tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4425998460166661288..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: It’s an overdue open threadEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger344125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7149932435127963052022-11-29T19:04:14.192-08:002022-11-29T19:04:14.192-08:00Hey Tadeo, i forgot the discussion was here XD
I ...Hey Tadeo, i forgot the discussion was here XD<br /><br />I think that you grasped it: a substance is not there for no reason but it is the organization of the parts. Take away the being and the parts are good for nothing.<br /><br />The redutionist view started to appear exactly after the classical view of substances were rejected in favor of nominalism and something like Locke description of substance as, i think, "i know not what". If the substance does not do anything them it seems like it has no reason to be there, so the "whole", is ilusory.<br /><br />As you already got, this is not really how things are, Aristotle actually won in the end.Talmidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23463557771433229402022-11-25T12:15:46.182-08:002022-11-25T12:15:46.182-08:00Hey everyone here's the new Classical Theism o...Hey everyone here's the new Classical Theism online community for anyone that wants to help revive it :) <br /><br />https://discord.gg/qJ82CKthRomanJoenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16469876983658356252022-11-24T01:03:33.130-08:002022-11-24T01:03:33.130-08:00The phenomenon of men who are involuntary celibate...The phenomenon of men who are involuntary celibate, incels, is actually men who are being punished by God for not following the traditional catholic teachings on sexual morality. Much of homosexuality is caused by inceldom, i.e., men unable to fornicate with women, and hence turn to fornication with other men instead. 90% inceldom is caused by women losing interested in men due to men being hypersexual/extremely lustful. This excessive lust is caused when a culture loosens all sexual restraints, and contraception becomes socially acceptable. Subconciously, most women don't even want to use contraception, they would rather remain single than marry extremely lustful perverted depraved husbands. And what women consider to be extremely lustful is different than men, women are more sensitive to being disgusted by sexual degeneracy than men are. If you ask any incel if they would be happy if they had a a wife but were not allowed to use contraception, then they would say no, they don't want that. incels want endless fornication and contraception. incels don't want to marry and take on the role of responsible husband and father of children. Hence why women stay away from them. The only solution to the incel problem is to promote the dignity of religious celibacy, whether its priestly celibacy or monastic celibacy. We already have a huge domestic violence problem of abused wives, encouraging abusive men to control their lust by marrying will not help. The problem of incels is not merely lust, but also deeply ingrained vice which leads to an abusive mindset. Please read the book "Why does He Do That?" by domestic violence specialist Lundy Bancroft. It provides insight into the minds of dangerous men like wife beaters and incels.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74778797142669804332022-11-24T00:47:34.829-08:002022-11-24T00:47:34.829-08:00The divine right of kings is the divine right of c...The divine right of kings is the divine right of chads. Chads, the top 20% of men, are supposed to be the pope, the cardinals, and the bishops. The 80/20 rule, the pareto principal, zipf's law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67279395428450419102022-11-24T00:44:30.206-08:002022-11-24T00:44:30.206-08:00I think that the sexual revolution caused the invo...I think that the sexual revolution caused the involuntary celibate/incel phenomenon. In traditional society, where marriage was supposed to last until death and no contraception was used, women could expect to be treated well by their husbands. After the sexual revolution, women were seen as objects to be used. Hence now one of the effects of the sexual revolutions, women are choosing to be in psuedo-polygamous relationships with the top 20% of men who are extremely handsome/aesthetically pleasing/good looking. If women feel like they have a choice to be either in a relationship with an abusive handsome man or an abusive ugly man, then of course, if both men are equally abusive, shes going to choose the handsome abusive man rather than the ugly abusive man. And women apparently deemed over 80% of men to be too ugly for them. I think this phenomena is also proving that historical ideas expressed in books like Patriarcha by Robert Filmer, The Ruling Class by Gaetano Mosca, The Managerial revolution by James Burnham,The Populist Delusion by Neema Parvini, miscellaneous works by Joseph De Maistre, etc. Society was always meant to be ruled only the the top 20% of men. Aesthetic physical beauty can be in some cases a manifestation of interior moral beauty, in other words moral superiority. The divine rights of papal infallibility, the divine right of kings, and the ruling aristocracy, the top 20% of the population, would have power over others partly due to their physical beauty. Even today, persons who have modeling as a career, basically get paid huge sums of money merely for existing, doing nothing, & having other people take pictures of them. This could only be explained by beautiful people being morally superior. All the unchaste feminist women who cry about how they need free easy access to contraception and abortion, aren't complaining that they are being denied access to fornicate with any men they want. All women all either want faithful husbands to raise family with who are their looks-match, or they want to fornicate with only the top 20% of men in terms of looks/physical appearance. All women refuse to fornicate with 80% of men, the only men who women will fornicate with are the top 20%. This is why Pope Francis is likely not the true pope because he is too ugly, probably the true pope would be one of the men from the top 20% of good looking men. The Cardinals and Bishops would also ideally be from the top 20% of men. The Church is lacking authority partly because it fails to have enough beautiful people in positions of power. The public worships actors, models, kpop stars, & celebrities solely due to their good looks/physical beauty. The public will listen to anything celebrities say due to their beauty, no matter how ridiculous the celebrities words are. Not many people listen to the Catholic Church because the pope, bishops, cardinal, etc look ugly. All it would take for most of the western world to convert to Catholicism would be for the chads (top 20% of handsome men, male models) to convert to Catholicism and stop fornicating with the 80% of women. Then all the women would convert to Catholicism to win the approval of the chads, and the lower 80% of men would convert to Catholicism to win the approval of the women. That's how the power a of society is, 1st is chads, 2nd is women, 3rd is the other 80% of men. Chads are the real patriarchy. All this stuff about race isn't as important as physical beauty. Beautiful people can be from any race, ugly people can also be from any race. Capitalism and is evil because it gives power to whoever is merely the most driven to acquire money and power, hence why so many ugly people are rich, like Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates. Traditional monarchy or aristocracy would be giving power to those who are the most physically beautiful, and/or the most morally beautiful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74136014405914469852022-11-23T20:49:50.027-08:002022-11-23T20:49:50.027-08:00@ Don Jindra,
