Philosophy Discussion Forums

Alias wrote: ↑January 14th, 2019, 10:50 am No, but I certainly agree that the God of computers would be numerical in its sovereign omniscience.

Ok so you don’t buy my short cut. Life was never meant to be easy was it? Before I proceed let me summarise what we can agree on and what we don’t.
1. You agree that the set of all thoughts satisfy the concept of God as I defined it.
2. In any event you don’t agree with Mathematical Platonism(MP) that mathematical objects exist in some space.
3. Because I have not proved that thoughts are mathematical objects, The set of all thoughts in your opinion does not qualify as a mathematical object. As such even if MP is true I could not use it to say the Set of all thoughts exist.
So the contention we have is if the set of all thoughts exist or not. However, you do agree with me that if it can be shown to exist that it would be the same as
proving God exist based on my definition of God.

do you agree?

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 14th, 2019, 2:28 pm 1. You agree that the set of all thoughts satisfy the concept of God as I defined it.

I agree that your definition agrees with your requirements for a definition. I don't agree with either the god concept or math concept, so, as far as I'm concerned, they can be identical in their non-existence.

2. In any event you don’t agree with Mathematical Platonism(MP) that mathematical objects exist in some space.

Correct.

3. [Because] I have not proved that thoughts are mathematical objects,

Correct.

The set of all thoughts in your opinion does not qualify as a mathematical object.

Correct. I don't even know what you mean by a set of thoughts, let alone agree that all of them fit into a set.

As such even if MP is true I could not use it to say the Set of all thoughts exist.

Of course you can use whatever argument you like. It's the [Because] right after the 3. that was incorrect. These are not the reasons I disagree with your concept.

So the contention we have is if the set of all thoughts exist or not.

That's one of them. The other is God.

However, you do agree with me that if it can be shown to exist that it would be the same as
proving God exist based on my definition of God.

I agree that it would satisfy your definition, yes. But you started out satisfied with your correlation of definition and requirement, so nothing has changed.

Alias wrote: ↑January 14th, 2019, 4:18 pm
I don't even know what you mean by a set of thoughts, let alone agree that all of them fit into a set.

A set is a collection. So for example a book would be a set/collection of thoughts. Now does set of thoughts make sence? How about set of all thoughts?

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 14th, 2019, 4:59 pm How about set of all thoughts?

God is the culmination of Wikipedia? I like it!

Fdesilva wrote: ↑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?

That is an issue which Aristotle called "the mind".

Descartes also faced this issue.

It is a classic issue in ancient and modern philosophy -- nothing new.

Dogs and cats of course also hear it. But Descartes did not give them much credit for it. But that's a different story.

Alias wrote: ↑January 14th, 2019, 7:41 pm

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 14th, 2019, 4:59 pm How about set of all thoughts?

God is the culmination of Wikipedia? I like it!

Yes that is exactly what I am getting at. So even if there is no God currently you do agree that Man might be able to create a God. Once you admit the possibility of creating a God or an approximate God depending on how good the Wikipedia is, in principle you are admiting that a God could exist. Do you agree?

Now back to thoughts. Would you agree with the following statements on thoughts. You need to evaluate them based on how you think.
1. A thought can be evaluated as true, false or indeterminate :
Examples
Rain : indeterminate
It rained in LA on the 1/1/19 at 5pm : would be either true or false.

2. Thoughts can be added to make new thoughts
Example : Rain + LA + 1/1/19 at 5pm => It rained in LA on the 1/1/19 at 5pm

Do you agree so far?

h_k_s wrote: ↑January 14th, 2019, 8:46 pm

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 13th, 2019, 9:40 pm
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?

That is an issue which Aristotle called "the mind".

Descartes also faced this issue.

It is a classic issue in ancient and modern philosophy -- nothing new.

Dogs and cats of course also hear it. But Descartes did not give them much credit for it. But that's a different story.

