|
 raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
 Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack*  [Re: trendal]
#2277048 - 01/27/04 08:45 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Allright then, please answer the question: What is the difference that will make this a computer and not something else?
|
trendal 
J♠
 
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada 
|
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: raytrace]
#2277059 - 01/27/04 08:48 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
What is the difference that will make this a computer and not something else?
What we refer to as a "computer" is a specific ordering of a group of smaller physical constituents, with an intended purpose for use.
A table is not a computer because it does not follow the same specific ordering of smaller constituent parts. Which is the same reason a computer is not a table.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: trendal]
#2277088 - 01/27/04 08:59 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
There is no specific ordering (add more emphasis here) that will make something a computer. Therefore, there is no objective computer.
|
buttonion
Calmly Watching
Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
|
 Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: ]
#2277108 - 01/27/04 09:04 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks for your post Mr. M. I consider it very high praise. I'm going to do some further research as well. Eggh, but school is starting. James and Rorty are two big proponents of pragmatism. I think I read that Hilary Putnam has some contention with Rorty.
"God is dead", is reality next? (he, he)
--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein
|
buttonion
Calmly Watching
Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
|
 Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: trendal]
#2277158 - 01/27/04 09:30 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What we refer to as a "computer" is a specific ordering of a group of smaller physical constituents, with an intended purpose for use.
*puts on realist costume*
Right. You have defined the computer at the physical level and at the functional level. It is a physical thing composed of other physical things and it is there to serve some purpose. Unless you believe in some divine purpose, ?purpose? is an idea created by human beings- we describe physical things as intended to do this or that. The purpose of a tennis racket is to hit a ball, the purpose of my calculator is to compute arithmetic. If purpose is an idea created by human beings, if there are no beings to imbue the world with purpose, the computer will not continue to exist as a computer at the functional level.
The same applies to the idea of software. Describing a disk as software is describing it at a functional level. If no being is there to use this physical thing in the software way, then how much sense does it make to refer to it as software. None. A functional description is completely tied to the beings intention to use it as such. The term software is a convention. It is an abstraction.
So there is a computer sitting on a planet with no beings around who are able to use it as a computer. Is it a computer?
Your going to say
?if there was a human being there to use the computer as it was intended, they would really see that it was a computer that was there all along.?
But function, teleology, utility- these are all ideas. With no humans, these ideas are gone.
And maybe it is a windbreaker or a house for some aliens. But its not a computer unless there is someone there to recognize it as one.
*takes off realist costume and takes a shower (meditates)*
--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein
Edited by buttonion (01/27/04 09:31 AM)
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: raytrace]
#2277196 - 01/27/04 09:50 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Well raytrace, it would appear that our views of objective reality differ here on a fundamental level. That being the case...I have nothing more to say 
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: buttonion]
#2277202 - 01/27/04 09:54 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Ahh, excellent bost buttonion!
I tend to view this as the difference between objective reality and subjective reality (ie: the human experience of "reality"). I'm sure I've stated it elsewhere: I think the two are quite different.
Yes, without any beings around to think of the computer as a "computer"...it is not really a computer. However the collective ordering of the system remains the same - it is only the meaning which is lost. Without me to think of my computer as such, it remains simply an ordered system of fundamental constituents (be they atoms, particles, strings, ect).
"Ideas" may be created by humans...but I think that certain concepts exist indipendantly of human existence.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: buttonion]
#2277233 - 01/27/04 10:08 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The term software is a convention. It is an abstraction.
Bingo!
|
buttonion
Calmly Watching
Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
|
 Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: trendal]
#2277320 - 01/27/04 10:42 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
"Ideas" may be created by humans...but I think that certain concepts exist indipendantly of human existence.
So tell us what these concepts are and we'll try to convince you otherwise.
--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: raytrace]
#2277401 - 01/27/04 11:04 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
What is really funny is that abstractions are not really needed in the universe, yet we experience them and this is what makes things real. Isn?t this almost mystical?
The universe may still exist independently, but what exists is merely a continuity, a continuous causality: no apples, no oranges, no brains to perceive them.
