• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 03:28
CEST 09:28
KST 16:28
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles4[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China9Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL66Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?14FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event22
StarCraft 2
General
How Esports Is Reshaping the Future of Competitive The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament WardiTV Mondays Korean Starcraft League Week 77
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
i aint gon lie to u bruh... BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ ASL20 Preliminary Maps [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall SC uni coach streams logging into betting site
Tourneys
[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET CSL Xiamen International Invitational The Casual Games of the Week Thread
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Summer Games Done Quick 2025! US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Summer Games Done Quick 2024!
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 642 users

On arbitrary human constructs - Page 9

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 7 8 9 All
saocyn
Profile Joined July 2011
United States937 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-08 04:48:47
July 08 2013 04:41 GMT
#161
ahh another thread disguised as religion bashing. op, you were quite sneaky in this one, but it was blatantly obvious the direction it was heading. for all those who partake in such behavior, i'd say, you should probably get yourself checked out if you feel so overly zealous in another's beliefs that have no relation to you. the fact it evokes this emotional rage online out of you, is laughable.
i don't personally partake in any side, as i will not argue a meaningless cause. what i will say is, there are alot of great varying view points on both sides by other posters who aren't the op. At the end of the day my answer is, i see no point in attacking another human being for what he believes is right, and his attempts to share what he thinks is truth. i'd say the deeper problem does not lie in religion vs science, i would say it's the interpretation that we make of it. i find such labels silly. most people take such course of thinking as taking sides, and then defining their life on it and put themselves in a box. rather than simple truth seekers who may or may not agree to varying view points in science that hold water at the current time which they believe is right. america has become a culture of defining themselves as believers or non believers, and then defining themselves through their sexuality. it's a joke. human relationships (which we all need, but we evolved and survived as a tribe) should be more about sharing and attemtping to find connection within that medium, but yet we've become a culture the opposite of such in which we are trained to find differences.

irrelevant to the issue of religion, here are some things i'd like to address that may not be obvious to all.

alot of so called "research" that's supposed to be testimony, and evidence is biased. there are also alot of "new agey" guru's of every industry who misinterpret or read the conclusions differently of the research. if you want to tackle an issue, here's one that's just as popular and widely accepted within the past i'd say decade? gays. the evidence for being gay is rather feasible. the common argument most will hear when challenged is, "well animals do it, a certain species, and within a good amount of species that partake in gay behavior" now at first glance, most will simply accept this. whats misleading here is that this is biased research, which is simply nitpicking and looking for that one behavior and justifying their own actions. if we were to adhere to the same method, we could also justify rape, abandonment of children, eating your own children, thievery, genocide, pedophilia, only to name a few that "animals partake in" some of them more than equally common as being gay. so where does the truth lie? alot of the so called "truths" that most used blindly as evidence is widely accepted due more to social norms and i'd argue, most posters who fear of disagreeing with the majority and to be painted in a negative light due to a unpopular belief of such.

this is not only true of psychology, but has been also for cancer research. most cancer research in the last 50 years were done very poorley where the conclusions made were from situations that cannot be recreated easily, if that.
most people here argue science like it's dogma, which is very unscientific. the real truth of science isn't as most spout, that we'll eventually be right, therefore you're wrong. it's you can never truly prove something, but what you can do is disprove all the possibilities that might argue the contrary until you fall upon 1 thing that can be possibly a solution. what most hold as truths now are only within the confines and limits of physical reality. most reading that answer, would say well, we only have those laws. i'd say no, space and the sea has shown us different laws apply to different species and we are simply attempting to operate on what we somewhat know of our reality on the ground. therefore you cannot truly prove anything, if anyone has read research, conclusions and truths can often times be interpreted 50/50 more so than people think.

quality of many research is also dependent on how strictly they can isolate variables obviously, but many are very sloppy at doing so thus leading to in accurate results and conclusions which are taken as truths. the quality of researches also depends on how much fund that is required to come to a decisive conclusion, and also how long it takes. on another note, billions upon billions of dollars have been poured into "research charities" on cancer, and yet there new results everyday, but how many of those results have you read in the past year have actually made it into being patented treatments? none.

