Emotions

[Edgarcito]

On 12/30/2022 at 5:20 PM, walterpthefirst said:

Can we trust our emotions to reliably discover universal truths about reality?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

I doubt they hit the ground at the exact same time.  In that, I don't know why a "universal truth" wouldn't be discernable to some unique biological system.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I doubt they hit the ground at the exact same time.  In that, I don't know why a "universal truth" wouldn't be discernable to some unique biological system.

 

 

"I doubt they hit the ground at the exact same time."

 

Instead of calling the historical record into doubt, why don't you perform the experiment for yourself, Ed? 

 

If you won't be persuaded by history, then why not be persuaded by the evidence of your own senses?

 

Just as Galileo was?

 

 

 

In that, I don't know why a "universal truth" wouldn't be discernible to some unique biological system.

 

If each biological system has it's own unique experience of reality then it would be impossible for them discern a universal truth.

 

By definition universal truths are equally true for all, apply equally to all and are experienced in the same way by all.

 

But a unique biological system would be limited to their own unique experience of reality and nobody else's.

 

 

Leaving them unable to experience or discern any universal truths.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

"I doubt they hit the ground at the exact same time."

 

Instead of calling the historical record into doubt, why don't you perform the experiment for yourself, Ed? 

 

If you won't be persuaded by history, then why not be persuaded by the evidence of your own senses?

 

Just as Galileo was?

 

 

 

In that, I don't know why a "universal truth" wouldn't be discernible to some unique biological system.

 

If each biological system has it's own unique experience of reality then it would be impossible for them discern a universal truth.

 

By definition universal truths are equally true for all, apply equally to all and are experienced in the same way by all.

 

But a unique biological system would be limited to their own unique experience of reality and nobody else's.

 

 

Leaving them unable to experience or discern any universal truths.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t see it matters.  The action of the truth on the subject would still be universal.  Our ability to understand the deviation on each system would be the rub.  I don't see that totally excludes all systems.  With the experiment, it’s just less complex…

[walterpthefirst]

48 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don’t see it matters.  The action of the truth on the subject would still be universal.  Our ability to understand the deviation on each system would be the rub.  I don't see that totally excludes all systems.  With the experiment, it’s just less complex…

 

You are the one who has consistently argued that everyone has their own unique experience of reality, Ed.

 

Yes, the action of a truth on one subject (or many subjects) would still be universal, but each person could never know that. 

 

If each person is isolated in their own bubble of uniquely experienced reality, that's all they can know.

 

Just the bubble they're in.

 

They could never know that what they are experiencing is the same as what anyone else is experiencing.

 

So knowledge of anything universal could never penetrate their bubble of uniqueness.

 

The only way a universal truth could be known is if everyone experiences it in a common reality.

 

Which is what Eugene Wigner describes it in his science paper.

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

53 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

You are the one who has consistently argued that everyone has their own unique experience of reality, Ed.

 

Yes, the action of a truth on one subject (or many subjects) would still be universal, but each person could never know that. 

 

If each person is isolated in their own bubble of uniquely experienced reality, that's all they can know.

 

Just the bubble they're in.

 

They could never know that what they are experiencing is the same as what anyone else is experiencing.

 

So knowledge of anything universal could never penetrate their bubble of uniqueness.

 

The only way a universal truth could be known is if everyone experiences it in a common reality.

 

Which is what Eugene Wigner describes it in his science paper.

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t agree Walter.  I would think we could look at outcomes and derive truths by working backwards through the known conditions…and if the multiple outcomes resulted in a common input?  

Isn’t that remotely similar to particle research?  …looking at the collision and accounting backwards?

 

Why would it be any different.
 

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I don’t agree Walter.  I would think we could look at outcomes and derive truths by working backwards through the known conditions…and if the multiple outcomes resulted in a common input?  

Isn’t that remotely similar to particle research?  …looking at the collision and accounting backwards?

 

Why would it be any different.
 

 

 

It would be (and is) very different Edgarcito because particles like positrons are all identical.  Which means that the properties of one positron (charge, spin, mass, etc.) are identical to every other positron.  Which is why different particle accelerators anywhere in the world derive exactly the same results when performing the same experiments.  This is the same kind of universal invariance that Wigner was describing in his science paper. 