I cannot see this but anything more...@ Don Jindra,<br /><br />I cannot see this but anything more than an insistent promotion of materialist philosophy. As a premise you deny that anything but materialism makes sense. Data processing, then, is either "understanding" or else nothing is "understood" since everything is just instinct developing into stronger instinct or else whatever can be understood can be understood as data processing. This is painfully deficient thinking.<br /><br />That computers will soon process data better than humans says nothing. They already do and have since the beginning of computation. An abacus demonstrates two things. First, that material processing of data faster than humans is ancient, and second, something that you seem to miss, that these data processing mechanisms have always been conducted by humans.<br /><br />It doesn't follow from superior data processing by computing machines thatcomputeing machines can "understand" whatever humans can understand or behave as humans can behave. This is just a "fact" built into your premise to begin with and that demonstrates nothing.<br /><br />The incompressibility of (the making a science of) all possible data from a random source demonstrates that something higher than what can be derived through our material senses unifies what is and that it is above what we can know. Ignoring this doesn't make it go away.<br /><br />Tom Cohoe<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65201087306236656642022-11-23T10:17:37.387-08:002022-11-23T10:17:37.387-08:00Tom Cohoe,
"Does or does not this system &qu...Tom Cohoe,<br /><br />"Does or does not this system "know" what it is looking for?"<br /><br />I've told you several times already that it doesn't know and does not have to know. Performing a function and 'knowing' the function are two separate things. If you want to call my description of abstraction "data processing," technically you are correct. That is my point. Abstraction at its root is merely data processing. And contrary to your denials, computers are already performing that 'data processing' (abstraction) as well as humans in many cases. They will be better than us very soon.<br /><br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37912208492249737712022-11-22T16:08:35.650-08:002022-11-22T16:08:35.650-08:00@ Michael Copas,
Gregory Doolan is on the way. Th...@ Michael Copas,<br /><br />Gregory Doolan is on the way. The infinite sequence, not as God, but as an image only (in the same sense that egg tempera on backing makes an image of God) contains every idea that we can express as words, as pictures, as three dimensional, and higher, manifolds, as sounds, and more, and as these things combined. Since God knows every image of God whether existing in creation or not, that would make the infinite unbiased random binary sequence a Divine Idea, if I understand Divine Idea correctly.<br /><br />Since the binary sequence's only 'rule' is that its elements have no rule (50/50 probability distribution is the same thing as saying the bits are without rule), it is a simpler image of God than the older painted images that we are familiar with. The older images must show something, not nothing, but the rule free sequence, as it might be shown on a computer if we could run this mental conception on a computer would mostly be of what we would call 'nothing'. This is a feature, not a bug. It would not be nothing only in the sense that what we used to call 'snow' on an untuned TV is an image of 'nothing'. Yet with the right algorithm, as demonstrated by the one-time-pad, the snow could be resolved into an intelligible image. We don't have the correct 'key', so we cannot understand the meaning of the image, but even without a key, the unending sequence of 1's and 0's would resolve into intelligible images on a screen every so often in astronomical amounts of time, and all images would be in the sequence so displayed. In other words, this image of God contains them all.<br /><br />In the image of the Divine Idea, all of Creation is contained and unified in rule free simplicity.<br /><br />This image in binary sequences uses the substance of computer technology, to counter the materialism that many in the computer industry think their complex machines point to. They are some of the most influential in spreading materialist philosophy of all materialists, so the image that is an infinite random sequence is an apt answer to them.<br /><br />Tom Cohoe<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34554547475303351252022-11-21T19:23:13.519-08:002022-11-21T19:23:13.519-08:00@ Don Jindra,
"No table can contain the infi...@ Don Jindra,<br /><br />"No table can contain the infinite number of poses, angles and expressions of an individual face, yet the recognition must work -- and does."<br /><br />You still haven't given a coherent description of what you are talking about. Does or does not this system "know" what it is looking for? Cleaning up a messy image is just data processing.<br /><br />"China is using computerised face recognition for mass surveillance?"<br /><br />A system that worked only 60% of the time would be quite useful for the Chinese. It could also have a useful effect in terrorizing the public. That the Chinese are using it doesn't say much for how reliable it is.<br /><br />"We gain higher levels of abstraction -- language, math, music theory, etc -- by building on that instinct."<br /><br />Well I already said or implied that the brain, which controls our exterior functions, could possibly be modelled as a computer with an added component that is random (meaning that it can't be computed - understood through computation), that is part of our interior awareness and thought, and that controls our moral will enabling us to freely choose the right exterior action as well as the development of our understanding and our habits.<br /><br />You can't just sweep this away because it doesn't fit your ideas about how things work. You might consider adapting your ideas into something wider and more unifying.<br /><br />Tom Cohoe<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11975975017862479872022-11-21T10:55:17.938-08:002022-11-21T10:55:17.938-08:00Tom Cohoe,
'Differentiate' doesn't fu...Tom Cohoe,<br /><br />'Differentiate' doesn't fully express what is happening. The first step is to identify (or differentiate if you like) an area of interest that is a face rather than a non-face. Only then can the area be examined for a match to a particular person. That process can't be a simple "does it differentiate between Biden or Trump" because normally we'd be interested in selecting from a huge pool of people and we don't even know if the test case is in that pool. That is, the person could be unknown. Nevertheless, even if you want to reduce it to that, the problem remains the same. There can be no direct one-to-one comparison. The data pulled from the environment is too messy for that.<br /><br />Do you not know China is using computerized face recognition for mass surveillance? Their system identifies who is walking down a busy street. You are just wrong to claim it doesn't work well. <br /><br />I'll give a simpler example. A few weeks ago I rented a Toyota Camry for a trip back to Texas. It had a camera system that recognized speed limit signs. I didn't have to watch for speed limit signs because the car did. It always told me the current posted speed limit even through temporary road work. It had lane detection too. None of these examples can be done by simple table (library) lookup which is what you seem to think is happening. No table can contain the infinite number of poses, angles and expressions of an individual face, yet the recognition must work -- and does.<br /><br />Yes, a baby seeks its mother's breast by instinct. That's my point. This is abstraction working at birth through instinct. Abstraction (identification of universals) is an instinctual ability we have at birth. It's pure function. We gain higher levels of abstraction -- language, math, music theory, etc -- by building on that instinct. At the fundamental level, I do claim it's instinct.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88484114126918955772022-11-20T03:50:37.499-08:002022-11-20T03:50:37.499-08:00@ Don Jindra,