Edited by raytrace (01/27/04 11:14 AM)
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: buttonion]
#2277412 - 01/27/04 11:07 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Unfortunately this is not something I can explain at the moment, as I lack the language to do so. That may sound like a cop-out...but it's just the way it is and I wouldn't be comfortable throwing myself on the block on this one
Give me a few days, I'll see what I can come up with in way of an explanation.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
 Ped
Interested In Your Brain
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: trendal]
#2277598 - 01/27/04 12:39 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
>> I tend to view this as the difference between objective reality and subjective reality (ie: the human experience of "reality"). I'm sure I've stated it elsewhere: I think the two are quite different.
We all seem to agree that a large portion of our experience is pervaded by imputation of conception. We encounter an object that performs a function, and we assign a name to that object based upon the function it performs. Consequently, we make the assumption that the object inherently exists based upon the names and functions we have imputed upon it. We all seem to agree that this is a mistaken awareness that improperly constructs our reality, and that by removing the incorrect basis, we can discover what is actually there.
Buttonion has put it very beautifully; The term software is a convention. It is an abstraction.
When we encounter an object such as a chair, we immediately assign it inherent existence based upon it's function. Our mind spontaneously informs us that the object we have encountered is, independently, a "chair". It's very easy for us to remember that "chair" is a conceptualization that exists in dependence upon the presence of an apprehending conciousness. "Chair" is an example of convention, and can be easily ruled out as not inherently existent.
Having discarded the conceptualization of "chair", we may encounter the object again and decide that it is "wood". Our bothersome minds might continue informing us that infront of us is an inherently existent "chair", but careful attention ensures that we see past this deception and apprehend only "wood". Clearly, it is comprised of an arrangement of wood fibres and has a warm wooden colour. But if we continue our investigation, we discover that wood is comprised of molecules, atoms, energies, and so forth. It exists in dependence upon other phenomena. If we are to remain true the original reasoning that carried us past the conceptualization of "chair", we must also recognize "wood" as another convention, a nominal distinction decided upon by the presence of an apprehending conciousness.
Without much difficulty, we can place "wood" in the same category as "chair", as conventional truths that exist only in dependence upon mind. Having dismissed these two conceptualizations, we can encounter the object again, thinking "I have discarded two assumptions made by my mistaken awareness. Now I must have arrived at what is actually there." It is natural for us to fall back upon a new basis for experiencing an object as though it were "out there". Each passing instant of our experience informs us that we are a segregated block of conciousness, encountering objects which are wholly apart from ourselves. It is not easy to oppose such a deeply ingrained mind. This time, we might conclude that "assembly of fundamental consituents" is the object that is actually out there.
We have arrived at this point using our reasoning: "A chair cannot exist inherently because 'chair' is merely a conceptualization imputed upon an object. In this case, 'chair' has been imputed upon a piece of wood. By the same token, 'wood' does not itself exist inherently because the appearance of 'wood' is dependent upon other phenomena which perform a function, such as molecules, atoms, and so forth. In this case, these fundamental consituents function to give rise to the phenomena which we have categorized as 'wood'. Since it is only the mind which apprehends this phenomena as wood, 'wood' is a mere imputation, and cannot exist independently of mind. Therefore, it is these fundamental constituents which exist inherently. All other apprehensions are mere concepts and must be disregarded."
Though, if we are to adhere to our original reasoning, we must remember that distinctions between atoms, electrons, particles, waves and so forth are determined by convention. In the same way that the apprehension of "chair" is a mere imputation upon a phenomena, "atom" is a mere imputation upon the appearance of another phenomena. Our mind encounters a chair and spontaneously informs us that infront of us is a chair, existing from it's own side. In the same way, with the proper instruments, our mind encounters an atom, and spontaneously informs us again, that based upon it's function, we have encountered an object existing from it's own side. If we have concluded the former to be a mistake, we must then conclude the latter also to be a mistake if we are to maintain the integrity of our own line of reasoning.
Like peeling an onion, we can discard each layer of our experience and discover that underneath all of our conceptualizations is only empty space. To Buddhists, this is called "emptiness". We must remember that distinctions exist in just the same way that objects such as "chair" and "wood" exist. Just as we mistakenly apprehend "chair" as inherently existent, we mistakenly apprehend self and other as an inherently existent distinction. If we check carefully, we'll discover that there can be no boundry between self and other, because such a boundry can exist only in dependence upon a mind that believes this is so. If we profoundly understand this, we can avoid the extreme of concluding through this reasoning that nothing exists at all, while simultaneously opposing the extreme from which we are presently abiding: the experience which informs that things exist apart from us, from their own side. We can come to understand that all things, animate and inanimate, are intimately and inextricably connected with ourselves.
