Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

One plus one has never equalled two. - Lucy

sanchitmisra1
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 6:19:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Humans consider themselves unique, so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. "One" is their unit of "measure" " but its not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch: "one plus one equals two", that's all we've learned, but one plus one has never equalled two " there are in fact no numbers and no letters, we've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible, we've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale."

Is this line given in Lucy (2014 released French-American film) is true? Your views.
jkhiggons
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 10:54:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 6:19:53 AM, sanchitmisra1 wrote:
Humans consider themselves unique, so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. "One" is their unit of "measure" " but its not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch: "one plus one equals two", that's all we've learned, but one plus one has never equalled two " there are in fact no numbers and no letters, we've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible, we've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale."

Is this line given in Lucy (2014 released French-American film) is true? Your views.

It would seem to me that 'we' never really put anything into place, we are merely a reflection of what is. Numbers are universal, separate from the scale, existence is infinitely small or large, at what scale you might choose to define one depends wholly on the observer. One of these things and another we have defined as two, two tiny things or two large things, still two. Human scale, planet scale, nano scale.
sanchitmisra1
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 12:04:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Exactly right!
I support your post to its entirety.
This is the very same thing that I want to say, even better presented.

A very nice example given by you as well.

It will be nice if we have more views on the topic...
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 1:43:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 6:19:53 AM, sanchitmisra1 wrote:
In order to explain what this quote brings into my mind, I will parse it out into separate phrases. I am sorry, but this quote needs to be broken down in order to be fully understood, as many of the formulations it creates strike me as so odd.
A. Humans consider themselves unique,
B. so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness.
C. "One" is their unit of "measure"
D. " but its not.
E. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch:
F. "one plus one equals two",
G. that's all we've learned,
H. but one plus one has never equalled two
I. " there are in fact no numbers and no letters,
J. we've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible, we've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale."

1. In statement A, how do we see ourselves as unique? I will interpret this to refer solely to our sentience, as this is the only way I think that all humans differentiate themselves from others, but this causes a problem. I will explain this in the next note, and maintain this single interpretation for the sake of brevity, but please offer alternative suggestions.
2. If we understand uniqueness to be sentience (1), how do we collectively base our entire formulation of metaphysics on this concept, as statement B suggests? Existentialism? We are not all existentialists.
3. What does D even mean? It seems extremely vague. Does it mean it doesn't exist outside our minds? It doesn't exist at all? It is not our unit of measure? It is incorrect as a unit of measure? Though further reading may make some of these guesses substantially less probable, too many remain to accurately understand. I will proceed with the first two interpretations, but feel free to clarify.
4. E, H, and I are really what provide the aforementioned difficulty (3). E implies the first interpretation, but H and I imply the second. Neither seem definitive, so I will respond to both at the end.
5. Is J attempting to imply that this is a problem or somehow insufficient? I am going to proceed as if it does.

I hope this system does not provide too much trouble for anyone. Much of the quote seems messy, so I needed to ensure that the reason I interpreted certain phrases in certain ways is made clear. If not, we will simply be talking past each other.

My issue with the opening statement was displayed in No. 2, but I suppose I should elaborate. Simply put, it does not seem to refer to any metaphysical philosophy in the natural world. Even existentialism is a poor fit, as it emphasizes our freedom. I suppose it could be referring to the social systems we created, but I know of no one who has "rooted their whole theory of existence" on these systems.

For No. 3's first interpretation, I honestly agree. I think that these systems do not exist in nature, they are products of our species. The origins of these systems seem to be more of an invention than a discovery, so I don't believe that they exist outside of us. However, J is an idea which I vehemently disagree with. It seems to state that they should not be used based on their origins, which invokes the nirvana fallacy. As long as we recognize the imperfections their roots imply, as well as their constant need for revision, we should still utilize them as an authority. We must make do with the best that we have, and that does not always allow us to proceed with no possibility of falsehood.

For it's second interpretation, I cannot comprehend what would create this idea. How can we imagine a non-existent abstract concept? Is this not a contradiction?

Thank you for your patience in reading my post.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 6:34:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 1:43:32 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/16/2015 6:19:53 AM, sanchitmisra1 wrote:
In order to explain what this quote brings into my mind, I will parse it out into separate phrases. I am sorry, but this quote needs to be broken down in order to be fully understood, as many of the formulations it creates strike me as so odd.
A. Humans consider themselves unique,
B. so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness.
C. "One" is their unit of "measure"
D. " but its not.
E. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch:
F. "one plus one equals two",
G. that's all we've learned,
H. but one plus one has never equalled two
I. " there are in fact no numbers and no letters,
J. we've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible, we've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale."

