Are there any valid paradoxes?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by David Cooper »

Spectrum wrote: May 12th, 2018, 10:16 pm
David Cooper wrote: May 12th, 2018, 6:02 pm Are there any emergent properties that can't be fully accounted for in full by the components? It looks to me as if emergent properties are just compounds of component parts and properties.
Note the emergent of human consciousness and self-awareness that is aware of one's own self-awareness.
That's the only good example I can think of, but even there it should be possible for science to pin this down some day. The data system of the brain produces assertions about the experience of feelings, and that data needs to be put together by some process which has access to evidence of the experience of feelings. If we follow this process and see what evidence the claims about feelings is bases on, we will either find that the claims are a fiction or that they are based on something in the brain that actually does experience feelings. If that thing is a composite of multiple parts, we can expect some of the parts to experience the feelings or components of feelings too, and there will have to be a rational model for that which science should in principle be able to find too, at which point we will have identified the "I" in the machine - the sufferer of suffering; also known as the soul. The alternative to that is that we have suffering in a composite thing in which none of the components feel anything at all, in which case the sufferer is the arrangement of parts rather than the parts themselves. I don't see much sense in the idea that a pattern can be tortured and experience pain - this looks like a piece of magic being used to complete the functionality of a model. I think science needs to look for a physical sufferer rather than some magical thing that emerges literally out of nothing.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Sy Borg »

David Cooper wrote: May 12th, 2018, 6:02 pm
Greta wrote: May 11th, 2018, 7:07 pm David, I would agree with you, if not for emergent properties.
Are there any emergent properties that can't be fully accounted for in full by the components? It looks to me as if emergent properties are just compounds of component parts and properties.
Yes and no. If you reduce a planet, star or life form to its component molecules, all the same material will be present but the emergent property. The accounting for emergent properties may happen via IIT, but the job has not yet been done.
Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Namelesss »

Spectrum wrote: May 12th, 2018, 10:12 pm
Namelesss wrote: May 12th, 2018, 2:18 am It IS a philosophical view!
All sciences inform philosophy!
Science is merely a tool which provides specifically scientific knowledge for philosophy's consumption.
Scientific knowledge are very useful but at best merely 'polished' conjectures - Popper. Whatever QM produces, they are highly conditional 'polished' conjectures.
Note meta-Science is philosophy.
Philosophy as 'meta-' encompasses Science and all other types of knowledge.
This is why we have 'the Philosophy of Science' and never the other way round.
I just said that, sort of... *__-
I think that many scientists would argue that their work is produced "merely ... for philosophy's consumption".
All sciences are feeder branches on the tree of philosophy.
All Reality is 'philosophy's consumption'!

"highly conditional 'polished' conjectures" = 'theories', no?
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Spectrum »

David Cooper wrote: May 13th, 2018, 4:32 pm
Spectrum wrote: May 12th, 2018, 10:16 pm Note the emergent of human consciousness and self-awareness that is aware of one's own self-awareness.
That's the only good example I can think of, but even there it should be possible for science to pin this down some day.
..
Science??

Scientific knowledge and theories are at best polished conjectures - Popper.

Scientific knowledge cannot be absolutely absolute, i.e. scientific knowledge is grounded on human consciousness which itself is emergent and ungrounded.

Science may be able to explain human consciousness to some higher degree than the present, but there is no way Science [limited and grounded on the ungrounded] can ultimate ground human consciousness to its absolute point.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by David Cooper »

Greta wrote: May 13th, 2018, 5:39 pm If you reduce a planet, star or life form to its component molecules, all the same material will be present but the emergent property. The accounting for emergent properties may happen via IIT, but the job has not yet been done.
If an emergent property makes sense when you look for its cause in the components, it isn't something extra that's appearing out of nothing - the whole remains exactly the sum of its parts. Any emergent property that breaks that rule is necessarily an illustration of magic in action, and I'm not aware of science having found any examples of such a thing.
David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by David Cooper »