"you're saying true compre...@ Don Jindra,<br /><br />"you're saying true comprehension is beyond human ability"<br /><br />No. I'm just saying that the usage I meant was "comprehensive comprehension" (if you get what I mean). I am not denying that ordinary comprehension by people (and high horses) exists too. You can go right down to rocks in your hierarchy of comprehension if you like. Not that I advance such a theory. I'm just not going to oppose it. And at the top is that which has comprehensive comprehension (God). He knits it all together. All complexity from one simplicity. It isn't science, which seeks simplification but which is far too complex in its best hope for simplicity. It isn't something that can be done by a computer, which can _represent_ simplicity in a strictly limited way, but which is far too complex. You can speak of a "high horse" if you like (I can't stop you), but that suggests pride, even arrogant pride to me. I don't think it is though. A vision that sees the unification of everything from one incomprehensible simplicity (which a rule-free binary sequence strongly suggests) is above a vision that cannot embrace such a unification - as if all reality is divided - a cop-out. Finally, to be on a "high horse" is not a proper attribute of God.<br /><br />"Once it identifies a generic face, it can then -- in a more computationally intensive and time consuming algorithm -- try to identify Donald Trump from Joe Biden. You seem to think the algorithm works in the dumbest way possible, that is, in going through a library of Trump, Biden, Jack, Jill, etc. until it finds a match and only then does it signal 'face.' "<br /><br />Whatever it is that you are trying to say, this doesn't make any sense. If you are trying to "identify" (I assume you mean "differentiate") Trump from Biden and you have a library of faces, why would you not just start with the faces and try matching them on details. Why would you try matching with Jack, Jill, etc. when the library would have labels allowing these other faces to be instantly rejected? I understand that computerised face recognition doesn't work very well anyway.<br /><br />A baby seeks its mother's breast by instinct. The will of a baby is largely controlled by instinct. This does not involve the higher understanding of rational maturity. There will always be some instinctive motion in humans, even when we have thus matured, like the instinct to dodge an oncoming vehicle. OTOH, looking to note its make, color, and license number involves understanding, not instinct.<br /><br />Tom Cohoe<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45378929153159478612022-11-19T09:42:05.300-08:002022-11-19T09:42:05.300-08:00Tom Cohoe,
"You and Papalinton seem to share...Tom Cohoe,<br /><br />"You and Papalinton seem to share the property of getting offended by talk that implies the existence of God."<br /><br />I'm not offended by god-talk. In fact, I'm not offended by you at all. I was pointing out that you are not sitting on a high horse so you should stop pretending.<br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59889874838445646662022-11-19T09:40:15.935-08:002022-11-19T09:40:15.935-08:00"It [usage of comprehend] means, of somethin..."It [usage of comprehend] means, of something, to understand it completely from every possible aspect... It is how God comprehends things."<br /><br />If I took that statement at face value you're saying one has to be God to comprehend; you're saying you are God; or you're saying true comprehension is beyond human ability.<br /><br />I will assume a charitable interpretation. You are admitting there is a hierarchy of comprehension/understanding. At the top is God, below that are humans (with a hierarchy there as well) and below that animals, perhaps down to lowly worms. <br /><br />Even though you recognize this hierarchy, I think you want to apply God's comprehension to computers, or you want to hold computers to the highest of human standards. This is why I want to separate comprehension/understanding from function. I don't believe computers have to show the highest level of comprehension. I don't even believe comprehension as we normally use the word is a requirement. <br /><br />I do not see computers as gods or human. I see them as functional machines, above the level of worms but below humans. As functional machines, the question I still have, which neither you nor Michael Copas will answer, is this: Why do you think we have to understand/comprehend a thing to functionally do a thing? <br /><br />You and Michael Copas want to conflate understanding a thing with doing a thing. This effectively reduces my position to this absurdity: One doesn't have to understand before one understands. But that is not what I'm saying. I'm separating understanding from function -- understanding how we abstract or why we abstract are distinct from the process itself.<br /><br />Does an infant comprehend a breast from every possible aspect including from the beginning of its existence until the end, all details no matter how minute, through all changes, all locations, all relations, with nothing left out, at once, before it suckles? Does that infant comprehend the breast at all? It knows what to do with it. It has some "universal" reference point for breasts. It's not a perfect reference point -- we can shove a pacifier into its mouth and it might be happy for a while. That infant recognizes faces too, but in a generic "universal" way. Eventually it can distinguish between mother and father and sibling and stranger. But it distinguishes these particulars only after it recognizes the "universal" face. You are thinking about this problem totally backward. It leads to this error:<br /><br />"Furthermore, face recognition involves recognizing particular faces, so if you are getting rid of the particular, how is that supposed to make sense?"<br /><br />Face recognition does not recognize particular faces first. It identifies possible generic faces first. Once it identifies a generic face, it can then -- in a more computationally intensive and time consuming algorithm -- try to identify Donald Trump from Joe Biden. You seem to think the algorithm works in the dumbest way possible, that is, in going through a library of Trump, Biden, Jack, Jill, etc. until it finds a match and only then does it signal "face." That is definitely not how face recognition works. It's a stupid way of approaching the problem.<br /><br />You don't even understand what I was saying about compression and the throwing away of extraneous data. This applied only to identifying the universal/abstract. Once we have the universal, you can restore the "thrown away" data if you are looking for other things, like matches for individuals. But you must identify the universal first. That's the only way that makes computational sense. The point is to move from the most abstract and least detailed to finer and finer detail (less and less abstract) until you identify what you're looking for. Divide and conquer.<br /><br />This is how we maneuver through life. If, out of the corner of our eye, we catch a vehicle running a red light we react without looking for the make of the car, what color it is, or what the license plate is. We deal with the big picture first. Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31627788930468980982022-11-18T23:00:48.510-08:002022-11-18T23:00:48.510-08:00Hey @Talmid! It's good to see you again, bro!
