Philosophy Discussion Forums

Posted: **January 13th, 2019, 8:03 pm**

Alias wrote: ↑January 13th, 2019, 5:47 pm If.
This doesn't explain how my refusal to accept it makes god stop existing.

I think the way I wrote it has lead you to misunderstand what I was saying. Let me explain
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Mathematical Platonism (MP) as follows
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plat ... thematics/
"Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects’ perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented.
"
Now the set of all thoughts is an object of mathematical and as such from the above must exist.

Posted: **January 13th, 2019, 9:40 pm**

h_k_s wrote: ↑January 13th, 2019, 4:35 pm A sound is a physical phenomenon -- sound waves through a medium of a fluid like air or water.

Hearing a sound is a physiological phenomenon when the bones within your ear vibrate from the sound and communicate this vibration to your brain.

Thought is independent of the above.

You gave a very bad example which is invalid.

Q.E.D.

The brain consist of blood vessels, connective tissue, cavities with fluid etc. So once the vibration enters the brain what in the brain hears it?

Posted: **January 13th, 2019, 9:42 pm**

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑January 13th, 2019, 9:15 am Fdesilva:

The seven types of conscious experience are the five senses, thought, and emotion. I group them into the anagram VAGOTET.

V=Visual Perception or Vision
A=Auditory Perception or Audition
G=Gustatory Perception or Gustation
O=Olfactory Perception or Olfaction
T=Tactile Perception or Taction
E=Emotion
T=Thought

Every second of every instance of conscious experience of every conscious being that has ever existed is nothing but "moving picture frames" of different examples of VAGOTET or what I call: "Frames of VAGOTET". One is essentially just shifting Frames of VAGOTET (or AGOTET if one is blind, VGOTET if one is deaf, etc.).

Thanks, and yes my definition of the word "Thought" includes all of these.

Posted: **January 13th, 2019, 9:50 pm**

Jklint wrote: ↑January 13th, 2019, 6:57 pm A myth we haven't yet completely outgrown. In spite of signifying nothing, it still exists as an entity the brain has hooked and can't shake loose. It's an argument which pollutes any argument it is a part of or to sabotage any logic contained within it. It does not conform to reality but only to the Will itself which has a completely different agenda than that contained within any conscientious search for knowledge. It's a question of what we give priority to.

In your opinion
Do thoughts exist?
Does the set of all thoughts exist?

Posted: **January 13th, 2019, 9:56 pm**

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑January 13th, 2019, 9:15 am Fdesilva:

The seven types of conscious experience are the five senses, thought, and emotion. I group them into the anagram VAGOTET.

V=Visual Perception or Vision
A=Auditory Perception or Audition
G=Gustatory Perception or Gustation
O=Olfactory Perception or Olfaction
T=Tactile Perception or Taction
E=Emotion
T=Thought

Every second of every instance of conscious experience of every conscious being that has ever existed is nothing but "moving picture frames" of different examples of VAGOTET or what I call: "Frames of VAGOTET". One is essentially just shifting Frames of VAGOTET (or AGOTET if one is blind, VGOTET if one is deaf, etc.).

How about action, so it would be a cycle of VAGOTE => Thought > Action => VAGOTE
What do you think?

Posted: **January 13th, 2019, 10:43 pm**

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 13th, 2019, 8:03 pm Let me explain
"Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects’ perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented."
Wrong. No.
See, restating an opinion I disagreed with the first time didn't force me to agree with it the third time.
Therefore: God still doesn't exist.

Posted: **January 13th, 2019, 10:50 pm**

Must have missed a bracket. Let's try that again.

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 13th, 2019, 8:03 pm
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plat ... thematics/
"Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects’ perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented."

I don't believe that. I think numbers are a human invention, an abstract, symbolic method of describing the quantities of objects that do have an independent existence. And, of course, the vast majority of human thought, and the entire body of non-human thought, is non-mathematical.

Now the set of all thoughts is an object of mathematical and as such from the above must exist.

No, it isn't.
Therefore God does not exist.

Posted: **January 13th, 2019, 11:26 pm**

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plat ... thematics/
"Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects’ perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented."

Alias wrote: ↑January 13th, 2019, 10:50 pm I don't believe that. I think numbers are a human invention, an abstract, symbolic method of describing the quantities of objects that do have an independent existence. And, of course, the vast majority of human thought, and the entire body of non-human thought, is non-mathematical.

What do you mean by "do have an independent existence"? does a circle have an independent existence? If so that is mathematical platonism

Now the set of all thoughts is an object of mathematical and as such from the above must exist.