So my argument would be, if we want to delve into the deep areas in which we should question that involves life, like science and religion, let's also tackle the medical institutes has allocated a large portion of of our economy, and why innovation and treatment is sparse despite supposedly quality research. it is not hard to look at the entertainment industry and the technological innovations that pop out every month and compare that to the speed of the progress in technology in the medical fields, one is 1000x quicker in development and output compared to the other. summary? there are outrages poured upon religion vs science, but none are looking in the backyard, in those who do endorse science.
i'd say the better cause to cause a commotion in are the very people who take your money, or the institutions you donate it to, if you do / the causes you support, religion and science alike. as there are many fingers that point flaws in religion, there aren't enough pointing at the institutes, academics and industries i would assume most of us partake in. for every corrupt thing that may happen in the vatican, which recently did happen, there is just as common corruption in every institute but there is no outburst. i'm just saying, there's bias in the commotion we make, that is largely influenced by a social construct, your own opinion may not be your own, but your agreement to a majority reaction by default, it is no different that a man believes another man who has written history, than a man who believes a professor who he's paid to attend a university. i would say half of you would not be as confident in the answers you have posted, had you read the research into the conclusions yourselves and came upon your own conclusions objectively.
ZackAttack
Profile Joined June 2011
United States884 Posts
July 08 2013 05:20 GMT
#162
It's official. This thread has gone off the deep end. lol
It's better aerodynamics for space. - Artosis
RockIronrod
Profile Joined May 2011
Australia1369 Posts
July 08 2013 05:51 GMT
#163
It started off with "what's is love? Baby don't hurt me (if you're in fact real and not a non-physical construct produced by chemicals in my head trying to make me breed and care for my progeny)" don't hurt me, no more", to "I am arbitrarily euphoric, not because of some phony gods blessing, but because dat brain electricity" to "no bro we NEED ghost busters" to staking Count Von Count through his cottony heart.
I don't know whether the thread should be closed or allowed to reach its logical conclusion, whether turtle power is a social construct, or heroes in a half shell are a byproduct of evolution telling us to defend ourselves against the apex ninja predators.
NukeD
Profile Joined October 2010
Croatia1612 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-08 06:13:17
July 08 2013 06:11 GMT
#164
EDIT: wrong thread
sorry for dem one liners
Shiori
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
3815 Posts
July 08 2013 15:15 GMT
#165
On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 09:39 Roe wrote:
On July 08 2013 08:48 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 06:51 Roe wrote:
On July 08 2013 06:37 BillyGee wrote:
On July 08 2013 06:21 Roe wrote:

If something is non-physical how can you detect it with physical apparatus?


It depends on what you mean by physical apparatus. Is the brain a physical apparatus? Yet it can detect love which is non-physical. Look I am not pretending to have all the answers, the scientific study of the paranormal wouldn't exist if all the answers were already known.


It doesn't "detect" love, it creates love. It is indeed a physical apparatus.

The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4 or the universe it perceives.

Not sure what your point is

The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular.

I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things.

(I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release).


The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention.

Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts.

Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it.

Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing....

It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds).


I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him....

The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them)

If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it.
If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence.

He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4.

The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess...
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
July 08 2013 15:20 GMT
#166
On July 09 2013 00:15 Shiori wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 09:39 Roe wrote:
On July 08 2013 08:48 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 06:51 Roe wrote:
On July 08 2013 06:37 BillyGee wrote:
On July 08 2013 06:21 Roe wrote:

If something is non-physical how can you detect it with physical apparatus?


It depends on what you mean by physical apparatus. Is the brain a physical apparatus? Yet it can detect love which is non-physical. Look I am not pretending to have all the answers, the scientific study of the paranormal wouldn't exist if all the answers were already known.


It doesn't "detect" love, it creates love. It is indeed a physical apparatus.

The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4 or the universe it perceives.

Not sure what your point is

The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular.

I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things.

(I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release).


The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention.

Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts.

Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it.

Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing....

It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds).


I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him....

The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them)

If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it.
If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence.

He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4.

The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess...