Spectrum wrote: May 13th, 2018, 8:57 pm Scientific knowledge cannot be absolutely absolute, i.e. scientific knowledge is grounded on human consciousness which itself is emergent and ungrounded.
How will that apply when we have AGI systems doing science for us with no consciousness in them? Are they somehow going to be unable to test nature in the way that people do?
Science may be able to explain human consciousness to some higher degree than the present, but there is no way Science [limited and grounded on the ungrounded] can ultimate ground human consciousness to its absolute point.
Any aspect of consciousness which we can speak about should be possible to trace through science. We have a data system in the brain producing information about it, and the manner in which the data is generated will eventually lead us to the evidence that informs the system that generates the data. There is no bar to science exploring that.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Spectrum »

David Cooper wrote: May 14th, 2018, 1:05 pm
Spectrum wrote: May 13th, 2018, 8:57 pm Scientific knowledge cannot be absolutely absolute, i.e. scientific knowledge is grounded on human consciousness which itself is emergent and ungrounded.
How will that apply when we have AGI systems doing science for us with no consciousness in them? Are they somehow going to be unable to test nature in the way that people do?
The fact is AGI will always be grounded on natural intelligence and human consciousness which itself is emergent and ungrounded.

Science may be able to explain human consciousness to some higher degree than the present, but there is no way Science [limited and grounded on the ungrounded] can ultimate ground human consciousness to its absolute point.
Any aspect of consciousness which we can speak about should be possible to trace through science. We have a data system in the brain producing information about it, and the manner in which the data is generated will eventually lead us to the evidence that informs the system that generates the data. There is no bar to science exploring that.
Philosophically, there is always a limit to Science regardless of how scientific knowledge is produced.
Note I wrote this earlier;
  • "Science is merely a tool which provides specifically scientific knowledge for philosophy's consumption.
    Scientific knowledge are very useful but at best merely 'polished' conjectures - Popper. Whatever QM produces, they are highly conditional 'polished' conjectures.
    Note meta-Science is philosophy.
    Philosophy as 'meta-' encompasses Science and all other types of knowledge.
    This is why we have 'the Philosophy of Science' and never the other way round."
There will always be a GAP between scientific knowledge and 'reality'.

The only way to close the above GAP further, not fully, is to rely on Philosophy-proper which is also a useful tool to reconcile the extremities of paradoxes.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by David Cooper »

Spectrum wrote: May 14th, 2018, 10:13 pm The fact is AGI will always be grounded on natural intelligence and human consciousness which itself is emergent and ungrounded.
Why do you call that a fact? I'm building an AGI system which will not have any consciousness whatsoever. (It will be grounded on natural intelligence though in that it's applying rules of reasoning identified by humans.
Philosophically, there is always a limit to Science regardless of how scientific knowledge is produced.
Doubtless there are limits to it, but when it comes to tracing cause-and-effect interactions in the brain and energy transfers, there's nothing there in principle that can't be traced back the whole way through the process from a signal coming down a nerve caused by damage through the brain where the pain is felt and on to the production of the data which says "ouch".
There will always be a GAP between scientific knowledge and 'reality'.
Indeed there will, and it's possible to deny every single discovery of science and write it off as virtual tricks which hide reality from us and make sure we can never access it. However, if we work on the basis that things are the way they appear to be (and accept that the might be wrong), we can continue to build our scientific model of (apparent) reality and extend it into the exploration of consciousness. There is no indication of any barrier to us doing so.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Spectrum »

David Cooper wrote: May 15th, 2018, 8:08 pm
Spectrum wrote: May 14th, 2018, 10:13 pm The fact is AGI will always be grounded on natural intelligence and human consciousness which itself is emergent and ungrounded.
Why do you call that a fact? I'm building an AGI system which will not have any consciousness whatsoever. (It will be grounded on natural intelligence though in that it's applying rules of reasoning identified by humans.
It is not an empirical fact but rather a philosophical 'fact' via reason.
Philosophically, there is always a limit to Science regardless of how scientific knowledge is produced.
Doubtless there are limits to it, but when it comes to tracing cause-and-effect interactions in the brain and energy transfers, there's nothing there in principle that can't be traced back the whole way through the process from a signal coming down a nerve caused by damage through the brain where the pain is felt and on to the production of the data which says "ouch".
There will always be a GAP between scientific knowledge and 'reality'.
Indeed there will, and it's possible to deny every single discovery of science and write it off as virtual tricks which hide reality from us and make sure we can never access it. However, if we work on the basis that things are the way they appear to be (and accept that the might be wrong), we can continue to build our scientific model of (apparent) reality and extend it into the exploration of consciousness. There is no indication of any barrier to us doing so.
I am not implying we write off scientific knowledge.
Point is we will use scientific knowledge positively within moral grounds optimally.

