What is qualia?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I am not clear in terms of the relationship between Chalmers and Newton. Are you saying that Newtonian mechanics is promoting some type of dualism?

Very much so. Newtonian reductionism is an entirely dualist notion because it places the observer external to his observation. This defines the observation as a timeless snapshot of the world. The monist perspective of Leibniz, however defines the observer as intimately interwoven into his observation as part of a dynamic process which occurs in time. Process philosophy is non-Newtonian and thus the "hard problem" does not exist. I've actually met David Chalmers and he's a charming bloke but we operate in different magisteria when it comes to matters to do with cognition.

I tend to think that a theory is dualistic if dualism is contained within the methodology. I don't see dualism in Newtonian mechanics.

I haven't met David Chalmers, but I have communicated with him via e-mail. He does seem like a very affable person.

When you read Newtonian physics as a science you won't see the dualistic nature. But Newton, crazy as he was, was in no doubt that despite offering a supposedly automated system, God was always in the background winding up the mechanistic clock and making adjustments as he felt were fitting, through the use of miracles.

[Ginkgo]

When you read Newtonian physics as a science you won't see the dualistic nature. But Newton, crazy as he was, was in no doubt that despite offering a supposedly automated system, God was always in the background winding up the mechanistic clock and making adjustments as he felt were fitting, through the use of miracles.

Yes, I agree. No doubt, there have been other philosophers and scientists who were regarded as stark raving mad. Nonetheless, we need to judge their theories by way of content, not their mental disposition.

[SpheresOfBalance]

When you read Newtonian physics as a science you won't see the dualistic nature. But Newton, crazy as he was, was in no doubt that despite offering a supposedly automated system, God was always in the background winding up the mechanistic clock and making adjustments as he felt were fitting, through the use of miracles.

Yes, I agree. No doubt, there have been other philosophers and scientists who were regarded as stark raving mad. Nonetheless, we need to judge their theories by way of content, not their mental disposition.

As it could have been the realization of the truth of things that drove them mad. But then what is mad but deviation of the, "so called" human norm. Maybe mad is a perspective, that one attains once they shed the common ignorance that the majority embrace, a warm and fuzzy safe place of illusion. Ignorance is bliss, so they say. What happens when one tries to calculate PI to it's last place, in his head?

[Wyman]

Le:

which remains the single most intractable problem in physics and is the cuplrit behind the vast suite of counter-intuitive paradoxes which our current models of physics imply. Kant would insist that no amount of inter-subjective agreement could add up to an objective reality and that the "ding und sich", or noumenon, must forever lie beyond direct human scrutiny.

I'd like to hear your explanation of how this problem is the culprit behind current paradoxes of physics.

As for Kant's characterization of noumena, let me be the devil's advocate and take up the other side. Analogous to the problem of subjective perception - i.e. that our conceptions partly determine what it is we perceive and thus necessarily cloud our view, making true clarity impossible - is the problem of the under-determination of theory by evidence. That is, as we personally, in the perceptual process, generate models of reality, so physics makes mathematical models of reality based upon observation.

One way to put the problem is: the models are dualities - mixtures between fact and theory and we can never fully divorce fact from theory as theory partially determines fact (and vice versa). This places an entity - the 'model' in science or the 'idea' in the perceptual context - between two causes - the observer and reality. This intermediate entity is called an 'idea' by Descartes and Locke and Hume (in the personal context) and I believe, the 'phenomenal' by Kant (I am much less familiar with Kant than with the former men).

If we accept this interpretation (using this word, 'interpretation', rather than 'model' to avoid confusion) of the process, then in doing science or any type of rational analysis, we are making judgments of, or creating theories about, the 'idea' or the 'model' and not noumena or reality. This is also the interpretation of the perceptual process developed by Plato in the Theaetetus.

I call this interpretation a 'causal' interpretation of perception - i.e. answering the question 'what causes perception?' The answer given is, the mind is one cause and reality is the other cause and perception is some mixture of the two. My understanding of Kant's agenda is that he wanted to create a kind of science of determining what part of any phenomenon is theory and what part is fact.

Here's my counter to this: this interpretation is confusing epistemology and metaphysics. If experience always consists of - at least - a subjective conceptual part and an objective sensual part, then we can never know with certainty the sensual 'just by itself' or the subjective 'just by itself.' That, I agree, is logically unassailable - and it was Descartes' creation, not Kant's.

However, that the cause of the subjective and the cause of the objective are 'completely' unknowable is a different question. We know these things by science. Granted, science never provides absolute knowledge, as theory is under-determined by fact, which is only to say that theories can be disproven, but never proven absolutely. But this latter truism is much less than what Kant was saying I think. He makes the false step of saying 'we can know nothing with absolute certainty' to 'we can know nothing of objective reality.' We can know just as much of objective reality as we can know of anything else.

[Hobbes' Choice]

When you read Newtonian physics as a science you won't see the dualistic nature. But Newton, crazy as he was, was in no doubt that despite offering a supposedly automated system, God was always in the background winding up the mechanistic clock and making adjustments as he felt were fitting, through the use of miracles.