Yes and here is a link to my attempt at solving it
https://philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 14th, 2019, 2:12 pm

Jklint wrote: ↑January 14th, 2019, 4:19 am

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
Not true since questions can still be extraneous to which no thought ever thought corresponds.

Infinitude: The set of all thoughts will have an infinite amount of thoughts
Also not true. Thoughts require an agent. If these are limited than so are its thoughts...severely so.

Sovereignty: There can be no thought that is not an element of the set of all thoughts
One can always insert another thought as if it were an object within a known set.

Omniscience: The set of all thoughts is all knowing as it contains all thoughts.
That's only true if each thought in the entire set is true. If so, then that omniscience equates to god. Since it remains unknown whether god is a true entity it yields the conclusion that omniscience is a non-sequitur since to be true there cannot be one element in it that's false or unknown.


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

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 14th, 2019, 9:31 pm [God is the culmination of Wikipedia? I like it!]
Yes that is exactly what I am getting at. So even if there is no God currently you do agree that Man might be able to create a God.

Man is able to imagine all kinds of gods, as well as every other kind of fiction, which is often both more informative and more entertaining than god stories. I thought yours was a more entertaining god story than most.

Once you admit the possibility of creating a God or an approximate God depending on how good the Wikipedia is, in principle you are admiting that a God could exist. Do you agree?

Of course not! You can imagine lots of things in narrative, theater, visual arts and holy books. What you cannot do is give those figments physical reality.
I also have to wonder why you want to create a deity. What's it expected to do for you?

Would you agree with the following statements on thoughts. You need to evaluate them based on how you think.
1. A thought can be evaluated as true, false or indeterminate :

A thought can be evaluated by the thinker him/herself while it's no more than a thought. We have more than three options: true, false, indeterminate, potentially worth following up, ridiculous, potentially dangerous, derivative, etc. Most of us do not bother evaluating most of our thoughts - even the ones we're aware of - so the vast majority of thoughts go unrated. Once a thought is couched in language and shared with others, those others have the opportunity to evaluate it - and generally do, but more often than not fail to record their evaluations.

2. Thoughts can be added to make new thoughts

Sure. By the thinker at the time, or later if they recall an old thought, and by readers/hearers if the thought is recorded. Some turn into complex scientific theories; some turn into military strategy; some turn into religions.

Jklint wrote: ↑January 14th, 2019, 9:53 pm Wisdom: The set of all thoughts will contain the perfect answer to every possible question

Not true since questions can still be extraneous to which no thought ever thought corresponds.


Infinitude: The set of all thoughts will have an infinite amount of thoughts
Also not true. Thoughts require an agent. If these are limited than so are its thoughts...severely so.

Sovereignty: There can be no thought that is not an element of the set of all thoughts
One can always insert another thought as if it were an object within a known set.

Omniscience: The set of all thoughts is all knowing as it contains all thoughts.
That's only true if each thought in the entire set is true. If so, then that omniscience equates to god. Since it remains unknown whether god is a true entity it yields the conclusion that omniscience is a non-sequitur since to be true there cannot be one element in it that's false or unknown.


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

Are your responses above made on the assumption that the set of all thoughts is all the thoughts that have been in the mind of some person /animal to date?
If so that is not what I mean. The set of all thoughts is the set that includes not just what has happened or will happen in the future but every conceivable thought.
For example, the set of all numbers, which would be a subset of the set of thoughts, will have an infinite number of elements. Some of those numbers will never be thought by anybody, however will be in this set.
Take for example a DNA molecule, the set of thoughts will have thoughts corresponding to every possible DNA strands from a couple of pairs to an infinite number of pairs in every combination. Do you follow me?
Again its not about if the set exist or not but rather about the properties of such a set.

Alias wrote: ↑January 15th, 2019, 12:32 am

Would you agree with the following statements on thoughts. You need to evaluate them based on how you think.
1. A thought can be evaluated as true, false or indeterminate :

A thought can be evaluated by the thinker him/herself while it's no more than a thought. We have more than three options: true, false, indeterminate, potentially worth following up, ridiculous, potentially dangerous, derivative, etc. Most of us do not bother evaluating most of our thoughts - even the ones we're aware of - so the vast majority of thoughts go unrated. Once a thought is couched in language and shared with others, those others have the opportunity to evaluate it - and generally do, but more often than not fail to record their evaluations.