Thus whatever knowledge we have of human consciousness and use it positively we need to be aware of the limitations of scientific knowledge at all times to avoid tending toward Scientism.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by David Cooper »

Spectrum wrote: May 16th, 2018, 12:40 amIt is not an empirical fact but rather a philosophical 'fact' via reason.
We will certainly be able to show that AGI can work without consciousness as soon as we have AGI running on conventional hardware, because every step of every computation can be run on a Chinese Room processor where we can see clearly that there is no place for feelings to have any causal impact on the data generated.
I am not implying we write off scientific knowledge.
Point is we will use scientific knowledge positively within moral grounds optimally.

Thus whatever knowledge we have of human consciousness and use it positively we need to be aware of the limitations of scientific knowledge at all times to avoid tending toward Scientism.
Philosophism has the same limits. All philosophy is is applied reasoning, and science is applied reasoning too. All we're doing is testing reality with rules, and the rules come from reality because they're rejected if they don't comply with it. We're simply trying to build a model of reality that doesn't contain or generate contradictions.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Spectrum »

David Cooper wrote: May 16th, 2018, 4:30 pm
Spectrum wrote: May 16th, 2018, 12:40 amIt is not an empirical fact but rather a philosophical 'fact' via reason.
We will certainly be able to show that AGI can work without consciousness as soon as we have AGI running on conventional hardware, because every step of every computation can be run on a Chinese Room processor where we can see clearly that there is no place for feelings to have any causal impact on the data generated.
I agree and is very optimistic there will be super advances with AGI and AGI-consciousness in the future but its ultimate is merely 'AGI-consciousness' conditionally to its specific Framework and System and cannot be conflated with natural human consciousness.

Along with the super advances there is a need to be very mindful of its limitation.
I am not implying we write off scientific knowledge.
Point is we will use scientific knowledge positively within moral grounds optimally.

Thus whatever knowledge we have of human consciousness and use it positively we need to be aware of the limitations of scientific knowledge at all times to avoid tending toward Scientism.
Philosophism has the same limits. All philosophy is is applied reasoning, and science is applied reasoning too. All we're doing is testing reality with rules, and the rules come from reality because they're rejected if they don't comply with it. We're simply trying to build a model of reality that doesn't contain or generate contradictions.
I agree 'philosophism' and any other ideologies taken to the extreme is dangerous. The hijacking and extremism of 'philosophy' had already happened and is on going with the current bastardized 'incestuous' academic philosophy.

However I believe that human impulse originally intuited and labelled as positive-philosophy-proper will always prevail and be practiced regardless of how people attempt to box it into some labels.

Positive philosophy proper will have characteristics that is net-positive to humanity and one of such among others is the following;
Bertrand Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
There are other characteristics of philosophy-proper which are by nature fool proof.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Name Is Unnecessary
New Trial Member
Posts: 14
Joined: May 19th, 2018, 9:32 am

Re: Are there any valid paradoxes?

Post by Name Is Unnecessary »

Many of those paradoxes are based on semantics or approach, which is the reason they fail to remain paradoxical.

When I hear the word "paradox", the scenario go back in time and prevent your parents' meeting, so you are never born; but how can you prevent their meeting if you are not born? comes to my mind. It has surreal elements in it and maybe can be explained with the impossibility of time travel, but otherwise it remains very paradoxical.

But something else I must write: as much as I saw, the situations in wikipedia are all plausible to happen and lack any surreal elements.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021