Yes, it's a logical construct. Which is why Roe said the brain "creates" love and you said that the brain "creates" the number 4. Because to the two of you, both "love" and "4" are conceived ideas and not perceived objects. They are deduced by logic, and created by the mind, not simply observed and documented.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Shiori
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
3815 Posts
July 08 2013 16:30 GMT
#167
On July 09 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2013 00:15 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 09:39 Roe wrote:
On July 08 2013 08:48 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 06:51 Roe wrote:
On July 08 2013 06:37 BillyGee wrote:
[quote]

It depends on what you mean by physical apparatus. Is the brain a physical apparatus? Yet it can detect love which is non-physical. Look I am not pretending to have all the answers, the scientific study of the paranormal wouldn't exist if all the answers were already known.


It doesn't "detect" love, it creates love. It is indeed a physical apparatus.

The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4 or the universe it perceives.

Not sure what your point is

The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular.

I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things.

(I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release).


The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention.

Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts.

Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it.

Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing....

It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds).


I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him....

The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them)

If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it.
If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence.

He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4.

The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess...


Yes, it's a logical construct. Which is why Roe said the brain "creates" love and you said that the brain "creates" the number 4. Because to the two of you, both "love" and "4" are conceived ideas and not perceived objects. They are deduced by logic, and created by the mind, not simply observed and documented.

I was attempting to draw an analogy by absurdity. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4. Whether or not any mind had thought of it, the predicate to which "fourness" refers would still be a coherent possible predicate.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
July 08 2013 16:49 GMT
#168
On July 09 2013 01:30 Shiori wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 09 2013 00:15 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 09:39 Roe wrote:
On July 08 2013 08:48 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 06:51 Roe wrote:
[quote]

It doesn't "detect" love, it creates love. It is indeed a physical apparatus.

The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4 or the universe it perceives.

Not sure what your point is

The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular.

I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things.

(I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release).


The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention.

Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts.

Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it.

Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing....

It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds).


I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him....

The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them)

If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it.
If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence.

He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4.

The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess...


Yes, it's a logical construct. Which is why Roe said the brain "creates" love and you said that the brain "creates" the number 4. Because to the two of you, both "love" and "4" are conceived ideas and not perceived objects. They are deduced by logic, and created by the mind, not simply observed and documented.

I was attempting to draw an analogy by absurdity. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4. Whether or not any mind had thought of it, the predicate to which "fourness" refers would still be a coherent possible predicate.


But its also not a truism in the strictest sense of the word. There is a reason mathematicians still argue about whether or not we simply observe numbers or if we conceive numbers. You seem to think that "fourness" is this object in the world that is either perceived or not perceived; which is different from conceiving "fourness."

To "conceive fourness" would mean that there is an absence of 4 in the world; and hence why we need to create/conceive of it in order to discuss it. To perceive fourness is to see fourness in the world, and to treat it as real because we have observed it.

In the subject of Love, the discussion Billy and Roe had was on whether love is perceived or whether it is conceived. You attempted to suggest that it is similar to the number 4 as if it was a conclusive statement when it isn't. Mathematicians are still arguing over whether numbers are perceived or whether they are conceived.

In other words, does love exist if we were not here to see it as you suggest that 4 is here whether or not there is someone to perceive it.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Shiori
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
3815 Posts
July 08 2013 17:26 GMT
#169
On July 09 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2013 01:30 Shiori wrote:
On July 09 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 09 2013 00:15 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 09:39 Roe wrote:
On July 08 2013 08:48 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4 or the universe it perceives.

Not sure what your point is

The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular.

I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things.

(I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release).


The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention.

Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts.

Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it.

Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing....

It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds).


I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him....

The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them)

If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it.
If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence.

He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4.

The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess...


Yes, it's a logical construct. Which is why Roe said the brain "creates" love and you said that the brain "creates" the number 4. Because to the two of you, both "love" and "4" are conceived ideas and not perceived objects. They are deduced by logic, and created by the mind, not simply observed and documented.

I was attempting to draw an analogy by absurdity. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4. Whether or not any mind had thought of it, the predicate to which "fourness" refers would still be a coherent possible predicate.


You seem to think that "fourness" is this object in the world that is either perceived or not perceived; which is different from conceiving "fourness."

I definitely do not think that fourness is an object "in the world." It's an abstract object which necessarily exists in all possible worlds, because "fourness' is just a description of a quality of a set which doesn't depend on whether such a set actually exists.

