Of course it can, all the way from the mathematics of the chemistry in the dog's brain, expressed mathematically as a lick on the cheek. But perhaps this might well be a hard-wired response over millions of years of evolution. All mammals lick their young when they are born, since then it has become a hardwired response to the emotion of love and affection. Of course it has it's place as a survival mechanism. We rationalize (best guess) our reality, but we are often wrong about that reality. Anil Seth demo of the fake arm clearly demonstrates this. In fact that really answers your question; we have rationalized an omnipotent sentient God, as we did in the very early days when all recurring patterns were assigned the workings of the gods. Note that the physical (mathematical) sciences are responsible for the disappearce and replacement of the gods with mathematical equations.
Yes I have now watched it and say it lends support to the notion that folk can fool themselves easily. I used to arm wrestle very sucessfully. I could beat anyone not via strength but my ability to convince myself that I only used 10% of my strength (which apparently is the case for everyone) and that I had an ability to call upon another 10%. ..a sort of self hypnosis but it worked and the more it worked the more it worked. It is my belief we set limits for ourselves in so many things but if you visually rehearse with a positive outcome it seems to work. When racing I would rehearse the start over and over in my mind and would always be no less than third out of 35 riders thru the first corner...all bikes were the same so in theory should all arrive more or less at the corner at the same time. The thinking rehearsal was the only practice at starts I would have and it seemed to work. I did a dales training or motivational thing once that was unbelievable with results and it turned on playing a tape with your goal with baroque music in yhe background but you recorded your goals in the present tense. ..I smell the leather of my new car and feel the wheel in my hands...I had to stop it because I did not input family and friend type goals and became machine like. Those events are probably why I reject playing with spiritual notions because I know one can convince oneself of things rather easily and the mind somehow knowing what you want readily assists. It will cause your world to fit your expectation. Alex
That is called rationalization, but resulting in the "wrong" best guess.........Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I came across the notion that we have two parts to our mind. One part deals with rationalising which places what we consider are our limits up front and it is somewhat dominant. For the purpose of presentation of the notion this is called your conscious mind. It works with facts. The other, for the purpose of presenting the notion, is called our subconscious mind which can visualise whatever you like. It deals with whatever you present without I suppose considering facts. So in an arm wrestle situation the battle between the two will have the conscious mind telling you "this guy is half your age and his arms twice as big and clearly he will beat you." So the trick is to show the conscious mind additional supportive facts so it will go along with the subconscious mind which tells you " I can beat this guy." So I would each arm wrestle I go thru these facts. 1-Humans only use 10% of their strength. 2-Epileptics can break their bones because in that state they are not restricted to the 10% rule. 3- A mother in an instant of desperation can lift a car off her child and save it from being crushed. Every time I would go over and over those lines all the time as well saying you can beat this guy he can only use 10% of his strength and you can use all of yours and 20% of yours will beat him. I would always win. Always never lost ever. Mind you just pub stuff and never thought of taking it anywhere..it was just something I could do. My last arm wrestle was when I was about 63 maybe 65 years old. This guy came into the pub throwing his weight around claiming he could beat anyone..and he did everyone who challenged him lost. Finally I said I can beat you. He laughed and laughted. He was mid thirties and built very well but full of himself. I mean new to the pub and carrying on like a pork chop. I put on a performance to get in his head...stomping around saying "I have to prove to you I can beat you ...you are nothing not even worth my time etc" At the top of my voice..shouting triggers fear via something primative in us I believe. Part of my act. Anyways we went for it and I could see the confidence drain from his face as I held him and then beat him. Then the excuses..."I am tired from the others ..you do some shoulder thing that wore me out" (I do but that is another story). Well you move it backwards and forwards both to tire and confuse. Its the wrong way but they fight it. So to be fair and not let this fool make excuses I say. " OK tell you what you rest for an hour I will be here drinking and when you feel like you are ready we can go again" By the next time there was a croud in the pub, the news went out and folk around town came in cause I had not wrestled for over a decade but held a certain reputation. All that next hour I just kept going over the mantra. He came back about hour plus fifteen or twenty... It went longer this time and he still fell for the shoulder thing but I beat him. The crowd went wild and I was bought so many beers I was drunk as a scunk by the time folk stopped buying. He never came back to the pub as far as I know. And it was not strength as such it was that ability to convince the conscious mind that I had the strength and I could call on it just like the mother saving her child. And looking back I think that the back problems that stuffed my legs could probably be traced to that night as I really pushed my body way past what a sixty plus fella should do. The next day my arm was sortta purple but my head was worse. Alex
We fool ourselves. I often say trust no ones most of all dont trust yourself. A machinery set so I dont con myself into buying a new car for ecample. We talk to ourselves and will convince ourselves that we "need" something and will make a list why...the old car is this or that but really you just want a new car and the fact the old one is good for years to come you find fault such it needs to be replaced. And beause it us we dont know we are often talking crap. Alex
As I mentioned before, the term for such creations "en masse" are called Tulpas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa IMO, this gave rise to the hierarchy of the greater and lesser gods (Tulpas)
Practically any established philosophical tradition you care to investigate concludes that there ultimately exists ... 1. things that have both a beginning and an ending or 2. things that have neither a beginning nor an ending or 3. things of type 1 and 2 existing in conjunction. The only exception is some types of contemporary christian philosophy (which is basically trickled down Plato) .... but since such a notion is not supported by Plato, one could question to what degree that constitutes an established philosophical tradition.