 

So No, your argument doesn't work and, if anything, it's supports what Wigner is saying.

 

 

But you still seem to be stuck on the idea that unique individuals can look at outcomes beyond their own bubble of uniqueness.  How can that be?  A totally unique person can only experience their own unique reality.  They cannot experience anyone else's.  

 

This is an either/or scenario.  Either everyone is totally unique and therefore isolated from everyone else or they are are not totally unique, sharing enough in common with others to see that universal truths apply to all.  There are no grey areas or halfway houses here.  There's no such thing as being 95% unique.  It's 100% or nothing.

 

Saying that people are totally unique BUT also share certain things in common is a non sequitur, a contradiction it terms.  That's like saying that a circle can also be a square.  A circle is only a circle until it deviates from that condition in some way.  Ditto for a square.  Once they deviate from what they are they cease to be circular or square.  They become something else.

 

And this is exactly how it is with total personal uniqueness.  Once there is even the slightest deviation from total uniqueness then that person is no longer unique.

 

Totally unique people cease to be unique the moment they can experience anything beyond themselves.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

But you still seem to be stuck on the idea that unique individuals can look at outcomes beyond their own bubble of uniqueness.  How can that be?  A totally unique person can only experience their own unique reality.  They cannot experience anyone else's.  

 

This is an either/or scenario.  Either everyone is totally unique and therefore isolated from everyone else or they are are not totally unique, sharing enough in common with others to see that universal truths apply to all.  There are no grey areas or halfway houses here.  There's no such thing as being 95% unique.  It's 100% or nothing.

 

Saying that people are totally unique BUT also share certain things in common is a non sequitur, a contradiction it terms.  That's like saying that a circle can also be a square.  A circle is only a circle until it deviates from that condition in some way.  Ditto for a square.  Once they deviate from what they are they cease to be circular or square.  They become something else.

 

And this is exactly how it is with total personal uniqueness.  Once there is even the slightest deviation from total uniqueness then that person is no longer unique.

 

Totally unique people cease to be unique the moment they can experience anything beyond themselves.

 

 

I'll let you settle this one please sir.  I am here in my lab staring at a handful of gas chromatographs.  Are they each unique?

[walterpthefirst]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'll let you settle this one please sir.  I am here in my lab staring at a handful of gas chromatographs.  Are they each unique?

 

That's an invalid example Edgarcito because you are (metaphorically) comparing apples with oranges.

 

Gas chromatographs are not unique biological systems (your words) and so discussing them doesn't address the issue.

 

We should compare like with like, rather than comparing things that are unalike.

 

 

One way to do that would be to compare ourselves and then ask if we are unique.

 

This would work because you and I are biological systems.

 

So, making that comparison does address the issue.

 

 

I'll settle the issue with this answer.

 

No, neither of us is totally unique.

 

I can cite the evidence for this if you'd like.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

That's an invalid example Edgarcito because you are (metaphorically) comparing apples with oranges.

 

Gas chromatographs are not unique biological systems (your words) and so discussing them doesn't address the issue.

 

We should compare like with like, rather than comparing things that are unalike.

 

 

One way to do that would be to compare ourselves and then ask if we are unique.

 

This would work because you and I are biological systems.

 

So, making that comparison does address the issue.

 

 

I'll settle the issue with this answer.

 

No, neither of us is totally unique.

 

I can cite the evidence for this if you'd like.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

I think it's a very good illustration of what we are discussing in that there are many shared aspects of these instruments but are they each unique even with all the shared aspects.  I'd please like you to answer.

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I think it's a very good illustration of what we are discussing in that there are many shared aspects of these instruments but are they each unique even with all the shared aspects.  I'd please like you to answer.

 

Ok, but I'll confine my answer to biological systems.

 

Please notice that I'm using the definition totally unique biological systems.  That is the key to this issue.  TOTALITY.  If two biological systems (you and me) are totally unique then we have nothing in common, we share nothing between us and our experiences do not overlap in any way.  Each system is therefore completely isolated from the other.  We are 100% different and unalike.  We could not possibly agree on anything, share anything or communicate anything.  