1. In statement A, how do we see ourselves as unique? I will interpret this to refer solely to our sentience, as this is the only way I think that all humans differentiate themselves from others, but this causes a problem. I will explain this in the next note, and maintain this single interpretation for the sake of brevity, but please offer alternative suggestions.
2. If we understand uniqueness to be sentience (1), how do we collectively base our entire formulation of metaphysics on this concept, as statement B suggests? Existentialism? We are not all existentialists.
3. What does D even mean? It seems extremely vague. Does it mean it doesn't exist outside our minds? It doesn't exist at all? It is not our unit of measure? It is incorrect as a unit of measure? Though further reading may make some of these guesses substantially less probable, too many remain to accurately understand. I will proceed with the first two interpretations, but feel free to clarify.
4. E, H, and I are really what provide the aforementioned difficulty (3). E implies the first interpretation, but H and I imply the second. Neither seem definitive, so I will respond to both at the end.
5. Is J attempting to imply that this is a problem or somehow insufficient? I am going to proceed as if it does.

I hope this system does not provide too much trouble for anyone. Much of the quote seems messy, so I needed to ensure that the reason I interpreted certain phrases in certain ways is made clear. If not, we will simply be talking past each other.

My issue with the opening statement was displayed in No. 2, but I suppose I should elaborate. Simply put, it does not seem to refer to any metaphysical philosophy in the natural world. Even existentialism is a poor fit, as it emphasizes our freedom. I suppose it could be referring to the social systems we created, but I know of no one who has "rooted their whole theory of existence" on these systems.
I am not even sure what "theory of existence" is supposed to mean.


For No. 3's first interpretation, I honestly agree. I think that these systems do not exist in nature, they are products of our species. The origins of these systems seem to be more of an invention than a discovery, so I don't believe that they exist outside of us. However, J is an idea which I vehemently disagree with. It seems to state that they should not be used based on their origins, which invokes the nirvana fallacy. As long as we recognize the imperfections their roots imply, as well as their constant need for revision, we should still utilize them as an authority. We must make do with the best that we have, and that does not always allow us to proceed with no possibility of falsehood.

For it's second interpretation, I cannot comprehend what would create this idea. How can we imagine a non-existent abstract concept? Is this not a contradiction?
Yes, that is a contradiction. Abstracta only exist in our minds and to think about something you do not think about is a contradiction.

Thank you for your patience in reading my post.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 7:08:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Given the base improbability that science fiction is at all representative of good sources of scientific or philosophical information, compounded by the premise of this particular film being "What if humans could use more than 10% of their brains?", how likely do you ultimately estimate any randomly-selected attempt at profundity (or pretense of profundity) from such a source to be worth seriously entertaining?
sanchitmisra1
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 7:13:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
First of all I will like to appreciate you as you really explained it well.

Secondly, what I believe is that the invention of the society we invented and we even developed is what has helped us reach such a level that we are free to express our philosophies, rather than remaining stuck to the basic physiological needs of hunger, thirst, sleep and sex.

So, no question arises that the society we have developed, we could have worked without it. Never, we couldn"t ever have worked as efficiently as we are working without it. This society is the sole reason for our comfortable existence.

Thirdly and lastly, I would like to say that if the incomprehensible things would have been so simple, we would have codified them into our comprehensible language. THE QUOTE given in first post IS MEANT TO FOCUS ON SUCH ISSUES which many of the leading minds of our society refuse to accept as they don"t fit into the comprehensible scientific parameters they have made or created.

See, this refers to my one more post,

http://www.debate.org...

In which I have put light on the problems Ayurvedic Medical System is facing in front of Global Authorities, because they aren"t able to understand it, as it is crossing their self made comprehensible parameters, as those concepts were created by the enlightened ones of the past with a different etymology nearly 5000 years ago.

Thank you for reading!

Further Posts are appreciated.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 8:44:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 7:08:07 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Given the base improbability that science fiction is at all representative of good sources of scientific or philosophical information, compounded by the premise of this particular film being "What if humans could use more than 10% of their brains?", how likely do you ultimately estimate any randomly-selected attempt at profundity (or pretense of profundity) from such a source to be worth seriously entertaining?

This seems like an ad hominem. Though it is excessively likely to be shallow, given its roots, that should be no reason to not scrutinize the concept.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 9:04:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The numbers, geometry, calculus, etc. has always been around. Even before humans it existed. We, humans, merely have discovered it. The pythagorean theorem for example, when we construct three sided figures, we do not construct them to fit the pythagorean theorem, the pythagorean theorem just applies to all of them(provided they are right triangles that is.)
sanchitmisra1
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 12:03:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
See, @ Cowboy0108 I also accept that the Pythagorean theorem applies automatically and naturally to it.