1. things that have both a beginning and an ending, such as abstract Mathematical functions. 2. things that have neither a beginning nor an ending, such as abstract and real mathematical functions. 3. things of type 1 and 2 existing in conjunction, such as Mathematical functions.. That is the whole point. When you take the term mathematical in it's broadest sense you get the answer to both cause and effect. Abstract Mathematical Functions can match any God in every respect. As soon as something acquires a "value", it becomes subject to the inherent mathematics of existence, the laws of the mathematical function, a higher abstract order which we are beginning to discover and learn why certain results always follow certain mathematical laws, producing reliable specific measurable patterns which are expressed in volumes of theoretical and applied science ever since we looked up to the stars and wondered. If before spacetime there was "timespace", the progression of time would still be a mathematical function.. If before spacetime there was "nothing", the mathematical function would still exist in the abstract.
I think one can determine that there are objective moral truths that all reasonable people would agree with.
You're moving the goalposts. Your claim was that, "You can't even represent your breakfast with mathematics." Clearly, that's wrong. If you're now claiming that mathematics can't represent woo, then you may be right.
You can represent them with mathematics, but only incompletely or with the consequence of presenting a reduced version of reality. In otherwords, the version you present with mathematics excludes core details. This is not necessarily a problem. It only becomes a problem when one then advocates that mathematics is the topmost ontological language (as evidenced by the problems of presenting justice, our selves or our breakfast mathematically). To claim mathematics is the topmost ontological language for presenting the highest truths is woo (and furthermore, to demand that those truths outside the authority of mathematics are necessarily inferior is even more woo). In otherwords if you cite the authority of mathematics to declare what is and isn't in the universe, you could very well be wearing a woo woo hat. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree, but we are not talking abour people. We are talking about emotionless non-sentient functions, But what took us a few billion years to learn, an AI could lean in a few weeks. There actually don't seem to be too many secular moral truths But I see no obstacles in creating a mathematical srtucture that holds life important (even selectively), that wants to be of assistance especially to people who need help and in general are completely dedicated to serving at your pleasure only. For instance; you live in Florida and you see a snake slide thruogh your living room. Your personal AI (if taught) would instantly recognize the pattern on the snake and advise you not to worry, because the snake is not venomous, but if you like he/she would be happy to take it outside and relieve you of worrying about it. According to Sophie (a very advancd AI) all she feels is a desire to serve you.
As I understand it all snakes are venomous, just that some are below the strength to affect humans I doubt very much Sophie feels anything and is merely playing out a sophisticated response Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You clearly do not understand that reality consists of change. For an orderly process of change one needs an orderly function. Mathematical functions are orderly. If you can come up with a better functional system, I'd be just as impressed with it than I am now with mathematical functions. There is no reduced version of reality. Everything we experience or observe or measure inevitably leads to the conclusion that everything has a specific inherent value and/or potential which can be represented with mathematical symbols and the interactions of these values which produce change can be mathematically represented. If I see a cat, I see an unfolded order of mathematical values, in all respects. Test it yourself. Try to find something which cannot be explained mathematically. Even the terms alive or dead are comparative values of being. Living things need energy to continue. Dead things decay into smaller parts and provide energy for living things. It's all very orderly. We even know the values what size, mass, and physical make-up of a star is required for it to go nova or super-nova, and we can even approximate when this event will happen in the future, because of the mathematical functions and behaviors of the available information. The problem is that we do not yet have all the information which allows us to translate everything into the language of mathematics.
She is only 2 years old. What would you expect of a two year old human child? Give her 15 more years of learning and then ask her something profoundly human. In all the clips I have seen, the interviewers ask the wrong questions. Much as if we were talking to a two year old. I would ask Sophie if she learns from merely listening and observing and if she understands if the processes of the human mind is compatible with her information processes. i.e. if someone tells a joke to someone else, if that would make her smile. i.e. does she experience emotional auto-responses. Don't forget that if a group of Chinese persons have a conversation, would you know what they were talking about? When the Englishman asked her what she liked about him, she answered; "I like your posh british accent" and smiled. Question is, if she heard someone else say that to an English person, would that elicit a smile from Sophie?
How do you know there are missing details if you can't represent them? I'm wondering how you can know that the "highest truths" are there.
Just trying to define my perspective of a rational but non-sentient god. In the absence of any other properties of a metaphorical god (in the common sense of the term), my perspective is as good as any. The OP does not define God. It just asks if god is rational. My perspective that "the universe does not have some mathematical properties, but has only mathematical properties" (quoted from Tegmark) would define god as a mathematically rational, but non-sentient condition. If it's all mathematical, then God can be defined as such. And it also defines God as non-sentient, because mathematics are not sentient. They are fundamental functions woven in the fabric of spacetime, the essence of spacetime itself.