 

So, the big question is... do we have anything in common?

 

The answer is a resounding Yes.  Yes, despite our many differences, we have a great deal in common.  You and I are both humans.  We are both male.  We speak (more or less) the English language and we can communicate with each other.  We are both members of this forum.  We both know how to use computers.  Our bodies, though different, share the same layout and our body systems work in essentially the same way.  Our experience bases, though different, have a great deal of overlap.  We both know what mountains, oceans, stars, trees and coffee beans are.  We both know what democracy and fascism are.  We both know the workings of the Christian religion.  We both know who Paul, George, John and Ringo are.  We both know what pain, hunger, thirst and tiredness are.  We both know what love, hope, peace and calm are.  Without having to compare notes beforehand we both know what the acronym JFK stands for.  We both know which country the Ukrainians are fighting right now.  We both know what a  football is, even if we don't agree on the shape of the ball.  And so on.

 

Therefore, since we have so much in common, indeed, because we have even ONE thing in common, neither of us can be totally unique biological systems.

 

Yes, we are radically different from each other, but we are also very much alike in many more ways than I've listed above.

 

I rest my case.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Ok, but I'll confine my answer to biological systems.

 

Please notice that I'm using the definition totally unique biological systems.  That is the key to this issue.  TOTALITY.  If two biological systems (you and me) are totally unique then we have nothing in common, we share nothing between us and our experiences do not overlap in any way.  Each system is therefore completely isolated from the other.  We are 100% different and unalike.  We could not possibly agree on anything, share anything or communicate anything.  

 

So, the big question is... do we have anything in common?

 

The answer is a resounding Yes.  Yes, despite our many differences, we have a great deal in common.  You and I are both humans.  We are both male.  We speak (more or less) the English language and we can communicate with each other.  We are both members of this forum.  We both know how to use computers.  Our bodies, though different, share the same layout and our body systems work in essentially the same way.  Our experience bases, though different, have a great deal of overlap.  We both know what mountains, oceans, stars, trees and coffee beans are.  We both know what democracy and fascism are.  We both know the workings of the Christian religion.  We both know who Paul, George, John and Ringo are.  We both know what pain, hunger, thirst and tiredness are.  We both know what love, hope, peace and calm are.  Without having to compare notes beforehand we both know what the acronym JFK stands for.  We both know which country the Ukrainians are fighting right now.  We both know what a  football is, even if we don't agree on the shape of the ball.  And so on.

 

Therefore, since we have so much in common, indeed, because we have even ONE thing in common, neither of us can be totally unique biological systems.

 

Yes, we are radically different from each other, but we are also very much alike in many more ways than I've listed above.

 

I rest my case.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

I'm sure we are not the first to have this difference of opinion. To the discussion, our makeup is really no different in principle than the instruments.... a configuration.  You and I both know the difference is the instruments are especially designed to maximize a similar response...so to, in my case, quantify those "universal truths".  And we both know individual instruments demonstrate not only dynamic conditions in that they don't measure anything exactly the same way twice due to the dynamic aspects, but also that there are also even more so distinct from another instrument as the output, the difference, from instrument to instrument is even greater than a single instrument.  Not to mention please, the differences due to the person operating the instrument.

 

For me Walter, I just can't accept that basically everything is not totally unique at any given instant.

 

I will continue to think about which interpretation is more potentially valid.  Thx.

 

Edit:  "not totally unique"

 

Also, forgot to add.... that as a biological "instrument", I believe if we understood all the dynamics of the human body, the inputs, the individual makeup, and the ability to compute the differences, maybe we could predict "personality", "soul".  I don't know.  Could be the human body receives some signal we haven't even identified yet.  I keep thinking of whale communication and how recent a discovery that was.  

 

Thx.

[walterpthefirst]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm sure we are not the first to have this difference of opinion. To the discussion, our makeup is really no different in principle than the instruments.... a configuration.  You and I both know the difference is the instruments are especially designed to maximize a similar response...so to, in my case, quantify those "universal truths".  And we both know individual instruments demonstrate not only dynamic conditions in that they don't measure anything exactly the same way twice due to the dynamic aspects, but also that there are also even more so distinct from another instrument as the output, the difference, from instrument to instrument is even greater than a single instrument.  Not to mention please, the differences due to the person operating the instrument.