To "conceive fourness" would mean that there is an absence of 4 in the world; and hence why we need to create/conceive of it in order to discuss it.

It depends what you mean by "in the world." There are clearly sets in our world that possess the property of having four elements i.e. they have fourness. But that doesn't imply that fourness is contingent on the existence of sets which have that property.
To perceive fourness is to see fourness in the world, and to treat it as real because we have observed it.

Again, true in a sense, but not in another. Obviously there are instances in which we perceive and conceive of fourness, but I'm talking about the ontological character of fourness.

In the subject of Love, the discussion Billy and Roe had was on whether love is perceived or whether it is conceived. You attempted to suggest that it is similar to the number 4 as if it was a conclusive statement when it isn't. Mathematicians are still arguing over whether numbers are perceived or whether they are conceived.

What I meant was that whether or not fourness is perceive or conceived of, it seemed that Roe was suggesting that love is a sort of chemical, emotional trick that the chemistry of the brain plays on the rational element of the brain. While I don't dispute the physicality of the brain, and so his point of view is (trivially) true, I think that love is a rational decision, not an emotional impulse (the emotional component I would characterize as infatuation).

In other words, does love exist if we were not here to see it as you suggest that 4 is here whether or not there is someone to perceive it.

Love is a property that interpersonal relationships can possess. If all agents (i.e. those capable of forming interpersonal relationships) ceased to exist, the notion of love would still make counterfactual sense, and that's because it's merely a description of a state of affairs and doesn't require the actual realization of that state of affairs to be, strictly speaking, sensible.

As another example, the Pythagorean Theorem is true in Euclidean space even if no human beings are around to think about it. If all thinking creatures were to die, it wouldn't suddenly be the case that right triangles violating the PT would start popping into existence, or square circles, or anything else.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
July 08 2013 17:34 GMT
#170
On July 09 2013 02:26 Shiori wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 09 2013 01:30 Shiori wrote:
On July 09 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 09 2013 00:15 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 09:39 Roe wrote:
[quote]
Not sure what your point is

The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular.

I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things.

(I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release).


The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention.

Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts.

Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it.

Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing....

It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds).


I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him....

The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them)

If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it.
If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence.

He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4.

The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess...


Yes, it's a logical construct. Which is why Roe said the brain "creates" love and you said that the brain "creates" the number 4. Because to the two of you, both "love" and "4" are conceived ideas and not perceived objects. They are deduced by logic, and created by the mind, not simply observed and documented.

I was attempting to draw an analogy by absurdity. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4. Whether or not any mind had thought of it, the predicate to which "fourness" refers would still be a coherent possible predicate.


You seem to think that "fourness" is this object in the world that is either perceived or not perceived; which is different from conceiving "fourness."

I definitely do not think that fourness is an object "in the world." It's an abstract object which necessarily exists in all possible worlds, because "fourness' is just a description of a quality of a set which doesn't depend on whether such a set actually exists.

Show nested quote +
To "conceive fourness" would mean that there is an absence of 4 in the world; and hence why we need to create/conceive of it in order to discuss it.

It depends what you mean by "in the world." There are clearly sets in our world that possess the property of having four elements i.e. they have fourness. But that doesn't imply that fourness is contingent on the existence of sets which have that property.
Show nested quote +
To perceive fourness is to see fourness in the world, and to treat it as real because we have observed it.

Again, true in a sense, but not in another. Obviously there are instances in which we perceive and conceive of fourness, but I'm talking about the ontological character of fourness.

Show nested quote +
In the subject of Love, the discussion Billy and Roe had was on whether love is perceived or whether it is conceived. You attempted to suggest that it is similar to the number 4 as if it was a conclusive statement when it isn't. Mathematicians are still arguing over whether numbers are perceived or whether they are conceived.

What I meant was that whether or not fourness is perceive or conceived of, it seemed that Roe was suggesting that love is a sort of chemical, emotional trick that the chemistry of the brain plays on the rational element of the brain. While I don't dispute the physicality of the brain, and so his point of view is (trivially) true, I think that love is a rational decision, not an emotional impulse (the emotional component I would characterize as infatuation).

Show nested quote +
In other words, does love exist if we were not here to see it as you suggest that 4 is here whether or not there is someone to perceive it.