Yes, I agree. No doubt, there have been other philosophers and scientists who were regarded as stark raving mad. Nonetheless, we need to judge their theories by way of content, not their mental disposition.

His mental disposition is inferred from his ideas.

[Obvious Leo]

His mental disposition is inferred from his ideas.

Nicely put. Newton was a mathematical whizz-kid but he was unquestionably barking mad. It wasn't physics that drove him mad but his relentless determination to model the mind of god, which is how he described what he was doing. It's little wonder that our current models of physics make not the slightest lick of sense because Newton didn't know his epistemological arse from his ontological elbow. Neither did Descartes, his unwitting co-conspirator in the hoax of the millennium.

I'd like to hear your explanation of how this problem is the culprit behind current paradoxes of physics.

This is a far bigger question than I could sensibly answer in a forum such as this because it forms one of the central planks of my entire philosophy. I attach a link to a synopsis of this work which you may be interested in reading. I condensed it as much as I sensibly could but I warn you that it's still well over half a bottle of wine long.

https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2015 ... n-de-jong/

I thoroughly enjoyed your thoughtful post, Wyman, but I should probably put this down to confirmation bias. I share the natural inclination of most philosophers and assume that those who agree with me are clever and those who don't still have a little way to go.

[Dubious]

When you read Newtonian physics as a science you won't see the dualistic nature. But Newton, crazy as he was, was in no doubt that despite offering a supposedly automated system, God was always in the background winding up the mechanistic clock and making adjustments as he felt were fitting, through the use of miracles.

Yes, I agree. No doubt, there have been other philosophers and scientists who were regarded as stark raving mad. Nonetheless, we need to judge their theories by way of content, not their mental disposition.

His mental disposition is inferred from his ideas.

I guess that's what happens when you start seeing rainbows through a prism. Newton was certainly not normal and a thorough scumbag to boot. However his was a case of truly wanting to "know the mind of God" and not figuratively or metaphorically since it was still a god infested age. Leibniz in his own way was equally so infected. God as Operations Manager was still numero uno in all this. For Newton, expounding His Works was a duty commensurate with his abilities. So why keep on putting him down as if he were some kind of idiot except for math?

Is there seriously anyone here or anywhere on any philosophy forum who, if they could retain their identities, wouldn't immediately exchange their brain power for Newton's. I don't think even Hawking would decline that offer.

[Obvious Leo]

It is a common fallacy that a fluency in mathematics is a measure of human intelligence. However there is not the slightest scrap of evidence to support this myth. Not only was he a religious fanatic but Newton was also an all-round dunderhead obsessed with all manner of primitive fantasies and he had no useful skills whatsoever beyond his talent for arithmetic. However you're quite right about one thing, Dubious. He was a first-class p**** of a human being in a category of his own. Would I want his brain power? I would take the time to piss on him if he was on fire.

[Dubious]

It is a common fallacy that a fluency in mathematics is a measure of human intelligence. However there is not the slightest scrap of evidence to support this myth. Not only was he a religious fanatic but Newton was also an all-round dunderhead obsessed with all manner of primitive fantasies and he had no useful skills whatsoever beyond his talent for arithmetic. However you're quite right about one thing, Dubious. He was a first-class p**** of a human being in a category of his own. Would I want his brain power? I would take the time to piss on him if he was on fire.

Enclosed is this easy list of accomplishments by dunderhead:

http://www.universetoday.com/38643/what ... -discover/

By comparison what has the uber intelligent Leo accomplished vis a vis that all-round dunderhead Newton?

...he had no useful skills whatsoever beyond his talent for arithmetic...

Anyone who doesn't consider this post seriously skewed has a problem of their own.

[Hobbes' Choice]

His mental disposition is inferred from his ideas.

Nicely put. Newton was a mathematical whizz-kid but he was unquestionably barking mad. It wasn't physics that drove him mad but his relentless determination to model the mind of god, which is how he described what he was doing. It's little wonder that our current models of physics make not the slightest lick of sense because Newton didn't know his epistemological arse from his ontological elbow. Neither did Descartes, his unwitting co-conspirator in the hoax of the millennium.

When I first came across Newton in an academic context it was said the he spilt much ink: a million words of science and maths, a million on Theology, and another million of Alchemy and Astrology.

Now that there is an active Newton Project at my local University it is realised that these estimates are woefully low.
After his brilliant flourish on Opticks, mechanics, and the publication of his Principia Mathematica, he spent most of his life as a first class theologian, who main discovery was the refutation of the concept of the Trinity. But his mystical search for the transmutation of gold and the spiritual underpinnings of the antiquities of ancient Britain - amongst so many other things.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It is a common fallacy that a fluency in mathematics is a measure of human intelligence. However there is not the slightest scrap of evidence to support this myth. Not only was he a religious fanatic but Newton was also an all-round dunderhead obsessed with all manner of primitive fantasies and he had no useful skills whatsoever beyond his talent for arithmetic. However you're quite right about one thing, Dubious. He was a first-class p**** of a human being in a category of his own. Would I want his brain power? I would take the time to piss on him if he was on fire.

