The scale of observation can alter reality, therefore a god if we extrapolate far enough?
This smacks of applying a model where it doesn’t belong. Or rather, including something in a model where there has been nothing yet to indicate that it should be included.
What’s wrong, in such a circumstance, with withholding belief until there’s a good reason to believe?
No, I simply pointed out that material reality is far more complex than the simplistic mechanical process we often assume. I then offered a piece of evidence where information alters the behavior of particles. The question now is: what exactly is information, and why does it act instantaneously on matter, regardless of distance?
Ok, then let me correct my phrase to: “We can’t process reality rationally without mentally simulating our own voice. It’s comical when you stop to think about it.”
Well, I have never encountered anything other than humans. It seems primitive to me to rely on sounds to convey concepts and then process reality through them. It’s like children who can’t count without using their fingers.
This is just my opinion.
To what end do you indicate this? Do you realize that there are things currently under investigation that scientists are still trying to figure out how, or if, they comport with reality?
And as long as we’re on the subject of the painfully obvious:
I suggest that your purpose for coming here and pointing out areas under investigation in theoretical physics, or attempting to lend credence to currently debated philosophy subjects, is to use them as a back door attempt to imply that a god is a possible part of reality.
If not then your dishonesty, goalpost shifting, reiterative argument style, and mixing of science with unevidenced assertion make little sense otherwise.
I just said that I don’t see reality as following a mechanical or simplistic behavior. I don’t understand how I ended up being considered dishonest this time.
I don’t try to find arguments to justify my ideas using science; I just follow where the evidence leads naturally. I’m not afraid of the truth, but I am very careful about how things are interpreted.
Well.
That’s a confounding statement.
Should this actually be the case, I think your conversation and contributions here would look vastly different.
What is your conclusion regarding the fact that information (supposedly a subjective concept) is capable of altering the behavior of matter?
What, specifically, makes it a rational process?
I’ve encountered plenty of non-humans. And, btw, humans certainly don’t rely on sounds to convey concepts, etc.
In broader terms, a rational process is a byproduct of language, where language is understood as the process of conceptualizing reality into units of meaning called concepts and then organizing them coherently. Logic can be understood as a way to validate ideas according to causal principles.
Essentially, the rational process is a byproduct of language. Without concepts, you can’t think rationally.
Obviously, we are speaking about intelligent species that form societies. Naturally, the origin of many concepts is tied to language. While we can convey concepts through images, sounds, and other means, language often serves as the foundation for structuring and communicating complex ideas.
Most people experience an internal dialogue, where they continuously emit sounds in their heads, as I do. This internal speech helps us to think. In general, we can’t easily convey ideas without assigning them some form of internal representation, often in the form of internal sounds or words. Yes, there are exceptions, such as mathematicians who associate numbers with colors or other sensory experiences, but I’m speaking in general terms.
You’re unaware that there are intelligent non-human species that form societies?
This made me chuckle. I asked for specifics and you started your reply with the above.
Define complex ideas.
It may serve as one means of communication but I don’t think it’s THE foundation.
Okay, what do you consider to be intelligence, and how do you define society?
Oh, interesting. What do you think is the foundation of concepts?
For example, complex planning in space and time.
What? Pick one or the other, communication or concepts.
Please provide the method you use to measure that.
Sigh…I view intelligence as the ability to perceive or infer information. I view society as a combination of two or more intelligent beings who come together (in a variety of ways) for a one or more purposes. Crows, for example.
Well, communication obviously predates concepts. I’m referring to concepts in the sense of abstract ideas.
I never thought of using a method for that. I’m referring to things we don’t see in animals, like debating what we are going to do, drawing plans, and then fabricating or executing something. That’s what I mean.
So, what differentiates crows from humans?
I would say inherited culture.
Then I’d say you don’t know much about crows.