Love is a property that interpersonal relationships can possess. If all agents (i.e. those capable of forming interpersonal relationships) ceased to exist, the notion of love would still make counterfactual sense, and that's because it's merely a description of a state of affairs and doesn't require the actual realization of that state of affairs to be, strictly speaking, sensible.

As another example, the Pythagorean Theorem is true in Euclidean space even if no human beings are around to think about it. If all thinking creatures were to die, it wouldn't suddenly be the case that right triangles violating the PT would start popping into existence, or square circles, or anything else.


Gotcha, that makes sense. In the end, its all very "tree falls in the woods with no one to hear it" type deal.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Roe
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
Canada6002 Posts
July 09 2013 01:47 GMT
#171
On July 09 2013 02:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2013 02:26 Shiori wrote:
On July 09 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 09 2013 01:30 Shiori wrote:
On July 09 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 09 2013 00:15 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular.

I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things.

(I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release).


The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention.

Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts.

Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it.

Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing....

It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds).


I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him....

The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them)

If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it.
If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence.

He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4.

The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess...


Yes, it's a logical construct. Which is why Roe said the brain "creates" love and you said that the brain "creates" the number 4. Because to the two of you, both "love" and "4" are conceived ideas and not perceived objects. They are deduced by logic, and created by the mind, not simply observed and documented.

I was attempting to draw an analogy by absurdity. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4. Whether or not any mind had thought of it, the predicate to which "fourness" refers would still be a coherent possible predicate.


You seem to think that "fourness" is this object in the world that is either perceived or not perceived; which is different from conceiving "fourness."

I definitely do not think that fourness is an object "in the world." It's an abstract object which necessarily exists in all possible worlds, because "fourness' is just a description of a quality of a set which doesn't depend on whether such a set actually exists.

To "conceive fourness" would mean that there is an absence of 4 in the world; and hence why we need to create/conceive of it in order to discuss it.

It depends what you mean by "in the world." There are clearly sets in our world that possess the property of having four elements i.e. they have fourness. But that doesn't imply that fourness is contingent on the existence of sets which have that property.
To perceive fourness is to see fourness in the world, and to treat it as real because we have observed it.

Again, true in a sense, but not in another. Obviously there are instances in which we perceive and conceive of fourness, but I'm talking about the ontological character of fourness.

In the subject of Love, the discussion Billy and Roe had was on whether love is perceived or whether it is conceived. You attempted to suggest that it is similar to the number 4 as if it was a conclusive statement when it isn't. Mathematicians are still arguing over whether numbers are perceived or whether they are conceived.

What I meant was that whether or not fourness is perceive or conceived of, it seemed that Roe was suggesting that love is a sort of chemical, emotional trick that the chemistry of the brain plays on the rational element of the brain. While I don't dispute the physicality of the brain, and so his point of view is (trivially) true, I think that love is a rational decision, not an emotional impulse (the emotional component I would characterize as infatuation).

In other words, does love exist if we were not here to see it as you suggest that 4 is here whether or not there is someone to perceive it.

Love is a property that interpersonal relationships can possess. If all agents (i.e. those capable of forming interpersonal relationships) ceased to exist, the notion of love would still make counterfactual sense, and that's because it's merely a description of a state of affairs and doesn't require the actual realization of that state of affairs to be, strictly speaking, sensible.

As another example, the Pythagorean Theorem is true in Euclidean space even if no human beings are around to think about it. If all thinking creatures were to die, it wouldn't suddenly be the case that right triangles violating the PT would start popping into existence, or square circles, or anything else.


Gotcha, that makes sense. In the end, its all very "tree falls in the woods with no one to hear it" type deal.


Indeed (at least that was my perspective). And I was trying to argue the point that both love and '4', and all other ideas are simply notions of our understanding of the world, and thus dependent on the mind (I wasn't really thinking about brain chemistry). I don't think it's possible to know if PT would be true without humans, but I'm probably too deep into empirical waters here.
xM(Z
Profile Joined November 2006
Romania5281 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-09 08:22:19
July 09 2013 08:19 GMT
#172
awareness is of the brain but resides outside it.
an analogy:
- the environment is the environment (the difference between those (if it exists) would be argued based on faith or induction; it could also be argued that the brain + awareness can create their own environment/projection but would not be consistent with reality.)
- the brain is the eyeball, it's biologic
- the awareness is the light/photon; the means (a medium) by which the brain perceives/sees/creates said environment.