Alias wrote: ↑January 13th, 2019, 10:50 pm No, it isn't.
Therefore God does not exist.

Are you saying a set of thoughts is not a mathematical object? If so that would be incorrect as all sets are mathematical objects and is fundamental to mathematics in the same way as numbers.
here is an article that talks about it by a prof at MIT
Everything in the Universe Is Made of Math – Including You
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/13-math-made-flesh

Posted: **January 14th, 2019, 1:39 am**

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 13th, 2019, 11:26 pm What do you mean by "do have an independent existence"?

I mean they're real and stay real whether a human has any contact with them or not.

does a circle have an independent existence?

If it's a circle of mushrooms in a field of grass or seagull footprints in sand, yes. Even if it's a circle of stones erected by people who'd never heard of geometry, had no concept of it, but practiced it anyway - the stones remain, independent of their long-dead owners.

Are you saying a set of thoughts is not a mathematical object?

Obviously! I'm saying thoughts don't even necessarily come in sets. There are random thoughts and idle thoughts, fugitive thoughts, elusive thoughts and thoughts that go bump in the night which have not even a nodding acquaintance with mathematics or Plato. A mouse suddenly, for no reason, thinks of the time she escaped from an owl, about half past six this evening. The owl keeps recalling the mouse he missed, up until he catches a vole, when he forgets all about the one that got away. A young girl thinks peach might have been a better choice for bridesmaid's dresses. An engineer thinks of a good excuse for being late to dinner. The pizza delivery guy thinks he can stop for a piss and still get there under 30 minutes. A moose thinks the water tastes funny. A wolf thinks the moon is just about high enough to start singing.
A thought isn't an "object" at all. It has no existence outside the mind that produces it.

If so that would be incorrect as all sets are mathematical objects and is fundamental to mathematics in the same way as numbers.

So you keep saying.
Sure, everything has component ratios and percent relationships - but everything doesn't know that. It's not mathematics until some big brain comes along to name and classify it. Sure, everything can be counted and calculated - in theory. Every thing.
But nobody else can see, hear or know your thoughts, and you don't even notice 90% of your own thoughts, so how could they get mathematicized?

Posted: **January 14th, 2019, 3:00 am**

Are you saying a set of thoughts is not a mathematical object?

Alias wrote: ↑January 14th, 2019, 1:39 am
Obviously! I'm saying thoughts don't even necessarily come in sets. There are random thoughts and idle thoughts, fugitive thoughts, elusive thoughts and thoughts that go bump in the night which have not even a nodding acquaintance with mathematics or Plato. A mouse suddenly, for no reason, thinks of the time she escaped from an owl, about half past six this evening. The owl keeps recalling the mouse he missed, up until he catches a vole, when he forgets all about the one that got away. A young girl thinks peach might have been a better choice for bridesmaid's dresses. An engineer thinks of a good excuse for being late to dinner. The pizza delivery guy thinks he can stop for a piss and still get there under 30 minutes. A moose thinks the water tastes funny. A wolf thinks the moon is just about high enough to start singing.
A thought isn't an "object" at all. It has no existence outside the mind that produces it.

Firstly enjoyed reading that passage. You are very much the poet. Now to business. From the following statement
"...thoughts that go bump in the night which have not even a nodding acquaintance with mathematics or Plato"

Would I be right in saying that you are of the opinion that if the content of a thought is mathematical then the thought is mathematical if not then the thought is not.
So for example if I am thinking of a circle that thought is mathematical but if I am thinking of what to have for dinner then its not?

Assuming you answer to the above is yes, let me see if I can convince you otherwise by taking a short cut.

Computers can model thinking do you agree?
Now everything that is done in a computer is done by arithmetic and logic operation. In other words everything a computer does is maths. The equivalent of a thought is a number.
As such would you agree in regards "Computer thinking" its all maths and nothing else?
If you agree on that would you not think that human thought is a mathematical object of some form like a number which is the thought object of a computer?

Posted: **January 14th, 2019, 4:19 am**

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 13th, 2019, 9:50 pm
Jklint wrote: ↑January 13th, 2019, 6:57 pm A myth we haven't yet completely outgrown. In spite of signifying nothing, it still exists as an entity the brain has hooked and can't shake loose. It's an argument which pollutes any argument it is a part of or to sabotage any logic contained within it. It does not conform to reality but only to the Will itself which has a completely different agenda than that contained within any conscientious search for knowledge. It's a question of what we give priority to.
In your opinion
Do thoughts exist?

Thinking upon it thoughtfully I would say yes.