Analyzing our experience, we can quickly discover that it is the grasping at an inherentely existent and independent self which gives rise to the appearance of boundries between objects in the first place. No such inherently existent self exists. If, through training and constant practice, we were to profoundly oppose the mind that apprehends objects as inherently existent, we would eventually internalize the wisdom realizing ultimate nature of reality, and the boundries that exist in our experience would begin to disintegrate. Our experience of the world would change, our encounters with other people would change, and most importantly, we would be incapable of experiencing suffering, or of causing others to experience suffering. After all, suffering is a phenomena that occurs in dependence upon a mind which opposes other phenomena. If that mind is profoundly aware that there are no independently unfolding phenomena, that mind would be incapable of apprehending or perpetrating the phenomena of suffering. There would only be harmony, stillness, tranquility, and bliss (How's that for seductive, eh Mr. Mushrooms!  ).
If anyone is interested in learning more about this subject, feel free to PM me, and I will connect you with resources of further learning.
--------------------
 Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
|
Ped
Interested In Your Brain
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: raytrace]
#2277614 - 01/27/04 12:52 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
>> What is really funny is that abstractions are not really needed in the universe, yet we experience them and this is what makes things real. Isn?t this almost mystical?
Abstractions are necessary for us to properly interact with our environment. Beyond this, they are useless and often harmful. If we were to begin ignoring the conventional truths behind our experience, we would be incapable of getting out of the bed in the morning, or of interacting with other beings. The mistake is in assuming conventional appearances to be ultimately true, inherently existent and real.
--------------------
Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
|
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: buttonion]
#2277706 - 01/27/04 01:32 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Here's what I think it comes down to:
We are creators - we create machines that complete processes. We create labels for these things as well. Once the machine is built, and its processes are running, the computer is there. It is there no matter what. The software is there too - it is there no matter what.
It doesn't matter what label one gives to it, the machine and its processes are still there, REALLY. Something doesn't need "meaning" to exist in my opinion, just ask a rock and it will show you it doesn't need meaning.
I feel like we're going in loops here, but I don't see computational software as an abstraction any more than a chair is, or a "spear."
If we make the thing, it is whatever we made it as. If somebody makes an object and calls it a Flambungo, then it is a Flambungo "objectively" because the creator, regardless of whether or not he's still around, intended it to be a Flambungo. This means somebody else can walk up to it and give it their own subjective label, but since they didn't create the thing, it is only their label to them, and it is a Flambungo "in reality."
You can trace it back further if you wish and ask "what is this Flambungo made from?" Closer inspection could reveal that it is composed of rocks and sticks.
Let's zoom forward several hundred thousand years and take notice of no more humans and an alien race coming down to Earth. The alien walks up to the Flambungo and sees rocks and sticks. They will "objectively" (objectively since they don't realize it already has a label.. to them, it would objectively be what they see it as, like a rock is objectively a rock because we gave it that label) label it as "construct of rocks and sticks," which they don't realize is a Flambungo.
Since they don't know what a Flambungo is, is it still a Flambungo? Or is it now demoted to "construct of rocks and sticks" level? They don't know a Flambungo is used to kill snakes, so since that aspect of it is now unknown, is it unreal too, and no longer a quality of the object?
What has happened here? Has objective reality changed since the creator is no longer around? is that possible?
If a tree falls in the woods....
This is where labels and objects collide, and often conflict. I think we're attacking an age-old question with different labels, lol and I'm getting tired of the loops hehe
"But function, teleology, utility- these are all ideas. With no humans, these ideas are gone."
If you are taking that angle, then are you of belief that no processes exist without mankind around to check them out? The tree makes no sound when it falls in the woods with nobody around? I thinhk what happens here is people get the label confused with what the label is implying, what the label is pointing to.
some think this way:
If an object is an object with nobody around, then a computer is a computer with nobody around, and software is software with nobody around.
or some people think this way:
If an object is not an object with nobody around, then a computer is not a computer with nobody around, making the software non-existent as well.