...Hey @Talmid! It's good to see you again, bro!<br /><br />About question number 2, you made a really important point that I somewhat forgot i.e God is not a cause among causes - He is the precondition of all causes. And if the cause of the nervous system is to subserve the body the problem does not arise (I will comment on that later with question 1).<br /><br />One thing that I think that nobody could say Aristotle was wrong is about the relationship between parts and the substance as a whole. Because it doesn't matter what the reductionists say a severed arm is good for nothing - and not in fact the same exact thing when it was in its natural state. No sane observer could deny that. <br /><br />When a body part/organ is severed it could not be the same thing as it was before because1) it's not serving the functions it was serving before - and even if you could 'potentialize' some of them by any artificial means (e.g electro stimulation of a severed hand) it will never do what it done before in the same way and; 2) the part is incapable of living by itself - it could be considered an "incomplete substance" but not for long. A tree part i.e wood could not be a counter-example, because if I saw a trunk not only the tree will die but the part too - because it will lose its reason for being. Not even an organ like a heart or bone, say, could be a counter-example. Because the simple fact we need to intervene for it not to decay already presupposes that it could only continue its existence by artificial means - something that does not happen in the normal state. I don't want to get to the 'scientific' details but the cells will eventually die, but the point is more important than that i.e the whole is more important than the sum of its parts and they only 'miraculously' work the way they do in their natural places (e.g a nose that somehow 'grow' in a foot it's not really a nose - but the fact that it exists is for we being capable of breath through it).<br /><br />The lesson that I tried to draw from all this is: pieces by themselves don't make a whole any more than broken pieces of a family portrait make the family whole again. If somehow a creature loses a leg the point is not that the leg couldn't move by itself but that it never had that power by itself. But the same goes for the nervous system. Not only does the nervous system 'live' for making movement possible - but it's dependent on the substance in the same way as a leg is. <br /><br />I don't have enough philosophical intelligence to formulate it better, unfortunately - and the OCD attacks and distorts my thoughts. But I think we could say that since all body parts lose their way of being when by themselves - and all serve a function in the body in their specific way- what is really causing something is the substance. So I contend that I am the first cause of my movements and my body parts are necessary instruments since I can die waiting for someone to show me that they can do things by themselves - and I think that's exactly what's wrong with Libet's-like "free will" experiments. <br /><br />And the relation of Per Se causality of God in me is not like in the sense that I depend on my "lower" body parts in the here and now (that's true in a sense) but that I depend on God in the same sense relation of Essence x Existence i.e I am the cause of my movements and the nervous system is my instrument/necessary but not a sufficient cause, and I can only be a Per Se cause as a substance because God who is Ipsum Esse Per Se Subsistens imparts my existence so I can act. So I only am a Per Se cause because God is the sustaining cause of my being, and since He is pure existence He necessarily knows my essence and imparts its existence and powers. Vini Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15229212251469028593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3470749213885729552022-11-18T19:54:04.201-08:002022-11-18T19:54:04.201-08:00@Tadeo
Hey! It is quite good actually that you ar...@Tadeo<br /><br />Hey! It is quite good actually that you are focusing more in your mind and spirit, for it is way better to you. Philosophy is very good, but one can survive and even be a great person and saint with none of it. <br /><br />Now on the questions!<br /><br />1. I wondered about that before. I would say that not only our type of knowledge implies a imperfection, so saying that God has the potential to see like us is like saying He has the potential to be beaten up, but His knowledge is complete, in the sense that the red objec only exists because God know it as existence, detail by detail, so His knowledge cant be more than it is.<br /><br />Even Kant, not a thomist by any means, recognized yhat God cognition is completely diferent than our own, so we should not be suprised that He looks limited when we mistakenly try to compare.<br /><br />2. It is a harder question, but i would remember the distinction between primary and secundary casuality. God is the cause of your nervous system in the sense that He keeps it in being, as He does with you.<br /><br />Remember the author analogy: Stan Lee and Jack Kirby are the cause of the Hulk shirt ripping in a sensd but the Hulk is the cause in another sense. You are a part of the casual series that your nervous system is a part of but God is outside the series keeping it going.<br /><br />Hope this helps! These are interesting questions.Talmidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88794932532900965072022-11-18T17:02:53.814-08:002022-11-18T17:02:53.814-08:00@ Don Jindra,
"Why do you change the word to...@ Don Jindra,<br /><br />"Why do you change the word to 'comprehend?' "<br /><br />It's called freedom of speech. I wasn't trying to copy you so I didn't change _any_ word let alone _the_ word. What a funny thing you must think that replying to you is.<br /><br />:-)<br /><br />"We comprehend things every day without comprehending every aspect of a thing"<br /><br />My usage of "comprehend" is more related to "comprehensive" than it is to limited understanding. It means, of something, to understand it completely from every possible aspect including from the beginning of its existence until the end, all details no matter how minute, through all changes, all locations, all relations, with nothing left out, at once. It is how God comprehends things.<br /><br />"A universal or 'form' is defined to rid the 'form' of particular, individual expressions of the universal."<br /><br />That sentence doesn't make much sense. It seems to be an infinite regress in the definition of 'form'. Furthermore, face recognition involves recognizing particular faces, so if you are getting rid of the particular, how is that supposed to make sense? Furthermore, there are other generic types of faces in which particular nose sizes are involved. If the nose size is known accurately for a particular person, say information obtained from a surgeon, and the rest is based on an artist's drawing from a description, then the nose size could play an important part of identifying an individual. Similar with a lot of particular details. You seem to have a muddled idea of forms, universals, and recognition of particulars. I'll bet that face recognition technology doesn't actually work very well.