Ok we can have more options

Alias wrote: ↑January 15th, 2019, 12:32 am

2. Thoughts can be added to make new thoughts

Sure. By the thinker at the time, or later if they recall an old thought, and by readers/hearers if the thought is recorded. Some turn into complex scientific theories; some turn into military strategy; some turn into religions.

Ok so based on this say you are thinking of making a chicken dish. The recipe is a (complex)thought that is a result of adding thoughts. I am not saying a recipe is called a thought but rather we can consider it as such.
In the same way a story book, a design for a car, a plan to build a business etc, can be viewed as a thought that is a result of adding other thoughts.
do you agree?

Now one more thing. Would I be right to assume that you are of the view that the brain is made purely of atoms and molecules and a thought would correspond to a specific arrangement of all the atoms/molecules in the brain?

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 15th, 2019, 1:16 am Ok so based on this say you are thinking of making a chicken dish. The recipe is a (complex)thought that is a result of adding thoughts. I am not saying a recipe is called a thought but rather we can consider it as such.
In the same way a story book, a design for a car, a plan to build a business etc, can be viewed as a thought that is a result of adding other thoughts.
do you agree?

Thoughts are added to increase complexity. Yes.

Now one more thing. Would I be right to assume that you are of the view that the brain is made purely of atoms and molecules

Since every things is, I'd say that's unavoidable.

and a thought would correspond to a specific arrangement of all the atoms/molecules in the brain?

No. The molecules don't move around to make different configurations for every thought - that would be hugely wasteful! They stay in the structure of the brain tissue: neurons, glial cells, myelin, blood components, fluid, nutrients and connective tissues. Thoughts are electrical impulses; they have no permanent physical form. I told you this already!

Alias wrote: ↑January 15th, 2019, 1:52 am

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 15th, 2019, 1:16 am Ok so based on this say you are thinking of making a chicken dish. The recipe is a (complex)thought that is a result of adding thoughts. I am not saying a recipe is called a thought but rather we can consider it as such.
In the same way a story book, a design for a car, a plan to build a business etc, can be viewed as a thought that is a result of adding other thoughts.
do you agree?

Thoughts are added to increase complexity. Yes.

Now one more thing. Would I be right to assume that you are of the view that the brain is made purely of atoms and molecules

Since every things is, I'd say that's unavoidable.

and a thought would correspond to a specific arrangement of all the atoms/molecules in the brain?

No. The molecules don't move around to make different configurations for every thought - that would be hugely wasteful! They stay in the structure of the brain tissue: neurons, glial cells, myelin, blood components, fluid, nutrients and connective tissues. Thoughts are electrical impulses; they have no permanent physical form. I told you this already!

Electrical impulses as in nerve impulses will require the movement of ions. Nerve synapses again require the moment of molecules. I should have added forces electrostatic, gravity etc. Different thoughts will essentially have to correspond to different arrangements. Lets consider the brain at any given time. The time is fixed. So each atom, ion molecule will have a fixed position. Now lets say we are in the process of cooking and just decided to turn on the cooker. So some of the molecules, ions, forces etc will correspond to part of that thought. We can put these molecules, forces etc as the directly responsible collection/set and the rest as indirectly responsible for the thought. Do you agree?

There is a relevant distinction between
(1) thoughts in the psychological sense as inner sentences or utterances in people's minds, and thus as concrete, mental entities,
and
(2) thoughts in the logical (or platonistic) sense as nonmental, abstract propositions (Gottlobe Frege's Gedanken).
["Gedanke" is the German word for "thought".]

Consul wrote: ↑January 15th, 2019, 4:34 am …(Gottlobe Frege's Gedanken).

Sorry, the man's first name is Gottlob.