false equation without birth control and I just showed you how 1 + 1 does not always equal 2. Take away birth control the numbers, depending on the species, can equal 3 or more. With cats, 1 male cat and 1 female cat can equal 8 or more. Even Vets know this, thus why they encourage spaying or neutering your pet.

But that is just a statistical probabilty, because if both parents die without offspring there would be zero. And by exponential law, over time 2 can “become” uncountable, but again, that is probabilistic.

It’s playing with numbers. Our mathematics have been tested and we pretty well know where they are deterministic (now), or probabilistic (maybe tomorrow).
But IMO, that is all sophistry.

@write4u

If you want 1 to be 2 you are no longer dealing with a number but with a “set”.
A set can be any combination of numbers and sets can be combined.
1 set of 2 + 1 set of 2 = 2 sets of 2 = 4

It’s called Set Theory

Set theory is commonly employed as a foundational system for the whole of mathematics, particularly in the form of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice. Besides its foundational role, set theory also provides the framework to develop a mathematical theory of infinity, and has various applications in computer science (such as in the theory of relational algebra), philosophy, formal semantics, and evolutionary dynamics.

Its foundational appeal, together with its paradoxes, its implications for the concept of infinity and its multiple applications, have made set theory an area of major interest for logicians and philosophers of mathematics. Contemporary research into set theory covers a vast array of topics, ranging from the structure of the real number line to the study of the consistency of large cardinals.

Set theory

Cantor set

Cantor set

[wolfhnd]

I try to respond when I’m quoted is what I meant. Just because it is the internet doesn’t mean that you don’t have to be polite and acknowledge people. In other forums I have been told to stop apologizing to the internet and I get that. It’s not real life but it can affect real life.

[lausten]

@wolfhnd

Just because it is the internet doesn’t mean that you don’t have to be polite and acknowledge people

I don’t think the internet has special rules. I can’t see what you’re doing, so I don’t demand you respond. Acknowledging is different because I can’t tell if you are ignoring me, or just busy.

[wolfhnd]

@lausten

Do you know the story of the Buddhist master who fills the student’s tea cup, and keeps filling it as it overflows? It’s a story of a mind that is so full of what it has read and heard and believes and has drawn conclusions, that it isn’t ready to hear any others.

As I said I’m not ignoring you. I read your comments. I can answer this question and answer citizenschallengev4’s at the same time. Where he said he strongly disagrees.

@citizenschallengev4

I would strongly disagree with that conceptualization.
If anything we produce first and come up with the conceptualization later.

We are having a communication problem. His point is similar to what I was saying about theoretical physics. He used the word produce and I used the word observe. Without input from the senses there is nothing to conceptualize. While the blank slate theory has fortunately gone away people still cling to the idea intelligence is a property only of the individual. Here a bit of an analogy is helpful. Instincts are a kind of intelligence. They are a product of many generations interacting with physical reality. Within the cultural space our conceptualizations are a product of many generations interacting with physical reality. That information is passed along not genetically but through interaction with others directly or indirectly creating what is called swarm intelligence.

By the way I didn’t say that there was no use for theoretical physics or need an explanation. The point was that it can’t be disconnected from observation.

@lausten

It’s a story of a mind that is so full of what it has read and heard and believes and has drawn conclusions, that it isn’t ready to hear any others.

Is it really or does it stem from the eastern idea that an empty cup is useful?

You take things our of context. Of course I value logic. I was just trying to make the same point Einstein was making when he said he didn’t think in language or that the key to his success was imagination.

There is a place for being succinct but it doesn’t work outside of a shared framework.

[lausten]

@write4u

It’s playing with numbers.

Boy, Got that right.

[lausten]

@wolfhnd

Is it really or does it stem from the eastern idea that an empty cup is useful?

No. It’s not Eastern at all.

@wolfhnd

Of course I value logic.

Your context did not make that clear.

@wolfhnd

There is a place for being succinct but it doesn’t work outside of a shared framework.

I disagree. It works in a lot of places.

[mriana]

@write4u

It’s playing with numbers. Our mathematics have been tested and we pretty well know where they are deterministic (now), or probabilistic (maybe tomorrow).
But IMO, that is all sophistry.

Nature doesn’t play by your math rules. There are no straight lines found in nature and it doesn’t play 1+ 1 = 2 because it often does not equal 2 in nature. Statistical probability or not, 1 + 1 does not always equal 2 especially in nature. Nature does not have a set theory and it does not play dice. So, if you see snake eyes in nature, you are probably in trouble. You may see one or you may see a nest. You don’t know with nature. 1 + 1 does not equal 2 in nature, especially without birth control.