But what I mean to say is that there is still a lot to be discovered and it cannot be comprehended through are present parameters of science we have created.

For more information see my post

http://www.debate.org...

And then I will further explain it to you.

We have to make ourselves move beyond our comprehensibility zone and accept that things are not as simple as we try to make them.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 2:08:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 8:44:23 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/16/2015 7:08:07 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Given the base improbability that science fiction is at all representative of good sources of scientific or philosophical information, compounded by the premise of this particular film being "What if humans could use more than 10% of their brains?", how likely do you ultimately estimate any randomly-selected attempt at profundity (or pretense of profundity) from such a source to be worth seriously entertaining?

This seems like an ad hominem. Though it is excessively likely to be shallow, given its roots, that should be no reason to not scrutinize the concept.

Right, but that's not the point I'm making. I'm talking about the credibility of a source of information. If you had a machine that, up until t = right now, only spit out testably false assertions, it is true that you could say something like "Well, even though it's been dead wrong on every other occasion, you can't say with certainty that it will also spit out a wrong thing this time". Certainty, in any case, is admittedly impossible. Fortunately for the Practical Human World, we can worth with probabilities in the absence of certainties. And, in probability space, [science fiction movie with blatantly inaccurate premise] is so improbable a source of good information to feed into your brain, particularly compared with alternatives (e.g., professional journals), that, once you tear off the suspension of disbelief that makes the movie entertaining, you have very little reason to take any of the things it asserts seriously. I mean, what the OP's quote basically asserts is that "we have a map, but no apprehension of the territory", which is so obviously true, and which has been repeatedly asserted for the past few centuries, that to pretend it's some kind of heretofore undiscovered piece of profundity is not just ludicrous, but willfully dense.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 2:55:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 2:08:08 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:44:23 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/16/2015 7:08:07 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Given the base improbability that science fiction is at all representative of good sources of scientific or philosophical information, compounded by the premise of this particular film being "What if humans could use more than 10% of their brains?", how likely do you ultimately estimate any randomly-selected attempt at profundity (or pretense of profundity) from such a source to be worth seriously entertaining?

This seems like an ad hominem. Though it is excessively likely to be shallow, given its roots, that should be no reason to not scrutinize the concept.

Right, but that's not the point I'm making. I'm talking about the credibility of a source of information. If you had a machine that, up until t = right now, only spit out testably false assertions, it is true that you could say something like "Well, even though it's been dead wrong on every other occasion, you can't say with certainty that it will also spit out a wrong thing this time". Certainty, in any case, is admittedly impossible. Fortunately for the Practical Human World, we can worth with probabilities in the absence of certainties. And, in probability space, [science fiction movie with blatantly inaccurate premise] is so improbable a source of good information to feed into your brain, particularly compared with alternatives (e.g., professional journals), that, once you tear off the suspension of disbelief that makes the movie entertaining, you have very little reason to take any of the things it asserts seriously. I mean, what the OP's quote basically asserts is that "we have a map, but no apprehension of the territory", which is so obviously true, and which has been repeatedly asserted for the past few centuries, that to pretend it's some kind of heretofore undiscovered piece of profundity is not just ludicrous, but willfully dense.

I am not sure if I follow.

Are you stating that attacking credibility is different from an ad hominem? Because I must object if that is the case. It seems to me that this is precisely what an ad hom is, an attempt to divert the focus from the argument to the person creating it, stating in a way, "You have no right to make such an argument because X," without addressing the points mentioned.

I honestly disagree with placing an massive stock in credibility. In the realm of debate, proof is all that matters. Whether that conclusive evidence is a premise to conclusion or based in science, it must be there in order to hold a strong case. We need to be able to scrutinize whatever proof is provided, certainly, but the composer of the case should not be treated as such. If a compelling argument is made from this person, it should be addressed on it's merit.

