Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
a variation on Gödel * 2
    #23384279 -

A system cannot be evaluated as a whole by a part of itself -- it must be evaluated by some system outside of itself if a consistent evaluation is to take place.  Gödel proved this.  So how can someone -- say a dyed-in-the-wool materialist -- call himself a deterministic, epiphenomenal robot in any consistent axiomatic framework and be right?


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: a variation on Gödel [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23384347 -

I know it's a little off topic, but I just wanted to express my admiration for a mind that can take it this deeply.


--------------------
Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not.
--Jac O'keeffe

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: a variation on Gödel [Re: Jokeshopbeard]
    #23384445 -

I do appreciate that, Jsb. :thumbup:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: a variation on Gödel [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #23384504 -

It's turtles all the way down :shrug: You could easily replace any of those identifiers (determinist, etc) with its opposite.


--------------------
full blown human

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: a variation on Gödel [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23384549 -

DividedQuantum said:
I do appreciate that, Jsb. :thumbup:


Thanks man. I really appreciate how differently our minds work.

NOW IF ONLY THIS FUCKING WORLD COULD FIGURE OUT HOW WE MIGHT WORK IN COOPERATION, RATHER THAN IN OPPOSITION OF THIS FACT, MAYBE WE'LL FUCKING GET SOMEWHERE!!!


--------------------
Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not.
--Jac O'keeffe

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: a variation on Gödel [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23387610 -

DividedQuantum said:
A system cannot be evaluated as a whole by a part of itself -- it must be evaluated by some system outside of itself if a consistent evaluation is to take place.  Gödel proved this.  So how can someone -- say a dyed-in-the-wool materialist -- call himself a deterministic, epiphenomenal robot in any consistent axiomatic framework and be right?


My understanding of Gödel's incompleteness is shaky, but perhaps it is more appropriate to say that they may be right, but cannot prove it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: a variation on Gödel [Re: DisoRDeR]
    #23388138 -

DisoRDeR said:
DividedQuantum said:
A system cannot be evaluated as a whole by a part of itself -- it must be evaluated by some system outside of itself if a consistent evaluation is to take place.  Gödel proved this.  So how can someone -- say a dyed-in-the-wool materialist -- call himself a deterministic, epiphenomenal robot in any consistent axiomatic framework and be right?


My understanding of Gödel's incompleteness is shaky, but perhaps it is more appropriate to say that they may be right, but cannot prove it.



Yes - you are right. A system* can never be both consistent and complete. That means it cannot prove itself to be true. It also means that there are certain statements which can neither be proven or disproven within the system - which speaks more to your point.


*we could probably debate the terms of "system," but in Godels instance, it denotes one which contains mathematical relations


--------------------
full blown human

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: a variation on Gödel [Re: DisoRDeR] * 1
    #23388513 -

DisoRDeR said:
My understanding of Gödel's incompleteness is shaky, but perhaps it is more appropriate to say that they may be right, but cannot prove it.


Yes, that is a more rigorous way to put it.  The point is that within someone's own mind, if there is no efficaciousness of consciousness, or if consciousness doesn't have a deeper role than most causal determinists assert, then we're just running in circles, and our determinations are for practical purposes invalid -- or at least never subject to revision or confirmation according to classical physics.  Incidentally, most people, and even most scientists, are still running around with Cartesian-Newtonianism in their heads when this has been proven to be incorrect.  A deeper role for consciousness is explicitly formulated in the orthodox (von Neumann) permutations of quantum mechanics.  Well, and in others.

Tl;dr this is not a billiard-ball universe.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: a variation on Gödel [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23388712 -

I don't see how what you're saying invalidates causal determinism.


--------------------
full blown human

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: a variation on Gödel [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23388741 -

DividedQuantum said:
A system cannot be evaluated as a whole by a part of itself -- it must be evaluated by some system outside of itself if a consistent evaluation is to take place.  Gödel proved this.  So how can someone -- say a dyed-in-the-wool materialist -- call himself a deterministic, epiphenomenal robot in any consistent axiomatic framework and be right?


Because we know that we evolved both in mind and body.
Our ancestors were not us.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: a variation on Gödel [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23388897 -

DividedQuantum said:
A system cannot be evaluated as a whole by a part of itself -- it must be evaluated by some system outside of itself if a consistent evaluation is to take place.  Gödel proved this.  So how can someone -- say a dyed-in-the-wool materialist -- call himself a deterministic, epiphenomenal robot in any consistent axiomatic framework and be right?


Godel did not prove that.  You are talking a theorem of mathematics and bastardizing it to a scope that doesn't apply.  Disorder does a good job pointing out part of the flaw.

Godel showed that in a sufficiently complex axiomatic system there will be theorems that are true but cannot be proven to be true.  This does nothing to undermine science since all theories in science are already taken to be tentative with respect to evidence and thus inherently un-provable.  Of course I see that you didn't bring up science, you talk about a materialist.  I admit I cannot, and I've tried, understand what philosophers mean by that term.  But I think they often use it interchangeably with scientists in a pejorative way.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: a variation on Gödel [Re: DieCommie]
    #23388912 -

Points taken.  It was not my intent to undermine modern science.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Is existence deterministic?
( 1 2 all )		 urite4594 3,613 29 08/24/05 05:06 AM
by BlueCoyote
* Calling all Skeptics, Agnostics, Determinists... lucid 1,067 14 11/19/03 03:11 AM
by ZenGecko
* Anyone else have consistantly awful exp while meditating ? lucid 710 4 11/29/03 09:43 PM
by lucid
* Adam and Eve???? Help on the Way 1,119 18 03/31/05 01:04 AM
by Help on the Way
* variation in psychedelic perception Malachi 538 3 09/20/03 02:49 AM
by Malachi
* Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson slaphappy 903 3 06/17/06 07:46 AM
by slaphappy
* Science the ultimate tool?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Icelander 6,890 94 08/05/05 02:13 PM
by EquilibriuM
* Research into Consciousness Interfacing with matter
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 gettinjiggywithit 10,510 92 08/13/05 09:40 AM
by gettinjiggywithit

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
364 topic views. 2 members, 102 guests and 25 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.