+ Show Spoiler +
light reflects of environment and the eye perceives it. || awareness reflects of environment and the brain experiences it.
when the eye is damaged, the way the environment is seen changes (myopia for example, causes the environment to be seen somewhat foggy; a mention here, the environment doesn't change, only the eyes perception of it). || different brain affections might lead one to see things foggy but he will still be able to perceive them.
when rod and cone degeneration or dysfunction is present, it still allows the eye to detect brightness changes, to perceive shades(to see the light so to speak). || semi dead brains could (or can) perceive awareness.
( || = parallel)


note: don't take the wording at face value, understanding the basic idea is more important then semantics.
And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.
MiraMax
Profile Joined July 2009
Germany532 Posts
July 09 2013 08:44 GMT
#173
On July 09 2013 02:26 Shiori wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 09 2013 01:30 Shiori wrote:
On July 09 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 09 2013 00:15 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 09:39 Roe wrote:
[quote]
Not sure what your point is

The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular.

I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things.

(I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release).


The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention.

Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts.

Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it.

Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing....

It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds).


I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him....

The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them)

If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it.
If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence.

He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4.

The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess...


Yes, it's a logical construct. Which is why Roe said the brain "creates" love and you said that the brain "creates" the number 4. Because to the two of you, both "love" and "4" are conceived ideas and not perceived objects. They are deduced by logic, and created by the mind, not simply observed and documented.

I was attempting to draw an analogy by absurdity. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4. Whether or not any mind had thought of it, the predicate to which "fourness" refers would still be a coherent possible predicate.


You seem to think that "fourness" is this object in the world that is either perceived or not perceived; which is different from conceiving "fourness."

I definitely do not think that fourness is an object "in the world." It's an abstract object which necessarily exists in all possible worlds, because "fourness' is just a description of a quality of a set which doesn't depend on whether such a set actually exists.

Show nested quote +
To "conceive fourness" would mean that there is an absence of 4 in the world; and hence why we need to create/conceive of it in order to discuss it.

It depends what you mean by "in the world." There are clearly sets in our world that possess the property of having four elements i.e. they have fourness. But that doesn't imply that fourness is contingent on the existence of sets which have that property.
Show nested quote +
To perceive fourness is to see fourness in the world, and to treat it as real because we have observed it.

Again, true in a sense, but not in another. Obviously there are instances in which we perceive and conceive of fourness, but I'm talking about the ontological character of fourness.

Show nested quote +
In the subject of Love, the discussion Billy and Roe had was on whether love is perceived or whether it is conceived. You attempted to suggest that it is similar to the number 4 as if it was a conclusive statement when it isn't. Mathematicians are still arguing over whether numbers are perceived or whether they are conceived.

What I meant was that whether or not fourness is perceive or conceived of, it seemed that Roe was suggesting that love is a sort of chemical, emotional trick that the chemistry of the brain plays on the rational element of the brain. While I don't dispute the physicality of the brain, and so his point of view is (trivially) true, I think that love is a rational decision, not an emotional impulse (the emotional component I would characterize as infatuation).

Show nested quote +
In other words, does love exist if we were not here to see it as you suggest that 4 is here whether or not there is someone to perceive it.

Love is a property that interpersonal relationships can possess. If all agents (i.e. those capable of forming interpersonal relationships) ceased to exist, the notion of love would still make counterfactual sense, and that's because it's merely a description of a state of affairs and doesn't require the actual realization of that state of affairs to be, strictly speaking, sensible.

As another example, the Pythagorean Theorem is true in Euclidean space even if no human beings are around to think about it. If all thinking creatures were to die, it wouldn't suddenly be the case that right triangles violating the PT would start popping into existence, or square circles, or anything else.


