A difficult puzzle..

It makes sense either way. You certainly have not identified where it does not.

 

I might not agree with Langan's entire theory, but I do agree with the following:

"The real universe has always been theoretically treated as an object, and specifically as the composite type of object known as a set. But an object or set exists in space and time, and reality does not. Because the real universe by definition contains all that is real, there is no "external reality" (or space, or time) in which it can exist or have been "created". We can talk about lesser regions of the real universe in such a light, but not about the real universe as a whole. Nor, for identical reasons, can we think of the universe as the sum of its parts, for these parts exist solely within a spacetime manifold identified with the whole and cannot explain the manifold itself. This rules out pluralistic explanations of reality, forcing us to seek an explanation at once monic (because nonpluralistic) and holistic (because the basic conditions for existence are embodied in the manifold, which equals the whole). Obviously, the first step towards such an explanation is to bring monism and holism into coincidence."

 

Refer to my previous post.

 

I should have been using the word "information" this entire time. The only information that those computers processed, were the mathematically model-able physical interactions of the brain, and the coding that relates these physical interactions and the corresponding spatial and wavelength images.

The missing information, are quite simply, the intangible sensations of color itself! That is the missing information that the computers did not and currently cannot process.

 

I agree completely.

How do you imagine this advances your position?

 

He directly said that reality doesn't exist in time, space, and is not a set...

Also, that we cannot model the universe as the sum of it's parts. The laws of physics assume that it can, since matter and energy are conserved according to said laws.

 

Aaaahhhh... now you try another completely different argument. But in so doing, by asserting that even those "intangible sensations" are "information"... you have fully conceded their inherent mathematical nature.

Information theory is all about the math.

Certainly when it is pointed out that different actors have different perspectives and therefore different experiences some part of that experience is due to missing or different information. Just as a color blind person does not have the same perception of any given wavelength of light because of missing information.

But that does not change the thing being perceived. The light remains the same wavelength. And the emotion remains an electro-physio-chemical event in the brain.

You should probably consider quickly withdrawing the information argument. It is a concession I do not think you intended to make.

 

Plato's Cave anyone?

None of what you just described is justification for a supernatural conciseness.

There is nothing supernatural about the brain. Our actions are based on chemical and electrical discharges, this is testable, this is confirmable. Brain scans prove that X areas are responsible for X behavior. If X area is damaged, X behavior is altered. There is nothing supernatural about this.

God of the gaps is not an argument it is a fallacy.

 

Understood.

How does that help your argument?

Who is talking about modeling the universe? The laws of conservation are not models. They are empirically derived laws of nature. They make no such assumption.

 

Whut?

The rule that feelings can't be physical is true because it fits feelings not being physical which is true because the rule exists?

That doesn't sound a bit circular to you?

 

That's only because (most of) us humans are so conceptually limited and/or purposely close-minded that we can't fathom any objective information not being mathematical. Chris Langan, for example, is not.

And the price of eggs in China remains about .35 yuan per egg.

If you totally ignore synergy/emergent properties (such as..the intangible sensations of feelings etc.), then sure, that's all they are.

 

First of all I admitted earlier that "supernatural" was way too vague, and I directly mean "not mathematical".

But for the 1,000th time, A causing B =/= A being identical to B. So if emotions are caused by "chemical and electrical discharges", that =/= emotions being identical to chemical and electrical discharges. That should be pretty obvious, especially considering that the brain is tangible, but feelings etc. are not.

 

Because it shows that reality is not mathematical.

 

You were essentially talking about intangible things, and the sensation of feelings are just that, even if the neurology which results in them are events caused by known laws of physics.

 

No one has ignored them, DS. You have simply failed to make an argument regarding them. They offer no obvious support to your proposition.

 

Honestly I'm not nearly as elegant and probably not as sophisticated as Chris Langan, but I do understand and agree with many of his ideas, and they pretty much explicitly say that reality is not mathematical.

 

A pointless demonstration, even were it true.

Reality is neither a reified "thing," nor a process, nor a phenomenon. It is merely a state of existence.

 

Feelings, emotion, thoughts, logic, are all the product of chemical and electrical discharges.

There is absolutely no phenomenon in the known universe which is not tangible. Everything, when observed, has a particular value.

The mind is no different. It is a physical structure governed by physical laws. There is not a single supernatural or non-scientific thing about it.

 

So?

Having a value =/= being tangible..

But there are non-mathematical things about it.

 

How wonderful for Chris Langan.

An appeal to authority, no matter how unorthodox, is neither an argument nor evidence in support of your proposition. He seems to be a very smart guy. But even you do not fully agree with him.

 

Of course reality itself is not an object (even if you consider objects spanning time), but then again, it includes things which are not mathematical, given that reality itself is not mathematical in nature.

 

I was just saying that I agree with certain things that he has said, first and foremost, that reality is not mathematical. And thus, things which are not mathematical, exist within reality.

 

Reality "includes" nothing. It is not a "container." It is a characteristic.

Things, processes and phenomena are either real or not as a state of being.

We are still waiting for a demonstration from you of a single thing that is not material (or in your construction "mathematical.")

 

So everything is either a "process" or a "phenomenon"?

"Material" = "mathematical" (i.e. composed of sets, quantities, space and time)?

 

That is a Fallacy of Division (the opposite of the Composition Fallacy).

Your conjunction "And thus..." is not true.