That being said, your case which you delineate below was well crafted, so I have no issue there. It just seems that your first post lacked anything other than the ad hom.
I sincerely apologize if I was mistaken.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 3:10:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm going to suppose you are addressing me. Please correct me if this is incorrect.
At 5/16/2015 7:13:53 PM, sanchitmisra1 wrote:
First of all I will like to appreciate you as you really explained it well.
Thank you.
Secondly, what I believe is that the invention of the society we invented and we even developed is what has helped us reach such a level that we are free to express our philosophies, rather than remaining stuck to the basic physiological needs of hunger, thirst, sleep and sex.
I would agree. As far as I can discern, the evidence appears to suggest that the development of a society is what allowed for us to form our philosophies, as we were in a situation in which philosophy would help us learn.
So, no question arises that the society we have developed, we could have worked without it. Never, we couldn"t ever have worked as efficiently as we are working without it. This society is the sole reason for our comfortable existence.
It seems as if we wouldn't have the life we have now without a society, but I think we could have still survived. Certainty is impossible, as Cody stated. Or at least it is impossible according to what we know now, but this is simply semantics to remove recursion from the table.
Thirdly and lastly, I would like to say that if the incomprehensible things would have been so simple, we would have codified them into our comprehensible language. THE QUOTE given in first post IS MEANT TO FOCUS ON SUCH ISSUES which many of the leading minds of our society refuse to accept as they don"t fit into the comprehensible scientific parameters they have made or created.
Are you referring to the numerous vague phrases I picked out? The first half seems to apply here, but the second seems unrelated, though you reference the first half.

If this is what you are referring to, then I cannot agree. If it were impossible, I don't see how I could provide interpretations.
See, this refers to my one more post,

http://www.debate.org...

In which I have put light on the problems Ayurvedic Medical System is facing in front of Global Authorities, because they aren"t able to understand it, as it is crossing their self made comprehensible parameters, as those concepts were created by the enlightened ones of the past with a different etymology nearly 5000 years ago.

I don't see how problems with the system affects it's necessity. Though there are numerous problems akin to what you prescribe, it is still the best system we have at this current juncture. Unless another system surpasses it, that is.

Thank you for reading!

Further Posts are appreciated.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 4:13:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 2:55:29 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/17/2015 2:08:08 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:44:23 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/16/2015 7:08:07 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Given the base improbability that science fiction is at all representative of good sources of scientific or philosophical information, compounded by the premise of this particular film being "What if humans could use more than 10% of their brains?", how likely do you ultimately estimate any randomly-selected attempt at profundity (or pretense of profundity) from such a source to be worth seriously entertaining?

This seems like an ad hominem. Though it is excessively likely to be shallow, given its roots, that should be no reason to not scrutinize the concept.

Right, but that's not the point I'm making. I'm talking about the credibility of a source of information. If you had a machine that, up until t = right now, only spit out testably false assertions, it is true that you could say something like "Well, even though it's been dead wrong on every other occasion, you can't say with certainty that it will also spit out a wrong thing this time". Certainty, in any case, is admittedly impossible. Fortunately for the Practical Human World, we can worth with probabilities in the absence of certainties. And, in probability space, [science fiction movie with blatantly inaccurate premise] is so improbable a source of good information to feed into your brain, particularly compared with alternatives (e.g., professional journals), that, once you tear off the suspension of disbelief that makes the movie entertaining, you have very little reason to take any of the things it asserts seriously. I mean, what the OP's quote basically asserts is that "we have a map, but no apprehension of the territory", which is so obviously true, and which has been repeatedly asserted for the past few centuries, that to pretend it's some kind of heretofore undiscovered piece of profundity is not just ludicrous, but willfully dense.

I am not sure if I follow.

Are you stating that attacking credibility is different from an ad hominem? Because I must object if that is the case. It seems to me that this is precisely what an ad hom is, an attempt to divert the focus from the argument to the person creating it, stating in a way, "You have no right to make such an argument because X," without addressing the points mentioned.

I do think the two things are different. An ad hominem type of argument would outright discredit a source based on some kind of irrelevant characteristic. What I'm suggesting is not that whatever profound-seeming argument made in the movie is wrong because it's made in a movie; rather, I'm assessing that the prior probability of science fiction producing valuable insight is already pretty low, and, combined that this special case of science fiction is predicated on a thoroughly discredited idea about how the human brain works.

Let me draw an analogy: if you wanted Maxwell's equations explained to you, would you ask a layperson or a physicist? Why? If I'm right, you'd obviously ask the physicist, not because the layperson would necessarily get it wrong merely because they're a layperson, but because the distribution of probability heavily and nigh incontrovertibly favors the physicist being right over the layperson. Similarly, it is true that you can't discredit an assertion made in a movie merely on the basis of its being a movie, but, if, not having already seen Lucy, you had your pick of anyone or anything to consult about epistemological questions, could you seriously suggest we look to science fiction to tell us meaningful things about the world? If you wouldn't suggest that independently, but only as a function of having seen the movie and presumably having some amount of background knowledge about the stuff implicated in the OP, how much would your estimation change after having observed everything the movie has to offer? I've seen the film myself, and, if you can consider their pretense of profundity evidence, it's so weak that it barely registers in raising the probability of science fiction's credibility when it comes to helping us better understand the world.