[write4u]

@mriana

Nature doesn’t play by your math rules. There are no straight lines found in nature and it doesn’t play 1+ 1 = 2 because it often does not equal 2 in nature. Statistical probability or not, 1 + 1 does not always equal 2 especially in nature. Nature does not have a set theory and it does not play dice. So, if you see snake eyes in nature, you are probably in trouble. You may see one or you may see a nest. You don’t know with nature. 1 + 1 does not equal 2 in nature, especially without birth control.

IMO, you’re not doing mathematics. You’re doing probabilities, and then the “uncertainty principle” takes effect.

You cannot make mathematics do what you want it to do. It is the maths that always guide (allow or disallow) the action, not the other way around.

Mathematical functions are the “Black Box” of immutable processes that ultimately produce ordered patterns everywhere. It has nothing to do with humans.

Black Box
and
Set Theory

Function (mathematics)

Mathematics along with the expanding spacetime geometrical dimensions existed the moment the Universe was born and emergent dynamical fractality became expressed in discreet patterns.

[citizenschallengev4]

@wolfhnd

We are having a communication problem. His point is similar to what I was saying about theoretical physics. He used the word produce and I used the word observe.

But I wasn’t talking about theoretical physics I was talking about organic creatures, all of whom can be categorized as evolved sensing creatures.
Our bodies are created to sense the world, and process that information, and interact with that world.
The product of that processing, is our thoughts.

As with all sensing instruments, manmade or biological, we are limited by their hardware’s abilities and their processing systems ability to crunch the data.

@citizenschallengev4

@wolfhnd

Even with my very broad definition of science there is no way to related the question of god to physical reality.

I don’t buy that. It comes back to recognizing the Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide.
That is recognizing the difference between your physical biological body and the thoughts it produces.

@wolfhnd

Without input from the senses there is nothing to conceptualize.

So what? How does that make a difference? It’s not like the input isn’t physical, light waves, pressure waves, those are physical phenomena.

@wolfhnd

While the blank slate theory has fortunately gone away people still cling to the idea intelligence is a property only of the individual

Why bring “intelligence” into it, when we haven’t even figured out consciousness yet?

@wolfhnd

Instincts are a kind of intelligence.

Seems to me instinct is the physical body’s embedded evolutionary knowledge (understanding, intelligence) - embedded where? Within the DNA and organic bodily systems.

@wolfhnd

They are a product of many generations interacting with physical reality

Yeah, like half a billion years worth of generations, preceded by billions of years worth of developing basic chemistry into organic reproducing systems with sub-systems

@wolfhnd

Within the cultural space our conceptualizations are a product of many generations interacting with physical reality. That information is passed along not genetically but through interaction with others directly or indirectly creating what is called swarm intelligence.

Okay, sure what some people call Memes ( an element of a culture or system of behavior passed from one individual to another by [imitation] or other [nongenetic] means.).
.

@wolfhnd

By the way I didn’t say that there was no use for theoretical physics or need an explanation. The point was that it can’t be disconnected from observation.

What can’t be disconnected from observations?
Light waves, sound waves, pressure waves, neural signals, hormonal cascades, etc., all that is physical, but those voices you hear in your mind,
that is produced by the physical, yet isn’t physical in itself.
That’s the key to grasping “consciousness” and the “who am I” question.
.
.
“Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide.”

It’s more than a cute jingle.

[wolfhnd]

I could address the mind, physical distinction here by asking what kind of mind minus culture but that wasn’t the point. The point was the simple observation that minus senses what we call the mind wouldn’t exist. It applies to the debate over the utility of theoretical physics by how senses first mind later works. You have to start with experimental or experience in the broader sense and develop the “theory” from there. That experience however is not just in the individual but has been transmitted over many generations.

The philosophical implications are significant. As it relates to moral philosophy no culturally evolved eusociality no morality. The important take away is that instincts, feelings, emotions, lie outside the civilized moral frame work. Nature itself is amoral, deterministic, random, purposeless. We impose purpose/intentionality on nature. We acquire agency through the disciplining of instinct. The point being that you can’t devise a moral framework from a naturalistic perspective. So I agree in a way with what you are saying up to the point where you say the voices in your head are key to grasping consciousness. A lot of the who am I questions comes from the disconnect between instinct and behavior in complex animals. The reason we call instincts feelings is that we first become aware of them through physiological changes. The situation is complicated in humans because we are the cultural ape. In a way culture imposes feelings on us. Just as we are not conscious of the instincts that produce feelings we acquire cultural feelings at a subconscious level. Here I like to say that the ideas of Sigmund Freud are under appreciated. Culture has in some sense captured instincts and “perverted” them for it’s own use.

