Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wait till the world starts looks illusionary. Like a projection.
it all ready does to me. Remember "illusionary" does not mean "fake" or "not there". It only means it is different than how I am seeing it. That is not a bad thing. only a thing.
I see dog poop on my lawn ... GROSS!. A fly sees "food". The poo is really little pieces of stuff one organism didn't deed at some point in time and now it is in a form that another life form can use to build itself or use as energy. It's a "Lego" bin? With a sent to help things find it or let you know it's readiness to be used.
I've been trying to explain this, but I've obviously been failing, so I'd like to try something different. Instead of just my own words, I will quote other people who are more or less taking the same approach I am.
Thanks, but none of these have anything to do with my question. I was looking for some sort of references to neuroscience which showed that brains switch between various discrete modes of functioning as you seemed to be implying with it entering and leaving a "seeing red" mode and going back to a mode of examining objective evidence. That's pretty dubious model of brain function, given what we know about how they work, so I was curious how central it was to the knowledge argument you were making.
Quote:
The reason that no one else feels my pain even though they might conceivably have a complete description of its neural instantiation, is that only I as a subject consist (partially) of that pain.[Thomas Clark, EC.p54]
This is one way of getting at the point I've been trying to make about the "logic of subjectivity"
No idea what this has to do with anything. While I can't feel your pain, it is possible through various other ways to determine that you are in pain. Simply being unable to use a particular sense to detect something doesn't make it subjective. You can't sense radio waves, but that doesn't mean the logic of subjectivity means there is something subjective about how radios work.
All systems, conscious or not, have processes which are more or less observable to the external world. Subjectivity is something different. Or maybe it isn't. No one seems to want to talk about what they mean when they say it - other than to presume they know what it is. It does seem to have the useful property of having many different related meanings that one can switch between to try and make a point, so there is that.
Quote:
Here Bohr is getting at a central point that I've been trying to make when I say that science deals with models of reality. Science is not in the business of conveying "direct truth" about the "essence" of reality.
Neither are any of the rest of them, which makes the concepts of "direct truth" and "essence of reality" pretty meaningless.
Quote:
I doubt that you will find any reputable scientist who would ultimately disagree with Bohr on this.
Weird you've never heard of scientific realism, but it is an actual point of view held by real people.
Quote:
MY POINT, however, is that some aspects of reality are, in fact, observed from the "inside" - so to speak - some physical systems experience some aspects of reality directly
Which ones are those, exactly, and how are you certain that those systems are experiencing reality directly?
Quote:
What I'm calling "the logic of subjectivity" is assumed by science - it is not an enemy of science, and it need not be an enemy of physicalism, so long as we conceive of physicalism in a way that does not try to eliminate the qualitative reality of subjective perspectives.
The "logic of subjectivity" that science uses has more to do with the idea of replicating observations and checking each other's work to try and reduce various biases.
Quote:
Katalin Balog is an example of someone who has an approach similar to mine:[/font]
"When one is aware of a phenomenal state in the process of having it, something essential about it is revealed, directly and incorrigibly – namely, what it is like to have it."[Balog in Gozzano]
And Dennet, for example, thinks the concept of qualia leads to all sorts of nonsense. That's the great thing about philosophy - anyone can have an opinion and write them down so we can have dueling quotes all day long. And by great thing, I mean one of many reasons why it has a poor track record of answering questions about reality.
Quote:
"If this account is right, phenomenal concepts have very special realization properties: the neural states realizing these concepts are the very same neural states the concepts refer to!"
I'd love the see the peer-reviewed neuroscience research demonstrating that this is how the brain works. Sure, this might be what it feels like to some people but that's proven to be a bad way to learn about what physical processes are actually happening inside our brains.
Quote:
I think this is more than enough quotes for now. My basic point is that dual-aspect theory does not have to conflict with physicalism so long as we are smart about how to conceive of "physicalism." What is important about physicalism is the idea that everything is essentially composed of one basic sort of "stuff" - namely, energy
Various types of energy are just several of many different property of a system.
Quote:
Quantum theory - as it is currently formulated - does not address any reality that is independent of subjective experience.
Sure it does. Your computer works whether or not any conscious beings are around to watch it.
Quote:
The best we can tell is that the world is "participatory" ("self-observing")
That is what I find so completely mind-boggling. The ONLY thing that you can be certain exists is YOU experiencing ANYTHING . . . but you think you are an illusion!
There is certainly something with wrong with your learning abilities. Reality is real. I became convinced as a teenager that reality is real apart from what we might be thinking, because the universe surprises us. (that is a rather more sciency -sounding statement of the 'cheese -sandwich [which turnout unexpectedly to be jam] experiment').
Science has shown that what conclusions we come to about the world of matter are often wrong. Matter is far from solid. a rainbow does not really exist. These are all illusions. But they are not non -existent things or causes of the illusions. Though what we can conjure up in our minds, shapes in the dark, nameless enemies out to get us, invisible cosmic beings guiding our evolution may very well be non -existent. There, we need science to validate (or not) whether these things are real or not
We touched on this very early in the matrix -Plantinga debate and I have reiterated it several times since. What is your problem?
and Gaylen "What is important about physicalism is the idea that everything is essentially composed of one basic sort of "stuff" - namely, energy - the basis of dynamics -"
Yes. That is what I would say is closely related to the materialist default. That this stuff works through the physical laws inherent in matter is the preferred theory (and I argue that science has shown many examples of this so that I would say it is as validated as evolution -theory), The burden of proof is on the other side to show 'something else' (which apparently covers an amazing amount of ground) is involved. So far, none of the answers I have seen have really made a case for overturning the default - and here I really am keeping Mystic's argument rather than Gaylen's (whatever it is - I am still not sure I have grasped it properly) in mind.