I honestly disagree with placing an massive stock in credibility. In the realm of debate, proof is all that matters. Whether that conclusive evidence is a premise to conclusion or based in science, it must be there in order to hold a strong case. We need to be able to scrutinize whatever proof is provided, certainly, but the composer of the case should not be treated as such. If a compelling argument is made from this person, it should be addressed on it's merit.

And, suppose you have several competing arguments, and you have to decide which one you're going to go with for the time being while you eliminate as many facets of your uncertainty as you can? The moment that you decide on which explanation you think is best, you're redistributing probability in favor of your chosen explanation, irrespective of whether you use numbers. If you imagine [all possible explanations] as being indexed to points in what we might loosely call an n-dimensional explanation space (where n corresponds to the maximum number of things you can say about an explanation), it's computationally impossible for any human being to seriously try parsing all that out to get the correct argument. You'd have to sort through a literal infinity of possible arguments defined according to an arbitrarily large set of parameters. We know this because the process, Solomonoff induction, is well-defined but impossible for the human mind to use as formalized. So, we have to do something to cut it down, and, in the same way we'd defer to a physicist over a layperson with respect to credibility about Maxwell's equations, so too do we necessarily have to consider credibility and probability, not just the binary question of "is this right or wrong". Practical epistemology is far more complicated than I suspect you give it credit for.

That being said, your case which you delineate below was well crafted, so I have no issue there. It just seems that your first post lacked anything other than the ad hom.
I sincerely apologize if I was mistaken.

Fair point, my initial formulation lacked in the appropriate details. I just feared that I would make things way too complicated, so I tried to just frame it a bit more intuitively.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 10:06:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 4:13:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2015 2:55:29 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/17/2015 2:08:08 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:44:23 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/16/2015 7:08:07 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Given the base improbability that science fiction is at all representative of good sources of scientific or philosophical information, compounded by the premise of this particular film being "What if humans could use more than 10% of their brains?", how likely do you ultimately estimate any randomly-selected attempt at profundity (or pretense of profundity) from such a source to be worth seriously entertaining?

This seems like an ad hominem. Though it is excessively likely to be shallow, given its roots, that should be no reason to not scrutinize the concept.

Right, but that's not the point I'm making. I'm talking about the credibility of a source of information. If you had a machine that, up until t = right now, only spit out testably false assertions, it is true that you could say something like "Well, even though it's been dead wrong on every other occasion, you can't say with certainty that it will also spit out a wrong thing this time". Certainty, in any case, is admittedly impossible. Fortunately for the Practical Human World, we can worth with probabilities in the absence of certainties. And, in probability space, [science fiction movie with blatantly inaccurate premise] is so improbable a source of good information to feed into your brain, particularly compared with alternatives (e.g., professional journals), that, once you tear off the suspension of disbelief that makes the movie entertaining, you have very little reason to take any of the things it asserts seriously. I mean, what the OP's quote basically asserts is that "we have a map, but no apprehension of the territory", which is so obviously true, and which has been repeatedly asserted for the past few centuries, that to pretend
I do think the two things are different. An ad hominem type of argument would outright discredit a source based on some kind of irrelevant characteristic.
I suppose that this is where we differ. I define an ad hom as attacking the source to avoid attacking the argument. This includes any sort of focus on credibility in the place of a counter argument. While you did provide a sound argument against this quote's validity (though it could be construed to imply consent with the quote with a disagreement towards it's originality), you seem to be proposing that this quote should be ignored for it's source. Please correct me if I am inaccurate in stating this; I abhor strawmen.
What I'm suggesting is not that whatever profound-seeming argument made in the movie is wrong because it's made in a movie; rather, I'm assessing that the prior probability of science fiction producing valuable insight is already pretty low, and, combined that this special case of science fiction is predicated on a thoroughly discredited idea about how the human brain works.

Let me draw an analogy: if you wanted Maxwell's equations explained to you, would you ask a layperson or a physicist? Why? If I'm right, you'd obviously ask the physicist, not because the layperson would necessarily get it wrong merely because they're a layperson, but because the distribution of probability heavily and nigh incontrovertibly favors the physicist being right over the layperson. Similarly, it is true that you can't discredit an assertion made in a movie merely on the basis of its being a movie, but, if, not having already seen Lucy, you had your pick of anyone or anything to consult about epistemological questions, could you seriously suggest we look to science fiction to tell us meaningful things about the world? If you wouldn't suggest that independently, but only as a function of having seen the movie and presumably having some amount of background knowledge about the stuff implicated in the OP, how much would your estimation change after having observed everything the movie has to offer? I've seen the film myself, and, if you can consider their pretense of profundity evidence, it's so weak that it barely registers in raising the probability of science fiction's credibility when it comes to helping us better understand the world.
In this situation, you seem to be performing the former option. Talking about the film's merit seems to imply you will not analyze the quote further, as it is highly unlikely to be correct. This, in my view, is an ad hominem.