I wasn’t very careful in typing this out because I have just been trying to create a general framework in which to discuss the issues. That is causing me to make a lot of errors and miscommunications. What lausten want’s is for the conversation to be succinct. That it turns out is impossible. I guess I could write a book with lots of references and ideas that are well expressed and thought out but that would take years. Most likely it wouldn’t even be read. So I’m staying fairly casual. If people find something interesting in what I have to say fine. I’m happy to discuss it. But the polished version is never going to exist.

It turns out I don’t have a lot of time. I wish I had more so I could polish things up a bit and do a bit more reading but that isn’t the way it is.

[lausten]

@wolfhnd

I wasn’t very careful in typing this out because I have just been trying to create a general framework in which to discuss the issues. That is causing me to make a lot of errors and miscommunications.

Thanks for fessing up to that.

@wolfhnd

succinct. That it turns out is impossible.

It’s not, but we can’t really work on that very easily. You be you.

@wolfhnd

I guess I could write a book

Not what I’m asking for

@wolfhnd

So I’m staying fairly casual.

Cool. That’s the idea. A forum that isn’t run by scientists or philosophers, but we discuss those topics.

@wolfhnd

I’m happy to discuss it.

Happiness is important.

@wolfhnd

But the polished version is never going to exist.

Again, not what I’m asking for.

@wolfhnd

It turns out I don’t have a lot of time.

Profound, philosophical, and science based.

[wolfhnd]

The problem is I’m having trouble turning off the chain of thoughts. I have work to do and I’m distracted. I wasn’t going to come back here today but you see I have. I would like to escape this effect of social media and thought this forum might be the answer but it is not. I think what you are saying is be succinct and move on. It’s not bad advise.

[wolfhnd]

I had another thought I wanted to share. I think I understand where you are coming from. I read through some of your other posts on other topics to get to know you better. I think any time you are having a conversation it helps to know the other person. Here is the problem as I see it.

Science is amoral, philosophy is amoral. They don’t really help with personal development. I could use several philosophers as examples but I will pick Nietzsche. As best I can tell not a happy man with a solid personal life. I don’t agree with all his ideas but his focus on “will” is spot on. It is the central issue of our time but I’m not going to get into that. Nietzsche lived a monks life and that is not the road to fulfillment. Einstein on the other hand is an example of a genius that lived a pretty full life. He is also an example of someone who’s “philosophy” didn’t cause a lot of problems when it escaped into the general population. Nietzsche’s arguably did cause problems. It was used for example to support the Nazi ideology. Philosophers will say that is because it was misunderstood. Fair enough but that doesn’t solve the problem.

Dennett attacked the problem in a couple of books. How to “Create Meaning in Life” and “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”. It turns out that Darwin’s idea was dangerous. It disrupted the social fabric perhaps in a way similar to Nietzsche’s philosophy. It turns out that my ideas are dangerous as well when they escape into the general population. I found a White Supremacist quoting me on Quora. The idea that nature is amoral. That is why I resist lausten’s idea of succinctness. When having a conversation here I feel free to adopt an amoral perspective because I’m assuming that the reader understands that objectivity involves a certain disconnect from social values. Science and philosophy can inform your values but they are “valueless” in the sense that the subject or humanity is removed.

I said earlier that I was a compatibalist and I think that is the secret to Dennett’s moral framework as laid out in the books I mentioned. You hinted at it in your mind/body comment. What I’m trying to say is don’t confuse the amorality of my philosophical construct with indifference to morality or humanity. Your interests seem to be with the humanist aspects of this forum. I’m not saying that your are not interested in the science or philosophy. What I’m saying is that for you humanity comes first. Unfortunately for many people the ideology comes before humanity.

The central purpose of this form I would say is to connect humanity/humanism with the science. I’m thinking that is what we should explore. How the philosophy of science influences humanity which in a way is what I’m trying to do. I don’t want white supremacists quoting me.

Was that useful in anyway?

[mriana]

@write4u

IMO, you’re not doing mathematics.