 

For me Walter, I just can't accept that basically everything is totally unique at any given instant.

 

I will continue to think about which interpretation is more potentially valid.  Thx.

 

Then we seem to agree, Edgarcito.

 

I can't accept that we are totally unique biological systems either.  Because we have so much in common.

 

And you would seem to be agreeing with Wigner's point too.

 

He says that universal truths apply in the same way to everyone because we all have so much in common.

 

Gravity acts upon you in the same way it acts upon me and upon everyone else on Earth.

 

Which is why, if you repeat Galileo's experiment with the two differently sized rocks, you will get the same results as Galileo.

 

You could see the universal truth of gravity's invariance, in action for yourself.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Edit:  "not totally unique"

 

 

My argument only applies to the condition of total uniqueness, Ed.

 

You may not agree, but in my book anything that is not totally unique is not unique in any sense.

 

People who write 'almost unique' or 'mostly unique' are misusing the term unique.

 

It's an either/or, just like perfection.

 

Something is either perfect or it is imperfect.

 

There is no in between, no halfway house or grey areas.

 

Semi-unique?  75% unique?  As good as unique?  Nearly unique?

 

Nope.  None of the above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RankStranger]

On 1/1/2023 at 2:15 PM, Edgarcito said:

I doubt they hit the ground at the exact same time. 

 

Your doubts are correct.

 

Quote

In that, I don't know why a "universal truth" wouldn't be discernable to some unique biological system.

 

Not sure I follow.

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

Your doubts are correct.

 

 

Not sure I follow.

Walter was trying to convince me that biological systems with shared qualities does not make them unique.  He was expressing totally unique vs. just unique....(meaning totally unique would be just that, not even a conventional biological system, that would even violate the definition of a biological system to begin with).   I don't think the definition even supports that view.  But in fact, at any given instant, we are unique and totally unique in the sense that there is no possible combination of matter that shares that combination.  He sees it differently.

 

To the statement, I believe I was thinking that if we had the ability to account for and predict all the chemistry and physics in the human body that this might give us insight into emotions/behaviors etc.  This is where I lean more towards non-believer than believer.... i.e., it's chemistry and physics derived rather than a soul.  But who knows, if we unscrambled the puzzle and it still pointed to completely unique, no rhyme or reason, that would lend itself to God more imo.

[RankStranger]

57 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Walter was trying to convince me that biological systems with shared qualities does not make them unique.  He was expressing totally unique vs. just unique....(meaning totally unique would be just that, not even a conventional biological system, that would even violate the definition of a biological system to begin with).   I don't think the definition even supports that view.  But in fact, at any given instant, we are unique and totally unique in the sense that there is no possible combination of matter that shares that combination.  He sees it differently.

 

To the statement, I believe I was thinking that if we had the ability to account for and predict all the chemistry and physics in the human body that this might give us insight into emotions/behaviors etc.  This is where I lean more towards non-believer than believer.... i.e., it's chemistry and physics derived rather than a soul.  But who knows, if we unscrambled the puzzle and it still pointed to completely unique, no rhyme or reason, that would lend itself to God more imo.

 

I was a big believer in scientific determinism when I was a young man.  That's basically what we're taught in school (or at least that a conclusion one can draw from the science we're taught... if taken to its 'logical' conclusion).  Problem is that the world is a lot more complicated than any math problem.

 

The soul (or whatever one prefers to call it) can be seen as an emergent property of the fiendishly complex systems that we and our societies are.  I'm not saying that's a fact... but it's definitely closer to a fact than Soviet-era scientific determinism.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

On 12/21/2022 at 8:30 PM, Weezer said:

While on this subject I'll throw in one more theory about emotions.  Some say anger is a secondary emotion.  Underlying it is sadness or fear.  And especially men who don't want to show sadness or fear, divert it to anger.  HA!  From personal experience I think there is some truth in that theory.

I heard a saying that: Depression is anger without enthusiasm