(cancelled several attempts to explain more - I really must get on with reading up on KA) But I had to correct Mystic over this very simply mistake, which I have corrected several times before.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-03-2014 at 07:24 AM..
Just curious: Why do you think that your sense of identity is an illusion? What logical premises lead you to this conclusion?What data do you see supporting this conclusion?
I'd point to things like Libet's research or http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/p...eatley1999.pdf to show that our consciousness is either misleading us or is easily tricked. Whether or not that makes it an illusion or not depends on how you define various terms. It certainly casts doubt on the idea that you can just think your way into understanding how the brain works, though.
Wait till the world starts looks illusionary. Like a projection.
It already does. But in the end, since matter is made of nothing pretty much, just what is the difference between a universe of matter and energy that is made (essentially) of nothing and a 3 -d projection of it?
The point is that solidity means nothing in terms of reality. Predictable reliability of phenomenon means everything in terms of reality.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-03-2014 at 07:13 AM..
it all ready does to me. Remember "illusionary" does not mean "fake" or "not there". It only means it is different than how I am seeing it. That is not a bad thing. only a thing.
I see dog poop on my lawn ... GROSS!. A fly sees "food". The poo is really little pieces of stuff one organism didn't deed at some point in time and now it is in a form that another life form can use to build itself or use as energy. It's a "Lego" bin? With a sent to help things find it or let you know it's readiness to be used.
That's good, but don't confuse illusionary and subjective. Illusionary means that the dog poo looks solid but in fact atoms are mostly nothing. Subjective means that we are grossed out by poo (unless we are vets) but flies love it. But even then that is just a couple of examples of the terms. It looks..uhhh.. a particular colour to us, but to another critter it may look another (1) subjective can also be that we recall it in waking or sleeping memory and maybe in a different form because of the tricks the brain plays. Illusionary can also be that we think it is a dog poo but it turns out to be an un-evolved banana. Mistakes made by limited human perception.
These terms are at times interchangable and damn' near conceptual blunderbusses. No wonder they lend themselves to equivocation.
(1) though here evolution suggests that it WOULD look the same colour unless there was some evidence that red cones were missing or the brain could not process red in dogs. Flies are a different line of evolution and their eyes are quite different from ours.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-03-2014 at 07:28 AM..
Yes, subjective and illusory are different by definition. I kind of blended the two because of the tread. "how people feel about things" does sometimes effect how they define things too.
I'd point to things like Libet's research or http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/p...eatley1999.pdf to show that our consciousness is either misleading us or is easily tricked. Whether or not that makes it an illusion or not depends on how you define various terms. It certainly casts doubt on the idea that you can just think your way into understanding how the brain works, though.
KC "While I can't feel your pain, it is possible through various other ways to determine that you are in pain." This touches on an aspect that bothers me. I have found that some aspects of the argument (beginning with Chalmer's zombies) did not even consider whether apparently unsolvable questions of philosophy could perhaps be answered, or at lest some confusing irrelevancies cleared away, by looking elsewhere for answers.
You put your finger on it in conceding that in philosophical terms there is no way of determining whether someone is feeling pain just because they say so. Aristotle and plato would no doubt argue it for ever, but science can wire the bugger up, take a few readings...'Yep, he's uncomfortable all right'.
But Philosophy seems to have trouble in anyone playing with any pieces other than those that philosophy provides. Very well, If this is a mental exercise in philosophical constructs, that's fine. so long as it is not presented to us that these are to be the limits of how we approach a problem, too.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-03-2014 at 07:30 AM..
Yes, subjective and illusory are different by definition. I kind of blended the two because of the tread. "how people feel about things" does sometimes effect how they define things too.
KC puts his finger on it again "Whether or not that makes it an illusion or not depends on how you define various terms."
Right from the early days on AN (atheist network), I became aware of the semantic issue and proposed the dictum 'Concepts before definitions'. We have seen many examples of how a definition can mislead -'Evolution Theory' is an obvious example - and misused terms (my 'biological naturalism', for example) could be cleared up by explaining what I meant, not what a definition in some dictionary says. Of course they are very useful references, but the point is that what we mean should not be pinned down by someone referencing a particular definition.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-03-2014 at 07:41 AM..
It already does. But in the end, since matter is made of nothing pretty much, just what is the difference between a universe of matter and energy that is made (essentially) of nothing and a 3 -d projection of it?
The point is that solidity means nothing in terms of reality. Predictable reliability of phenomenon means everything in terms of reality.
I though you mite like this, its Just a side note AR. It doesn't change the point in your post. They think It is really a "field", not "nothing". They think space has "quanta" Of things like electromagnetic, week, and such, that define every point in space. People of my generation called it "nothing". Today they are calling "fields". Feinman describes it nicely.
lmao, they banned from the AN. They couldn't understand that chicken **** is chicken ****. Regardless of belief.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