Then again wouldn't that mean that anything that could ever be conceived of would 'exist' in that sense. That's quite a densely populated world. Understanding love as an abstract concept leaves much to be accounted for I would suggest and that's why I think the analogy with mathematical constructs fails. There is no feeling 'fourness' for instance. Surely if both exist they do exist in substantially different ways. Would you agree?
stroggozzz
Profile Joined July 2013
New Zealand81 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-09 23:28:54
July 09 2013 23:27 GMT
#174
On July 02 2013 07:57 politik wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 02 2013 07:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
The good thing about being human is that we are intelligent and that our knowledge keeps increasing that we are outdating and rejecting previous ideas and beliefs that seemed to adequately explain natural and social phenomena when human knowledge was not yet fully developed.

Chief among this is religion. It is getting the most heat because among other human institutions, it has been the most influential and even abusive and continues to control and influence some human relations. If, then, we are willing to go down this path and be consistent about it, why not go the full extent and interrogate all other abstract and arbitrary human constructs?

Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.

What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs?


All religions starts on the basis of a witness testifying a hallucination and writing it down in record for people throughout history to know this truth.




every fact starts on the basis of a perception of a subjected reality, and writing it down in record for people to know the truth.

why is there something, when there could have been nothing? no facts for example.

all facts have a certain amount of faith, even things like 1+1=2.
i drink ur milkshake
Shiori
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
3815 Posts
July 09 2013 23:33 GMT
#175
On July 09 2013 17:44 MiraMax wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2013 02:26 Shiori wrote:
On July 09 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 09 2013 01:30 Shiori wrote:
On July 09 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 09 2013 00:15 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:
On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular.

I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things.

(I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release).


The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention.

Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts.

Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it.

Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing....

It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds).


I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him....

The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them)

If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it.
If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence.

He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4.

The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess...


Yes, it's a logical construct. Which is why Roe said the brain "creates" love and you said that the brain "creates" the number 4. Because to the two of you, both "love" and "4" are conceived ideas and not perceived objects. They are deduced by logic, and created by the mind, not simply observed and documented.

I was attempting to draw an analogy by absurdity. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4. Whether or not any mind had thought of it, the predicate to which "fourness" refers would still be a coherent possible predicate.


You seem to think that "fourness" is this object in the world that is either perceived or not perceived; which is different from conceiving "fourness."

I definitely do not think that fourness is an object "in the world." It's an abstract object which necessarily exists in all possible worlds, because "fourness' is just a description of a quality of a set which doesn't depend on whether such a set actually exists.

To "conceive fourness" would mean that there is an absence of 4 in the world; and hence why we need to create/conceive of it in order to discuss it.

It depends what you mean by "in the world." There are clearly sets in our world that possess the property of having four elements i.e. they have fourness. But that doesn't imply that fourness is contingent on the existence of sets which have that property.
To perceive fourness is to see fourness in the world, and to treat it as real because we have observed it.

Again, true in a sense, but not in another. Obviously there are instances in which we perceive and conceive of fourness, but I'm talking about the ontological character of fourness.

In the subject of Love, the discussion Billy and Roe had was on whether love is perceived or whether it is conceived. You attempted to suggest that it is similar to the number 4 as if it was a conclusive statement when it isn't. Mathematicians are still arguing over whether numbers are perceived or whether they are conceived.

What I meant was that whether or not fourness is perceive or conceived of, it seemed that Roe was suggesting that love is a sort of chemical, emotional trick that the chemistry of the brain plays on the rational element of the brain. While I don't dispute the physicality of the brain, and so his point of view is (trivially) true, I think that love is a rational decision, not an emotional impulse (the emotional component I would characterize as infatuation).

In other words, does love exist if we were not here to see it as you suggest that 4 is here whether or not there is someone to perceive it.

Love is a property that interpersonal relationships can possess. If all agents (i.e. those capable of forming interpersonal relationships) ceased to exist, the notion of love would still make counterfactual sense, and that's because it's merely a description of a state of affairs and doesn't require the actual realization of that state of affairs to be, strictly speaking, sensible.

As another example, the Pythagorean Theorem is true in Euclidean space even if no human beings are around to think about it. If all thinking creatures were to die, it wouldn't suddenly be the case that right triangles violating the PT would start popping into existence, or square circles, or anything else.