In the analogy above, yes, I would ask the physicist. However, if a layman were to later contradict this account, I would go back to the physicist in order to understand the reason behind this mistake. The physicist would, presumably, provide proof toshow why he is correct, so he fits into my formulation below.
I honestly disagree with placing an massive stock in credibility. In the realm of debate, proof is all that matters. Whether that conclusive evidence is a premise to conclusion or based in science, it must be there in order to hold a strong case. We need to be able to scrutinize whatever proof is provided, certainly, but the composer of the case should not be treated as such. If a compelling argument is made from this person, it should be addressed on it's merit.

And, suppose you have several competing arguments, and you have to decide which one you're going to go with for the time being while you eliminate as many facets of your uncertainty as you can? The moment that you decide on which explanation you think is best, you're redistributing probability in favor of your chosen explanation, irrespective of whether you use numbers. If you imagine [all possible explanations] as being indexed to points in what we might loosely call an n-dimensional explanation space (where n corresponds to the maximum number of things you can say about an explanation), it's computationally impossible for any human being to seriously try parsing all that out to get the correct argument. You'd have to sort through a literal infinity of possible arguments defined according to an arbitrarily large set of parameters. We know this because the process, Solomonoff induction, is well-defined but impossible for the human mind to use as formalized. So, we have to do something to cut it down, and, in the same way we'd defer to a physicist over a layperson with respect to credibility about Maxwell's equations, so too do we necessarily have to consider credibility and probability, not just the binary question of "is this right or wrong". Practical epistemology is far more complicated than I suspect you give it credit for.
While I am unfamiliar with many of the terms here, this system implies limits placed on time, which removes possibly valid solutions for their source. While it may be useful to do so, this seems to merely mean that this is a fallacy we cannot live without.
That being said, your case which you delineate below was well crafted, so I have no issue there. It just seems that your first post lacked anything other than the ad hom.
I sincerely apologize if I was mistaken.

Fair point, my initial formulation lacked in the appropriate details. I just feared that I would make things way too complicated, so I tried to just frame it a bit more intuitively.
Could you please provide more? As I stated above, your other argument seems to imply an attack on the quote's profundity rather than it's truth value. Was this intended?

Please correct me if I am incorrect in any of my statements. I wish to understand your argument fully, which means I need to ensure I am stating your points correctly.

As well, please support your definition of ad hominem. This seems to be our main disagreement.

I thank you for your consideration.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 2:23:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 6:19:53 AM, sanchitmisra1 wrote:
Humans consider themselves unique, so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. "One" is their unit of "measure" " but its not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch: "one plus one equals two", that's all we've learned, but one plus one has never equalled two " there are in fact no numbers and no letters, we've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible, we've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale."

Is this line given in Lucy (2014 released French-American film) is true? Your views.

Wrong.

There ARE numbers and letters. They are written and oral constructs--symbols--used in human languages and communication, as a method of denoting certain values and meanings and definitions.

They comprise both counting systems, as in mathematics, and languages, used for communication--which is an indispensable tool for ANY civilization which hopes to thrive. Or even survive.

If there were no letters, as you absurdly claim, then how did we read and respond to your post? LOL

Oh...I can see you are trying to come across to convey some sort of quasi-mystical philosphy, along the lines of all that Hoo-Hah like "Nothing is real; life is all in our imagination" or "Who can say what reality is?"

These are all well and good for armchair philsophers who have nothing to do, like work in the real word. But anyone who does work and contribute to society and exbound on meaningful communication, and anyone who has completed ANY level of education will readily attest that numbers and letters and speech and math are all tools used to convey meaning and ideas. Yes: they ARE designed by man, and YES--they are arrbitrary, in the way that they are not universally recognized to hold the same meanings, but then again, most things are.

But this does not make them any less tangible. Or real. Only subject to interpretation.

Without them you would not even be able to engage in DDO. Or get through your day, as there would have been no science to construct the world you live in and the things you need to survive. Chaos would reign.

And then you could say something equally unfounded like "There is no chaos, it is all part of a cosmic order." LOL.

Ahh..but you couldn't even say that without letters.

Or we could engage in a formal debate on this topic? Feel like losing? LOL
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 2:46:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 2:23:04 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/16/2015 6:19:53 AM, sanchitmisra1 wrote:
Humans consider themselves unique, so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. "One" is their unit of "measure" " but its not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch: "one plus one equals two", that's all we've learned, but one plus one has never equalled two " there are in fact no numbers and no letters, we've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible, we've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale."