<br /><br />"noise rejection is very important in computer science, science and engineering in general."<br /><br />I am using "randomness" not in the sense that means noise, but in the sense that means "not understood" and furthermore "not possible to understand". An example is the use of a random sequence of numbers for an unbreakable communicated directive that nevertheless controls a process in a specific, previously desired way. The creation of this sequence by using the known formal rules of quantum mechanics is the example you ask for.<br /><br />"I cannot say anything useful about something that makes absolutely no sense to me"<br /><br />You can cure that by doing some serious thinking.<br /><br />:-)<br /><br />"Your implication was clear. You deny I can have a fully plentiful, fulfilling or worthy life. Why? Because I don't accept your supernatural POV."<br /><br />You and Papalinton seem to share the property of getting offended by talk that implies the existence of God. That's not a very good response. Roll with it. Make a joke. I don't like your ideas that imply not-God but I'm not getting huffy about it. You already made a good joke about using randomness to choose lunch. It was pretty funny to think about throwing a series of randomly selected sandwich types across a room as the message in a one-time-pad. Humour makes talking easier.<br /><br />"I don't have the slightest idea what you mean. So I'm not technically against it other than being against nonsense."<br /><br />This must be a joke too because if you do not understand what I mean how do you know it's nonsense. This is just the truant student who would rather socialise in the cafeteria than learn algebra and calls it "nonsense". OK engineers, let's throw out algebra! It's just nonsense! There's a million students who flunk out every year because they act as though a serious subject is nonsense.<br /><br />:-)<br /><br />Tom Cohoe<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80761727183967881242022-11-18T14:22:31.645-08:002022-11-18T14:22:31.645-08:00@ Michael Copas,
I am interested in your suggesti...@ Michael Copas,<br /><br />I am interested in your suggestion to refer to the infinite random sequence as a Divine Idea. It certainly is that, in that God knows it. I feel a little worried that it might convey the impression that I am saying that it it is my divine idea. In fact I have tried out saying that it was something that I "discovered" to avoid this sense. I can discover something beautiful, and that is not a claim to have created it. What do you honestly think?<br /><br />But now I have to say something to Don Jindra.<br /><br />Tom Cohoe<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38088402582012174082022-11-17T20:30:14.699-08:002022-11-17T20:30:14.699-08:00@ Michael Copas,
Now we must talk about how a two...@ Michael Copas,<br /><br />Now we must talk about how a two dimensional digital picture made up of pixels is the same thing as a one dimensional sequence made up of bits. Simply, [if the picture is c pixels wide, the first c bits go into the first row, the next c bits go into the second row, etc. up to the end of the last row. The pixel is lit or dark depending on whether it is a 1 or a 0. Where its value, 0 or 1, will be found in the original sequence is c×row_number_of_the_pixel + column_number_of_the_pixel. So we can make a two dimensional representation of something on a monitor from its one dimensional memory.<br /><br />Now a finite binary random sequence could be any one of all possible sequences of its length. For a sequence of n bits there would be 2^n different possible sequences. For a picture of 2000 rows and 2000 columns there would be 2^4,000,000 different pictures. As a decimal number it would have over 1.2 million digits. That's the number of random images in a 2000 by 2000 pixel frame. It is a number that is much, much, much higher than the number of particles in the visible universe. Any one of these images could be created by a physical random number generator based on the decay sequence of a nuclear isotope, or the results of a series of particles that pass through a classical double slit interference apparatus.<br /><br />Now when the image (not of God here) is produced the result could be any one of the beyond astronomically high number of possible results, each of equal, very low probability (the inverse of the number of possible results.<br /><br />Here, before I say anything about God's will, I would say something about our will, and how a random sequence can represent human free will. The sequence cannot be predicted by any material device. It can be observed as it is produced but there is no rule for predicting the sequence because it is based on what we have learned about nuclear decay or double slit interferometers. After a century of trying no one has figured out a rule by which these things other than a probability distribution. The apparatus can be set up so that the probability is the same for each sequence, meaning that the result is totally unpredictable.<br /><br />Now let such a sequence represent human free will. No machine can predict the bits before they are produced so it would seem that our will is itself chaotic and without order. But order can be drawn from a random sequence. For example, if the random sequence is combined with a second random sequence in a process of bit by bit, one sequence to the other, XORing, a message can result (XOR stands for the logic operator know as the "exclusive OR" - 0 XOR 0 = 0, 0 XOR 1 = 1, 1 XOR 0 = 1, and 1 XOR 1 = 0). <br /><br />In other words, the will can be hidden and unpredictable if there is randomness associated with it.<br /><br />Now in this illustration, where could the second random string be coming from? From God, of course, and no, this does not mean that God would be changing states like a computer. God would still be unchanging, but that is for later.<br /><br />God's random message would combine with the human message in a way that the human's will understands operatively. Since no one knows God's random number in the image of God, no one could read the will in the human, even if they could somehow read the human's random number as it is produced. Nothing about the human's intention could be known by "mind reading".<br /><br />This leaves out a lot, but it is all I have time for now.<br /><br />Tom CohoeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37697419437030352462022-11-17T14:08:43.930-08:002022-11-17T14:08:43.930-08:00Dear friends @Talmid and @Michael