Then again wouldn't that mean that anything that could ever be conceived of would 'exist' in that sense. That's quite a densely populated world. Understanding love as an abstract concept leaves much to be accounted for I would suggest and that's why I think the analogy with mathematical constructs fails. There is no feeling 'fourness' for instance. Surely if both exist they do exist in substantially different ways. Would you agree?

I think of love in the philosophical sense; the feeling, to me, is just a transitory and emotional thing. What we refer to as "feeling love" doesn't differ in any practical way from infatuation in terms of character; the chief difference is that one of them is characterized as much more intense and important than the other. I'd argue that, in many cases, love is just a term used to describe a persistent and powerful infatuation, rather than any sort of altogether different thing. To me, though, love (properly understood) is not a feeling at all; it's a choice which requires agency, knowledge (i.e. honesty) and determination to uphold.

Of course, I don't expect my definition of love to take in the popular sphere (since it would entail that, aside from death, it is impossible to love someone and stop loving them afterward) but then I don't want it to. I just meant to point out that my understanding of love is a set of conditions which underpin a particular kind of internal decision/volition/resolve and, as such, is just a principle/idealized decision rather than any sort of feeling.

Also, I don't want to debate about the definition of love, haha. I just wanted to show how my definition of it is consistent with what I stated earlier.
mafaba
Profile Joined April 2013
Germany73 Posts
July 10 2013 00:03 GMT
#176
Seriously what is this?

User was temp banned for this post.
ZackAttack
Profile Joined June 2011
United States884 Posts
July 10 2013 00:12 GMT
#177
On July 09 2013 17:19 xM(Z wrote:
awareness is of the brain but resides outside it.
an analogy:
- the environment is the environment (the difference between those (if it exists) would be argued based on faith or induction; it could also be argued that the brain + awareness can create their own environment/projection but would not be consistent with reality.)
- the brain is the eyeball, it's biologic
- the awareness is the light/photon; the means (a medium) by which the brain perceives/sees/creates said environment.

+ Show Spoiler +
light reflects of environment and the eye perceives it. || awareness reflects of environment and the brain experiences it.
when the eye is damaged, the way the environment is seen changes (myopia for example, causes the environment to be seen somewhat foggy; a mention here, the environment doesn't change, only the eyes perception of it). || different brain affections might lead one to see things foggy but he will still be able to perceive them.
when rod and cone degeneration or dysfunction is present, it still allows the eye to detect brightness changes, to perceive shades(to see the light so to speak). || semi dead brains could (or can) perceive awareness.
( || = parallel)


note: don't take the wording at face value, understanding the basic idea is more important then semantics.


I have a hard time taking this as anything but nonsensical analogies you made up that sound good. How is "awareness" like a photon entering the eye? Should the "photon" of the brain be the signals from the parts of the body that create the 5 senses?
It's better aerodynamics for space. - Artosis
Prev 1 7 8 9 All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 2h 32m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft: Brood War
GuemChi 1241
actioN 1060
PianO 278
Tasteless 257
Leta 204
Soma 140
EffOrt 92
Dewaltoss 82
Sacsri 42
Movie 39
[ Show more ]
yabsab 29
Free 21
Bale 16
Dota 2
XcaliburYe279
League of Legends
JimRising 640
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1827
shoxiejesuss189
Other Games
summit1g8763
Liquid`RaSZi257
SortOf103
Mew2King76
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick16853
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH377
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2123
League of Legends
• Rush1532
• Lourlo1181
• HappyZerGling128
Upcoming Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2h 32m
WardiTV European League
8h 32m
MaNa vs sebesdes
Mixu vs Fjant
ByuN vs HeRoMaRinE
ShoWTimE vs goblin
Gerald vs Babymarine
Krystianer vs YoungYakov
PiGosaur Monday
16h 32m
The PondCast
1d 2h
WardiTV European League
1d 4h
Jumy vs NightPhoenix
Percival vs Nicoract
ArT vs HiGhDrA
MaxPax vs Harstem
Scarlett vs Shameless
SKillous vs uThermal
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
1d 8h
Replay Cast
1d 16h
RSL Revival
2 days
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
Replay Cast
2 days
RSL Revival
3 days
Classic vs Cure
[ Show More ]
FEL
3 days
RSL Revival
4 days
FEL
4 days
FEL
4 days
CSO Cup
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
FEL
5 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL Season 20
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.