I believe the answer to this question comes down to one's basic fundamental ideas about how we percieve "external" data.
well I've answered nothing again, so I'd better just hold if off right here lol
--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE
Edited by Strumpling (01/27/04 01:42 PM)
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
|
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Strumpling]
#2277746 - 01/27/04 01:46 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
reading over my last post, I see some errors in "objectivity."
If somebody makes something out of other stuff, is that thing "objectively" what they call it, or is it objectively simply a construct of its components?
If that is so, then basically the entire physical universe is objectively light doing light's thing, and nothing more.
I just realized how little thought I'd put into this type of subject before, when I thought I had it all figured out  hehe silly brain!
--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Strumpling]
#2277862 - 01/27/04 02:17 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
If an object is an object with nobody around, then a computer is a computer with nobody around, and software is software with nobody around.
Our computers at least may have a physical manifestation, so something may be there. But software? Software is strictly a construct of the mind. It is just us that we project the existence of the process we call software on the causal relationships observed on a designated piece of the continuity.
Then again, please check proposition 2 given in the beginning of the thread: what is not a computer?
If it is not possible to (objectively) discriminate between what is a computer and what is not a computer, then I guess aliens most probably will use it as a heater.
I have some more comments, but later
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada 
|
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: raytrace]
#2277877 - 01/27/04 02:20 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
But software? Software is strictly a construct of the mind.
It may be that the concept of "software" is merely a construct of the mind...but if you are going to admit that "something" of the computer exists physically without anyone around...then you must admit that the software (which exists physically as a set of electrical/magnetic/optical values within the physical computer system) still exists as "something" when no one is around.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: trendal]
#2277912 - 01/27/04 02:32 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I might admit that something is there, but not something of a computer.
What you refer to as the set of electrical/magnetic/optical values, without cultural context, is no different than any other set of measured values e.g. I can measure the physiological characteristics of a tree and assign some more values for the nutrients exchange with the environment, but the final set of values I have gathered is no different than the set of electrical/etc. values.
Without context, they are an arbitrary set of measurements from the physical environment. In principle, there might be a race that would consider the measurements of the tree attributes as a valid computer program.
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: raytrace]
#2277946 - 01/27/04 02:43 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
If it is not possible to (objectively) discriminate between what is a computer and what is not a computer, then I guess aliens most probably will use it as a heater.
please, don't give me the "it is the same thing just different words". These are entirely different concepts.
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
|
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: trendal]
#2277986 - 01/27/04 02:55 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
yeah that's what I was trying to say with the "if an object is an object with nobody around.." deal - well-put 
"Then again, please check proposition 2 given in the beginning of the thread: what is not a computer?"
A rock is not a computer.
Are you getting at the idea that we as humans are computers running software? Actually according to the definitions of computer from www.dictionary.com, anything that performs calculations is a computer. I perform calculations; watch: 2 + 2 = 4 hooray I'm a computer!
The whole universe could be a computer simply because there's a calculator on my desk, and that calculator is part of the universe. Therefore, the universe does calculations, making "computer" an acceptable label for the universe.
I may see what you mean though when we get this far though like if we create a computer, its a computer to us but not to them (an alien).
What makes this confusing is that we need to introduce an alien race in order to put a new perspective on our situation - this creates a whole other collective subjective which could easily be confused with a conflicting objectivity. I still stand by the premise though that if we make something and call it a computer, and define what that means, and put software on the computer, and define what that means, then it is a computer. The problems comes in the label:
Would "computer" mean a man-made calculating machine, since ommitting "man-made" from the definition would include mankind itself as a computer by definition, and we are trying to describe this machine we made as different from ourselves?
If we include "man-made" in the definition for computer, then I see how with no humans around, an alien would not see it as a computer (or the thing the word "computer" points to) if they didn't know it was man-made and didn't know that it calculates.
The definition and label of this object would be totally different, but it would still be the object it was at the time of creation.
--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
Buy Kratom Extract 
Red Vein Kratom 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
fearfect
Ego Death
whiterastahippie
Shroomalicious
Bavet
Larrythescaryrex