Is this line given in Lucy (2014 released French-American film) is true? Your views.

Wrong.

There ARE numbers and letters. They are written and oral constructs--symbols--used in human languages and communication, as a method of denoting certain values and meanings and definitions.

They comprise both counting systems, as in mathematics, and languages, used for communication--which is an indispensable tool for ANY civilization which hopes to thrive. Or even survive.

If there were no letters, as you absurdly claim, then how did we read and respond to your post? LOL

Oh...I can see you are trying to come across to convey some sort of quasi-mystical philosphy, along the lines of all that Hoo-Hah like "Nothing is real; life is all in our imagination" or "Who can say what reality is?"

These are all well and good for armchair philsophers who have nothing to do, like work in the real word. But anyone who does work and contribute to society and exbound on meaningful communication, and anyone who has completed ANY level of education will readily attest that numbers and letters and speech and math are all tools used to convey meaning and ideas. Yes: they ARE designed by man, and YES--they are arrbitrary, in the way that they are not universally recognized to hold the same meanings, but then again, most things are.

But this does not make them any less tangible. Or real. Only subject to interpretation.

Without them you would not even be able to engage in DDO. Or get through your day, as there would have been no science to construct the world you live in and the things you need to survive. Chaos would reign.

And then you could say something equally unfounded like "There is no chaos, it is all part of a cosmic order." LOL.

Ahh..but you couldn't even say that without letters.

Or we could engage in a formal debate on this topic? Feel like losing? LOL

I believe you may be misconstruing the statement. Do you think it is stating that these things don't exist, even as concepts? Because, to me, the more likely interpretation is "they are just arbitrary," which you agree with.
sanchitmisra1
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:51:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
See you have not understood boy.
I said the amount of discoveries we have made are not even a small fraction of what we are going to make.
And when those discoveries will be made you will come to know that these words, numbers and letters are just boundaries we have constricted us into.
Life is even beyond it!

This world has many mysteries which cannot be told and expressed in words and numbers.
And as they cannot be said, I cannot explain them to you.
They can only be felt.

And if you have never felt, Ask your grandpa.
He must have felt certain realities of life which cannot explain in words.

And as I always said...come to the post I referred to in my last post And you will see certain areas which are actually falling short of words to be explained due to huge difference in etymology. :-)
sanchitmisra1
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 2:39:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 2:23:04 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/16/2015 6:19:53 AM, sanchitmisra1 wrote:
Humans consider themselves unique, so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. "One" is their unit of "measure" " but its not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch: "one plus one equals two", that's all we've learned, but one plus one has never equalled two " there are in fact no numbers and no letters, we've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible, we've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale."

Is this line given in Lucy (2014 released French-American film) is true? Your views.

Wrong.

There ARE numbers and letters. They are written and oral constructs--symbols--used in human languages and communication, as a method of denoting certain values and meanings and definitions.

They comprise both counting systems, as in mathematics, and languages, used for communication--which is an indispensable tool for ANY civilization which hopes to thrive. Or even survive.

If there were no letters, as you absurdly claim, then how did we read and respond to your post? LOL

Oh...I can see you are trying to come across to convey some sort of quasi-mystical philosphy, along the lines of all that Hoo-Hah like "Nothing is real; life is all in our imagination" or "Who can say what reality is?"

These are all well and good for armchair philsophers who have nothing to do, like work in the real word. But anyone who does work and contribute to society and exbound on meaningful communication, and anyone who has completed ANY level of education will readily attest that numbers and letters and speech and math are all tools used to convey meaning and ideas. Yes: they ARE designed by man, and YES--they are arrbitrary, in the way that they are not universally recognized to hold the same meanings, but then again, most things are.

But this does not make them any less tangible. Or real. Only subject to interpretation.

Without them you would not even be able to engage in DDO. Or get through your day, as there would have been no science to construct the world you live in and the things you need to survive. Chaos would reign.

And then you could say something equally unfounded like "There is no chaos, it is all part of a cosmic order." LOL.

Ahh..but you couldn't even say that without letters.

Or we could engage in a formal debate on this topic? Feel like losing? LOL

So you want to increase your Elo ranking by instigating me for debate on such a topic.
I gave a message to you, good for you if you don't accept it.
This message or forum post is for personal development.

I have many better topics to debate upon, which can really help the world.
They are in challenging period and you can accept any of them.

And my dear, if you really think you are professional and living in real life...As you said in your last post, Then do something fruitful And not waste your time discussing such useless topics.

Do something that will help the nation and world rise.