Being good at maths is ipso facto a measure if intelligence (whatever that is).
Newton's life and work is a lesson in how the endemic assumptions of the age can destroy objectivity, and reason is easily led down culturally contexted paths that the future finds hard to understand.
This is not about intelligence. It about the creation of Idols of Learning. (which we are all guilty of)

Idols of the Tribe are deceptive beliefs inherent in the mind of man, and therefore belonging to the whole of the human race. They are abstractions in error arising from common tendencies to exaggeration, distortion, and disproportion. Thus men gazing at the stars perceive the order of the world, but are not content merely to contemplate or record that which is seen. They extend their opinions, investing the starry heavens with innumerable imaginary qualities. In a short time these imaginings gain dignity and are mingled with the facts until the compounds become inseparable.

Idols of the Cave are those which arise within the mind of the individual. This mind is symbolically a cavern. The thoughts of the individual roam about in this dark cave and are variously modified by temperament, education, habit, environment, and accident. Thus an individual who dedicates his mind to some particular branch of learning becomes possessed by his own peculiar interest, and interprets all other learning according to the colors of his own devotion. The chemist sees chemistry in all things, and the courtier ever present at the rituals of the court unduly emphasizes the significance of kings and princes.

Idols of the Marketplace are errors arising from the false significance bestowed upon words, and in this classification It is the popular belief that men form their thoughts into words in order to communicate their opinions to others, but often words arise as substitutes for thoughts and men think they have won an argument because they have out talked their opponents. The constant impact of words variously used without attention to their true meaning only in turn condition the understanding and breed fallacies. Words often betray their own purpose, obscuring the very thoughts they are designed to express.

Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world.

Francis Bacon.

[Ginkgo]

Nicely put. Newton was a mathematical whizz-kid but he was unquestionably barking mad. It wasn't physics that drove him mad but his relentless determination to model the mind of god, which is how he described what he was doing. It's little wonder that our current models of physics make not the slightest lick of sense because Newton didn't know his epistemological arse from his ontological elbow. Neither did Descartes, his unwitting co-conspirator in the hoax of the millennium.

Well, I would disagree and take the opportunity to point out once again. That is to say, in order for a theory to be dualist it needs to contain a dualistic methodology. It has been pointed out by other posters here that Newtonian mechanics contains no such dualism.

Despite the fact that I am mentally disturbed individual ,is anyone here going to dismiss my post on that basis? Probably not. People will dismiss my post according to weaknesses of my argument.

You are launching an ad hominem attack on poor old Isaac. Save these types of attacks for my mental state. I have made enough posts in this and many other forums to allow you to make such a judgement.

[Wyman]

I have to echo everyone else's objection to how you've treated Newton, Leo. I know all the stories of Newton's wackiness, but he did produce the first mathematical model of the universe that actually worked (to a large extent) and invented a new branch of mathematics in the process. That's more than being good at arithmetic! He also seemed to have the intuition, never successfully worked out until Einstein, that light had the properties of particles. And although we speak a different language (of ideas), aren't we all looking for a way to 'model the mind of god' when we ask what lies beyond the mathematical models of physics?

[Hobbes' Choice]

To the people of his time he was a polymaths and an enigmatic genius.
From today's perspective the greatest majority of what he wrote seems like mystical bullshit. But that denies an understanding of the basic assumptions of his time which make his statements more sensical.
The fact is that for any given moment of history, even our most cherished scientific facts are superseded, by later developments.

In Newton's time astrology, the four humours, alchemy were as factual as global warming, vitamins, and the role of exercise and health are today.
In his lifetime and in the generation immediately preceding him these things were being challenged. But change does not come over night.

[Obvious Leo]

I have to echo everyone else's objection to how you've treated Newton, Leo. I know all the stories of Newton's wackiness, but he did produce the first mathematical model of the universe that actually worked (to a large extent) and invented a new branch of mathematics in the process. That's more than being good at arithmetic! He also seemed to have the intuition, never successfully worked out until Einstein, that light had the properties of particles. And although we speak a different language (of ideas), aren't we all looking for a way to 'model the mind of god' when we ask what lies beyond the mathematical models of physics?

This is perfectly true and I don't seek to belittle Newton's achievements for what they were. However Newton established a methodology for science which is fundamentally flawed in its assumptions. Newton assumed that the mathematical representation of an observation was synonymous with truth and thereby he did exactly what Ptolemy had done over a millennium earlier. He created a mathematical edifice which could be successively built on under the paradigm of model-building and for three centuries this is exactly what physics has been doing. It has now constructed a mathematical monstrosity of such mind-boggling extravagance that nobody in the world could ever have a hope in hell of understanding it, including the physicists themselves, who change their stories as routinely as they change their socks. There are as many different interpretations of these mathematical models are there physicists to invent them, and these stories are changing day by day. However these stories all have one thing in common. Not a single one of them makes the slightest lick of sense.