Fine. That’s your opinion, but farmers, vets, and alike get my math concerning nature and that I’m not making math do what I want. It’s nature’s math, not human math, which just as humans try to control nature, some also try to believe they can make their math fit nature. You cannot.

[write4u]

[quote="mriana, post:[quote=“mriana, 95, topic:8495”]
That’s your opinion, but farmers, vets, and alike get my math concerning nature

But none are mathematicians. And the math used for "forecasts a pattern " in a chaotic environment is probabilistic , i.e. “uncertain”.

“You and me, plus baby, makes three” (Paul Simon) (2 + 1 = 3)
1 + 1 = 2 , all other results involve “additional” values.

Cardinal number

In mathematics, a cardinal number , or cardinal for short, is what is commonly called the number of elements of a set. In the case of a finite set, its cardinal number, or cardinality is therefore a natural number. For dealing with the case of infinite sets, the infinite cardinal numbers have been introduced, which are often denoted with the Hebrew letter ℵ (aleph) marked with subscript indicating their rank among the infinite cardinals.

Pure mathematics is not uncertain, except at quantum levels and below.

Human maths are merely codyfied symbolic representations of natural “relational values”. i,e, whole cardinal numbers

Ask yourself the question if maths existed and guided universal dynamics before man came along?

[lausten]

@write4u

Pure mathematics is not uncertain, except at quantum levels and below.

Is this like a Schroedinger’s cat thing?

[mriana]

@write4u

But none are mathematicians.

Mathematicians do not deal with birth, life, and death. They only deal with numbers, nothing more. Nature has it’s own math and it’s not that of humans. Human math is just that- human math and has nothing to do with nature.

Now science, especially in practices such as veterinary, livestock, botany, all those that deal with nature, that’s different. Despite the numbers, there is always that 1 + 1 = 3 or more without birth control and no straight lines in nature. When it comes to nature, you have to throw out the human made stats and probabilities and go with the reality that 1 + 1 does not always equal 2, but can and often does equal 3 or more. Nature is very uncertain and no human math applies.

@write4u

Ask yourself the question if maths existed and guided universal dynamics before man came along?

It did not. Nature has no math. It adds, divides, subtracts, and multiplies in it’s own way, not human ways. There was no math before humans came along, at least not as we know human math today.

[mriana]

@lausten

Is this like a Schroedinger’s cat thing?

I wonder if Schroedinger’s cat found a mate and became 8? lol

[citizenschallengev4]

@wolfhnd

The idea that nature is amoral.

@wolfhnd

I said earlier that I was a compatibalist and I think that is the secret to Dennett’s moral framework as laid out in the books I mentioned. You hinted at it in your mind/body comment. What I’m trying to say is don’t confuse the amorality of my philosophical construct with indifference to morality or humanity.

Where did I give you that impression?
Where do I make a big deal out of “morality” one way or the other?
At least when it comes to evolution and science.

@wolfhnd

Your interests seem to be with the humanist aspects of this forum. I’m not saying that your are not interested in the science or philosophy. What I’m saying is that for you humanity comes first. Unfortunately for many people the ideology comes before humanity.

That’s an interesting observation, after my first dismissal and a little more musing on it, I can see it. I’ve summarized it as striving for a better appreciating of our relationship with the thoughts we possess.

As for the “humanism” sure, I am an evolved biological sensing creature. The answers to understanding the difference between me and my dog pal, are to be found in Evolution and biology, not in philosophy and philosophical physics.

My knowledge and experience is all around understanding scientific lessons and what those lessons can teach me about the world I find myself within. Thanks to circumstance and family this journey began by the time I’d outgrown toddlerhood.

@wolfhnd

The central purpose of this form I would say is to connect humanity/humanism with the science. I’m thinking that is what we should explore. How the philosophy of science influences humanity which in a way is what I’m trying to do.

And I believe the requirement for seriously undertaking that journey, is a profound appreciation for the “Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide”, it’s first base concept that everything builds upon.

I dare say it’s about the most succinct and fundamental observation, based on what science has taught us, that there is.

Much more real then the notion that, “I think, therefor I am.”
Which I’ve concluded is actually the other way around: “I Am, Therefore I Think”
a notion that is fully supported (and can only be seriously understood) with an evolutionary, deep time understanding, based on what science has taught us.

@wolfhnd

Was that useful in anyway?

Though provoking conversation is always useful.
Thanks.

*[For what it’s worth I was a skilled worker, a high school grad, some college courses, the rest, self directed and experienced, A partial bibliography.