Sorry for going...Dear friends @Talmid and @Michael<br /><br />Sorry for going away for so long. I was trying to focus on my health and my relationship with God. I am continuously going to the Church and having the Body of Christ. I can't say I'm okay, but at least I am somewhat calmer - and my fear/compulsion is a little more under control. <br /><br />Since I see in the e-mail trend that you guys are talking about God in some sense can I abuse a little bit more of you guys goodwill and ask some questions about two topics that I can't get right? If so, here it goes.<br /><br />1 - This is a little bit more abstract. Since God "doesn't see" colors and has only an idea there of them couldn't this cause a-là Jackson-style problem for Him? Since He "couldn't know all there is to know about colors -i.e what they look like" (so the objection goes) He would lack some perfection or have some potency to be actualized (the experience of seeing red, say), and therefore would have a potential to be actualized?<br /><br />2 - That one is a little bit longer. In Ed's awesome TLS book he talked about per se or hierarchical series - and I think that's impossible to be wrong since the argument is sound. But I'm a little bit confused. I'm going to quote the relevant part so I can formulate better my question: "The motion of the stone depends on the motion of the hand, which depends on the motion of the stick, which depends on the firing of the neurons, which depends on the firing of other neurons, all of which depends on the state of the nervous system, which depends on its current molecular structure, which depends on the atomic basis of that molecular structure, which depends on electromagnetism, gravitation, the weak and strong forces, and so on an so forth, all simultaneously, all here and now." <br /><br />I think that's true but what really scratches my head is how can we conciliate this with a substance (especially living ones) being independent. Because someone ill-intended could read Ed's talking about that 'downward' causality and like a gnu atheist in a 'gotcha' moment says that vindicates or implies reductionism since the "upper levels depend on the lower". <br /><br />Since I am aware that Our Father is not occasionalist but we are like instruments in a sense, my question goes like this: if God is giving power to my, say, nervous system - and my nervous system is an instrument of causality - how can my nervous system be an instrument of God's causality and mine (a substance) at the same time since it is serving me too? My tentative answers are (1) that the nervous system, even if I depend on it for my causality it's my material cause in a sense and not my formal cause, so I can conciliate the two, and; (2) it (the nervous system) even though is causally relevant exists only virtually in me since it is subordinated to and only exists as part of me - but I'm afraid that this answer somewhat generates a 'duality of instrumentality' in the sense of at the same time being prior and hierarchically necessary for my movement and an instrument of God's causality in the first place so it would be odd to give my nervous system a somewhat 'double instrumentality' i.e being a necessary instrument for my movement and serving me and at the same time deriving its instrumentality from God since would seems that I'm a *hostage* of the lower level causality.<br /><br />Sorry if the questions are too long or too dumb - I had to formulate them in a reduced and quicker way. But these are questions I asked myself some time - and since you guys are really willing to help me - I dare to say that I am thankful for both of you and your goodwill! May God bless us all.Vini Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15229212251469028593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80926342586181970902022-11-17T12:40:09.899-08:002022-11-17T12:40:09.899-08:00Tom,
I am glad you appreciate my humor. I have re...Tom,<br /><br />I am glad you appreciate my humor. I have read your response "I am glad you are glad" more than one time with a smile, so the sincere appreciation is mutual.<br /><br />I look forward to reading more closely what you wrote above when I have time and look forward to your continued explanation and reflection. One question I have for you is this: instead of referring to numbers as Divine images, why not refer to them as Divine Ideas? There is enormous precedent for something like this in the CIT which can be seen from the recent studies of Gregory Doolan (The Divine Ideas as Exemplar Causes) and Vivian Boland (Ideas in God According to St. Thomas Aquinas). It has also received important philosophical and theological treatment from Feser (in Five Proofs) and from Levering (in his book on Creation). Do you think that numbers as Divine Ideas would work within what you are proposing? This would certainly place your proposal in a line that is in deep continuity with the CIT.Michael Copashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09861476745241388399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88632845144444990002022-11-17T11:09:01.533-08:002022-11-17T11:09:01.533-08:00@ Michael Copas,
You are a funny guy, Michael. I ...@ Michael Copas,<br /><br />You are a funny guy, Michael. I say that in a friendly way.<br /><br />:-)<br /><br />I don't know how much time I'll have for this. I have EA again today.<br /><br />"Image", it is, usually. The word is used all over the place in the CIT. You can say that my usage is a "rupture" but I take that to be an understandable bias. There is a rupture, as you say, but the rupture is the explosion of the cultures of the world into postmodern wokeness - nonsensical gender fluidity, the killing of the weak as a right of the strong, the widespread idea that truth is whatever the individual wants it to be, and other destructive nonsense, which if I had time enough I would list more completely, but you know anyway.<br /><br />The image that I have elucidate is not a rupture, but it is a _radical_ and necessary adaptation to the rupture described above.<br /><br />Since I am talking about logic, not just the logic we use in our human thinking, but logic in the more general sense that logic is whatever God wills it to be, I need a more general definition of logic. <br /><br />As my working definition, "logic is what allows human beings to use a set of rules to reason from one truth to another truth". God does not reason from truth to truth as he knows all truth. Indeed he _is_ truth in a way that is above our usual meaning when we say that something is true. He has told us that he is what truth is: "I am the way, the _truth_, and the life" (John 14:6). Since God is simple this means that God and truth are identical. Truth proper to human usage flows from this.<br /><br />So my claim is that logic is what God wills it to be, and that whatever he wills the set of rules to be, it still allows humans to reason from one truth to another within our composite derived truths that humans understand.