I posted this forum post because it opens the mind of those involved in research more, if they consider the fact I posted.
AND IF SOMEBODY IS NOT ACCEPTING, HE IS DOING NO HARM TO ME!
My many debate challenges are pending, come on accept them.
Joseph_Rittenhouse
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 2:46:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 6:19:53 AM, sanchitmisra1 wrote:
Humans consider themselves unique, so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. "One" is their unit of "measure" " but its not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch: "one plus one equals two", that's all we've learned, but one plus one has never equalled two " there are in fact no numbers and no letters, we've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible, we've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale."

Is this line given in Lucy (2014 released French-American film) is true? Your views.

Yes and No.

I see a lot of people trying to take this apart piece by piece in order to test each statement as true or false, or even comprehensible. While I think this is necessary, it seems that some are too eager to test each statement alone, devoid of the context. This is a message. it is one message. One idea. It is a complex idea, seemingly made up of other ideas, however it comes together as one package. The package as I read it is this.

We mistake the symbols which we use to express reality as reality itself.

Taking the statement piece by piece without considering the context would tear apart any complex statement. Just as if I were to cut a flower into pieces, I would no longer have a flower.

It can be very useful to take things apart, to examine them closer, bit by bit, but things are not made of pieces of other things. There are no pieces until one starts cutting them off, either with a scalpel or with the mind.

So I'd like to do a little parsing on my own, not by cutting it apart, but by holding the statement as a whole thing, and examining it side by side, turning it around. Discovering what the truth is of the statement, with the assumption that the statement is true.

When Lucy says "Humans consider themselves unique...", I don't think she means simply that there are no others like themselves. This is a rather disparate translation of meaning that doesn't fit well within the whole idea. She later talks about this idea of "one" being the social unit, and how we have learned that one plus one equals two. In this, I would say that "Humans consider themselves unique" has more to do with the "I am"-ness of being. The idea that we are apart from the universe, instead of a part OF the universe itself.

This is rather how many of us view ourselves. A thing, affecting other things. If I do this, then this happens. In this "uniqueness" there is only one of me, and it is isolated. There is a "self" (uniqueness), which is apart from the "Other". When Lucy says "so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness", I don't think she's referring to philosophies or formalized "theories", but rather a general tendency for us to view ourselves as a Unique "I" living within "other". We all make theories, they aren't strictly the tools of science. As she's saying that we consider ourselves "Unique" there is no reason to assume that our "theory of existence" is one cogent theory. Remember she's stating that humans consider themselves unique. She's drawing out a generalization. A tendency.

Even as I know that I am not a unique "I am" living within an "Other", it is something I have to remind myself of. It doesn't come naturally to me all the time. It is something I must practice. There is a social structure in place which reinforces this idea, because it is the most permeating and consistent experience we possess. Even when we are not thinking, we are always aware of our own existence, and that existence seems to be unique. Not that there aren't any others, but that our experience of existence is as one being.

Starting the idea in this fashion, I think that what she says makes perfect sense to me. However there are a few assumptions I'd like to tackle.

When she says "there are in fact no numbers and no letters", I really think she has fallen prey to her own premise. There are numbers, and there are letters. They are themselves symbols, real symbols, which we know exists because we use them. There are numbers and there are letters.

However they exist only as symbols. I can write an "A", or a "1/137", but these are just scratches on paper (or sketches, if you prefer). These are not "A" or "1/137", they only represent ideas of these things, placed on media so that they can be passed on to others....but even so, they exist as ideas.

I don't think (even though she is saying it outright) that she actually means "there are no letter or numbers". She is saying that they do not exist apart from us. There is no intrinsic meaning, given by the universe, which we then utilize...they are our creations, which we utilize to give meaning to the universe. Her statement is not a challenge to the existence of our symbols, but a challenge to experience the universe without the symbols WE created to give meaning to the world around us.

I say this because every argument has assumptions. Part of arguments is accepting the assumptions, then following them to their conclusions. Even if the assumptions are wrong, valuable insights can be attained by accepting them.

As an aside, Lucy is herself using words to express a "truth" of the universe. Using symbols which do not exist, according to her. The absurdity of this condition should be enough to realize that this is itself not a statement to be accepted as truth, but something else. A challenge to experience the universe as it is, without symbols, in order to understand something new about it.
"God does not play dice with the universe" -Albert Einstien

"Stop telling God what to do" -Werner Heisenberg
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 6:22:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 6:19:53 AM, sanchitmisra1 wrote:
Humans consider themselves unique, so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. "One" is their unit of "measure" " but its not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch: "one plus one equals two", that's all we've learned, but one plus one has never equalled two " there are in fact no numbers and no letters, we've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible, we've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale."

Is this line given in Lucy (2014 released French-American film) is true? Your views.

We defined 2 to mean 1+1.