Posted: **January 14th, 2019, 8:47 am**

Fdesilva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:26 pm
What do you mean by "do have an independent existence"?
I mean they're real and stay real whether a human has any contact with them or not.

But if we can't experience them (as things that have independent existence are not created by the brain while our experience of anything depends upon and is created by the brain [for those who believe the brain creates consciousness]) we can't know that things have independent existence. One can only believe they do. You assert that things have independent existence as if you irrefutably know they do. You can't, as they are things not created by your brain. You can only experience what your brain produces. If independently existing tomatoes, for example, are not created by your brain, you can't experience them. You can only experience the tomatoes produced by your brain (for those believing the brain creates consciousness). Thus one cannot or at least should not assert as irrefutable truth that which one cannot directly experience.

Posted: **January 14th, 2019, 10:50 am**

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 14th, 2019, 3:00 am Would I be right in saying that you are of the opinion that if the content of a thought is mathematical then the thought is mathematical if not then the thought is not.

Clear enough.

So for example if I am thinking of a circle that thought is mathematical but if I am thinking of what to have for dinner then its not?

That depends on whether it's a geometric circle or a circle of dancing children; whether you're wondering if a second helping of mashed potato would send your blood-sugar past the 8.5 allowance.

Computers can model thinking do you agree?

Some computers can give the appearance of modeling some kinds of thinking.

Now everything that is done in a computer is done by arithmetic and logic operation. In other words everything a computer does is maths.

Okay so far.

The equivalent of a thought is a number.

That's it! Right there is your leap off the fifth-floor balcony.
A model is not the thing itself. No computer is - as yet - capable of generating spontaneous thought. The thoughts a computer can mimic are limited to the scope of mathematical functions. A computer operation is not synonymous with, nor yet equal to, the merest passing fancy of the least sophisticated living brain.

As such would you agree in regards "Computer thinking" its all maths and nothing else?

Indeed, and thus, not thinking at all, but a simulation thereof.

If you agree on that would you not think that human thought is a mathematical object of some form like a number which is the thought object of a computer?

No, but I certainly agree that the God of computers would be numerical in its sovereign omniscience.

Posted: **January 14th, 2019, 2:02 pm**

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑January 14th, 2019, 8:47 am [I mean they're real and stay real whether a human has any contact with them or not.]

But if we can't experience them

"We" is not a single entity. Which "we" experience different things is one means of collecting empirical evidence regarding those things. That's why conscious beings invented communication - to share experience. Things are not created in a brain. Experience is not created in a brain: it is processed in, described by and the description stored in a brain. The brain creates nothing. It produces electric impulses which we experience as thoughts. They have no physical existence.

we can't know that things have independent existence.

We can, however, based on accumulated anecdotal and experimental evidence, hypothesize to a degree of certainty that allows us to board and airplane in the reasonable expectation of arriving at a destination with which we have no previous personal contact.

One can only believe they do.

And we do so believe.

You assert that things have independent existence as if you irrefutably know they do.

I don't recall claiming irrefutability. You can refute all you like, but I predict that you will wake tomorrow morning and find your shoes (for which you have the same word as do a billion other people, who all know what sort of physical object you mean when you say "shoe") that you didn't dream about and didn't create in your brain and probably wouldn't know how to make (that was, nevertheless made physically real by somebody, somewhere.)

You can't, as they are things not created by your brain. You can only experience what your brain produces. If independently existing tomatoes, for example, are not created by your brain, you can't experience them. You can only experience the tomatoes produced by your brain (for those believing the brain creates consciousness). Thus one cannot or at least should not assert as irrefutable truth that which one cannot directly experience.

To the degree of certainty where you can confidently talk about tomatoes created in your brain as if expecting me to know what a tomato is, as if the word had been coined by some person to refer to some thing, at some time when neither of us was present, without first having created it myself.

Posted: **January 14th, 2019, 2:12 pm**

Jklint wrote: ↑January 14th, 2019, 4:19 am
Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 13th, 2019, 9:50 pm
In your opinion
Do thoughts exist?
Thinking upon it thoughtfully I would say yes.

Great now in regards the set of all thoughts would you say the following statements are true

Wisdom: The set of all thoughts will contain the perfect answer to every possible question
Infinitude: The set of all thoughts will have an infinite amount of thoughts

Sovereignty: There can be no thought that is not an element of the set of all thoughts

Omniscience: The set of all thoughts is all knowing as it contains all thoughts.

I am not asking you if the set of all thoughts exist or not but rather if the above statements about it is true.

Philosophy Discussion Forums

"Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God