<br />_____<br />Now let us jump to computers. When a computer works to do something that is found to be useful, its memory is loaded with a particular finite digital sequence. The infinite unbiased random sequence of 50/50 bits must contain as a finite subsequence the particular finite sequence loaded into the computer. This is because an unbiased random sequence of 50/50 probability bits must be _normal_, meaning that every finite subsequence must be contained in it (indeed, an infinite number of times). If a subsequence is missing, the infinite sequence is biased against the missing subsequence and the random bits of the infinite sequence must be something other than 50/50 probability.<br /><br />Almost all of the finite subsequences that can be loaded into the computer will not cause the computer to do something useful.<br /><br />An analogy to logic being whatever God wills it to be yet still allowing reasoning from truth to truth is to be found in computers. A subroutine that throws a representation of a person onto the monitor can use a different logic to cause the human representation to have the ability to make three things in its hand change into two things when it closes and reopens its hand. This kind of thing happens in computer games all the time. The logic for this is built on a lower logic and the truth in the analog is that the human representation can convert three things into two things by closing and reopening its hand on them.<br /><br />This is strictly an analogy. It is not supposed to be "how God works". God is simple. The sequence of bits that makes the computer analogy work is complex. It has order which makes the computer change states sequentially according to the rules of its complex logic. God does not have rules. God does not change states. We can understand how the computer works. We cannot understand God.<br /><br />So the computer analogy is only an aid to understanding the meaning of my words, not an illustration of "how God works".<br /><br />I have not gotten very far in this but I am pressed for time and must get ready for EA. I do not even have time to correct this but must post something to keep some momentum before the open forum is closed, so please bear with me.<br /><br />Tom Cohoe<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67271779852757120352022-11-17T10:36:36.054-08:002022-11-17T10:36:36.054-08:00Tom Cohoe,
"Making different associations ir...Tom Cohoe,<br /><br />"Making different associations irreversibly indistinguishable by throwing away information is not a way to comprehend even that part of the material universe accessible to the computer through its sensors."<br /><br />Why do you change the word to "comprehend?" The concept I'm using is identification. Both you and Michael Copas keep merging understanding a function with implementing a function. But even so, your assertion is false. We comprehend things every day without comprehending every aspect of a thing. In fact, that's pretty much a requirement for comprehending something. Comprehension needs focus. Fine details tend to distract from what's important. Even our "folk wisdom" states this: "He can't see the forest for the trees."<br /><br />"the universal 'face' has a lot more to it than what survives irreversible compression for input to face recognition software."<br /><br />How so? A universal or "form" is defined to rid the "form" of particular, individual expressions of the universal. For example, the specifics of chin size or nose size are irrelevant. Therefore that size information can be discarded.<br /><br /><br />"computation does not include continuously distributed stochastic input..."<br /><br />You seem to have an obsession with randomness that I do not understand. I see no need for randomness to be part of a universal. I'm not even sure what you're getting at. OTOH, noise rejection is very important in computer science, science and engineering in general. <br /><br />"Calling this 'new age mumbo-jumbo' sounds a lot like having nothing useful to say about this."<br /><br />You are correct. I cannot say anything useful about something that makes absolutely no sense to me.<br /><br />"External teaching by the environment did not create the quantum mechanics which gives brains their continuously distributed random component."<br /><br />Again. I have no idea what you mean by this. Could you give an example? My best guess is that you think we randomly choose what to eat for lunch. But this is off-topic. We do not randomly choose a universal.<br /><br />"I was not being smug, just saying something true about 'plenty'."<br /><br />Your implication was clear. You deny I can have a fully plentiful, fulfilling or worthy life. Why? Because I don't accept your supernatural POV.<br /><br />"Are you against the idea that the finite sequences constituting information in computers do not have an infinite limit that contains every last one of these sequences but which cannot be contained by them?"<br /><br />I don't have the slightest idea what you mean. So I'm not technically against it other than being against nonsense.<br /><br />"how do you conclude that your abstracting computers will not be a tool of evil every bit as bad as what we know historically of the capability of human evil..."<br /><br />They are already a tool of both evil and good.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53801281592513562532022-11-16T18:51:51.194-08:002022-11-16T18:51:51.194-08:00"I would be forced to acknowledge your intell..."I would be forced to acknowledge your intellectual prowess"<br /><br />Oh, Tom, if there is anything at all I can do to have you think highly of me, please just tell me what it is... Please oh please. Now let me make sure that I understand this correctly. If I agree to some things you say that are non-sensical, you will approve of me? Oh, its just too good to be true.<br /><br />"One of the prime sources of effective promotion of skepticism is the computer industry, with claim by industry giants that computation is the best way to understand what we call Creation and they call material computation...My model, which is an Image of God in the same sense of the word "Image" that Michelangelo's painting is an Image of God is very useful in teaching against this skepticism from computation because it uses a digital sequence, finite versions of which constitute the language of computers."<br /><br />If you are going to defend the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, my point is that you must first understand it. The New Atheists are hopeless to critique the Catholic Intellectual Tradition because they don't understand it. In the same way, would be defenders of that Tradition cannot defend it without understanding it. I don't object to the idea that numbers are images because it is a new idea that gives me bad dreams. I object to it because it is non-sense. It is for this reason that the claim that numbers are images of God is found nowhere in CIT. <br /><br />Regarding Tradition's development, you wrote:<br /><br />"Catholic intellectual Tradition (CIT) evolves, so that what is not CIT today may become CIT tomorrow."<br /><br />I assume what you are referring to is Newman on doctrinal development. Newman and those who have studied him closely (e.g. Reinhard Hutter) teach that doctrine develops in a way that is authentic and natural and not by way of rupture or reversal. What you are describing is not development. You are describing a rupture or reversal and calling it "evolution."<br /><br />"I hope that this is a sign, protectively made deniable through its disguise as sarcasm, that you are feeling some interest and that we may begin to have a normal good conversation."<br /><br />I am afraid my point did not come through. My point stated plainly is that the idea that numbers are an image of God is found nowhere in Tradition and contradicts Tradition in multiple ways that I have noted above. So, I am not being coy. I am pointing out that it is a strange way to "defend" Catholic Intellectual Tradition by denying the very Tradition that you wish to defend. I am sure that you wish to defend it and sincerely admire that desire to do so. However, on this point, you are out of line with the Tradition and would do well to rethink this point in a way that is in line with the Tradition.<br /><br />If you mean by image "something caused by God or dependent on God" then it would be entirely orthodox to understand all beings that are not God in this way. However, this would be a highly idiosyncratic usage of the word "image" and would lead people to misunderstand what you are saying. If the goal is to have people understand you in a way consistent with the Tradition you wish to defend, this is not a good approach. Instead you might use the word that everyone else within the CIT would use to describe this: contingent beings. All things are dependent on God and caused by Him whose Being is entirely necessary and Who needs nothing He has made. Such a shift in language would, I hope, allow you to communicate your ideas without giving the impression that you think that numbers are material or that you think that every contingent being, including immaterial being, is an image.Michael Copashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09861476745241388399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33134675477748519782022-11-16T09:15:21.210-08:002022-11-16T09:15:21.210-08:00@ Michael Copas,
"I am glad that you recogni...@ Michael Copas,<br /><br />"I am glad that you recognize this as it means that you must have some support from the Catholic intellectual Tradition for thinking that numbers are an image of God."<br /><br />I am glad that you are glad.<br /><br />And I know that you know that Catholic intellectual Tradition (CIT) evolves, so that what is not CIT today may become CIT tomorrow. In short, that there is no reason why I have to show that my ideas are a part of existing CIT.<br /><br />I hope that this is a sign, protectively made deniable through its disguise as sarcasm, that you are feeling some interest and that we may begin to have a normal good conversation. You are giving me a chance to make good on some of the claims I made in my last comment to you about what I could show you.<br /><br />I would be forced to acknowledge your intellectual prowess as you reach the point of beginning to see the advantages of and of starting to deal rationally with a new, strange, idea that you probably do not like very much.<br /><br />More later on the making good because I have to prepare for my session of Eucharistic Adoration and will be preoccupied with this and other usual things.<br /><br />Tom Cohoe<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70855441791080368232022-11-16T08:39:38.687-08:002022-11-16T08:39:38.687-08:00@ Don Jindra,
"a lossy compression algorithm...@ Don Jindra,<br /><br />"a lossy compression algorithm. The original "teaching" data is compressed to a set of data points. The algorithm finds much of the original data is not relevant to the desired "universal."<br /><br />Making different associations irreversibly indistinguishable by throwing away information is not a way to comprehend even that part of the material universe accessible to the computer through its sensors. Your "universals" will be of a much smaller universe than the one that surrounds us - in short. they will be "universals" of a toy universe.<br /><br />"In the first place, it does not matter"<br /><br />If you cannot recover the information you have thrown away, it matters. Face recognition does not work with the universal "face". It is a useful trick, but the universal "face" has a lot more to it than what survives irreversible compression for input to face recognition software.<br /><br />"how do you know this is not how the brain works?"<br /><br />"Why do you think ..." would be a better form for your question than "How do you know ...". <br /><br />I think that it is not how brains work because computation does not include continuously distributed stochastic input as part of the theory of computation. This makes computation discrete. Neurons fire discretely when we observe the brain, but observation destroys the superposition of continuous probability which is a hallmark of quantum mechanics and the stochastic firing of observed neurons suggests that brains do things that derive from continuous probability distribution that cannot be computed.<br /><br />Calling this "new age mumbo-jumbo" sounds a lot like having nothing useful to say about this.<br /><br />"Thirdly, what does the brain abstract that's not taught by external teaching?"<br /><br />External teaching by the environment did not create the quantum mechanics which gives brains their continuously distributed random component.<br /><br />"In context, this is a smug statement. I could turn this statement against you."<br /><br />I suppose you could say something about "half empty" and a "a lot emptier" but the context was "plenty". In addition, I was not being smug, just saying something true about "plenty". You surely do not think that "plenty" means something like "no more good to get".<br /><br />"If it is communicated, it's like McDonald's Corporation communicating 'purpose' to cattle at the slaughterhouse. That's not purpose from where I sit."<br /><br />Sounds like irrational bias to me. Are you against the idea that the finite sequences constituting information in computers do not have an infinite limit that contains every last one of these sequences but which cannot be contained by them? Why?<br /><br />Also, how do you conclude that your abstracting computers will not be a tool of evil every bit as bad as what we know historically of the capability of human evil either at the hands of their human masters, or if the computers somehow were imbued with purpose of their own, by the computers themselves?<br /><br />Tom Cohoe<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com