Philosophy on many subjects

[ibshambat]

I am going to be posting to these forums. My book containing insights on many subjects, "Insights," can be found at https://www.amazon.com/Insights-Ilya-Sh ... B0FCCS93HC. I also have some of my work on https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/ . Looking forward to meaningful discussions.

[Robertine]

I am going to be posting to these forums. My book containing insights on many subjects, "Insights," can be found at https://www.amazon.com/Insights-Ilya-Sh ... B0FCCS93HC. I also have some of my work on https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/msn games. Looking forward to meaningful discussions.

Science only describes the physical workings of the brain, but doesn't touch upon subjective experience. What do you think about this?

[RickLewis]

I think that's absolutely true, and that there are various ways to deal with that.

You could be a Cartesian dualist, and say that there is a non-physical mind as well as a physical body. Or you could be a dual aspect (or double aspect) theorist, saying that there is only one thing (the brain) but that it has two aspects: viewed from the outside it is a physical object like other objects in the physical universe, and viewed from the inside, that's subjective experience.

Thomas Nagel talks about this kind of thing in his 1985 book The View From Nowhere, which coincidentally I was discussing as part of a lecture I gave in Valletta a few days ago.

What's your own take on this problem?

[Gary Childress]

I wonder if it's enough to say that mind is a different "stuff" than matter and just leave it at that? We mortals always seem to want to know something more about "stuff" than simply saying it's "stuff" or even "mental stuff". But outside of my own experience, what more can I say about the "mental stuff" except that the "physical" seems to be a different sort of "stuff" from it?

[seeds]

You could be a Cartesian dualist, and say that there is a non-physical mind as well as a physical body.

What does the word "physical" actually mean when, according to quantum science, at the deepest level of reality, un-observed matter...

(with "matter" being that which is "physical")

...appears to exist as correlated patterns (or fields) of energy and information that bear no resemblance to the phenomenal (physical) structures that the patterns of information represent?

Or you could be a dual aspect (or double aspect) theorist, saying that there is only one thing (the brain) but that it has two aspects: viewed from the outside it is a physical object like other objects in the physical universe, and viewed from the inside, that's subjective experience.

Isn't that (or at least the way you worded it) pretty much the same as Cartesian dualism?

I mean, how does that differ from Cartesian dualism if you, once again, have the contrasting duality that exists between a physical brain and that of the "subjective" workings of the mind and its accompanying "I Am-ness"?
_______

[RickLewis]

Probably my poor explanation there - sorry. I think the difference is a metaphysical one.

Cartesian dualism: there are TWO things, namely your physical body and your non-physical mind.There being two things creates the difficulty oif knowing how those two things causally interact. For example, how does a decision by your non-physical mind to scratch your nose cause your (physical) arm to lift up and your (physical) index finger to scratch? Your arm and your finger are presumably subject to the laws of physics, so how come something non-physical can affect their movement?

Dual aspect theories: there is only ONE thing, namely your physical brain. However, this one thing can be seen from two different perspectives at the same time. It can be viewed from the outside (by your doctor using an MRI scanner or whatever) and it can also be experienced from the inside. The two aspects look very different.

[RickLewis]

Sorry, didn't reply to your question about quantum physics. I suppose by physical I mean subject to the laws of physics, whatever those finally turn out to be. (ie whether in the end it is particles or energy fields). I'm comfortable with your observation that the structures revealed by physics don't look to our eyes quite the way we'd expect. For example, the table consisting of mostly empty space with tiny point charges in it etc. However, I'd suggest that what we see as a table looks exctly the way it does because of the underlying structure revealed by physics. It's just that our expectatiosn of how that structure should look are wrong because we are not used to visualising things at that scale. Therefore we expect to see the billiard balls and wavy lines that are drawn in the physics books, whereas actually our eyes interpret those structures in quite different ways.

[Impenitent]

the best tables appear periodically...

another perspective... what if each atom was its own "solar system?"

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

Sorry, didn't reply to your question about quantum physics. I suppose by physical I mean subject to the laws of physics, whatever those finally turn out to be. (ie whether in the end it is particles or energy fields).

Or something else. The problem with the word physical (and material) is that the category has shifted over time and is inclusive of 'things' that the category did not include before: mass-less particles, particles in superposition, fields and so on. Along with the expansion in that category the laws of physics have expanded. So, what seems to be a claim about substance is really a word that means phenomena/things we have decided are real. If science discovers something, regardless of it's qualities or lacks therein, it seems that this will be called physical. Let's put it in a historical context. A medieval theologian says Angels are not physical or material. The scientist from the 21st century (I'm not sure how they are meeting) says, well then it can't be real. They agree to disagree. Later the theologian hears the future scientists talking about neutrinos. He asks a bunch of questions. In his efforts to explain neutrinos one scientist says, well, for example, Approximately 100 trillion neutrinos pass through your body every second. The theologian has a vague idea of the scientist's model, that really, deep down, the body is mostly empty space***, so the theologian asks 'how many impacts will there be with the particles in my body?. 'Oh, says the scientists, perhaps one a decade, but you won't notice it.'

The theologian mulls this over and says 'OK, perhaps angels are physical.'

***And then it's not really like we have a lot of empty space. The Bohr model. The universe isn't a collection of little billiard balls but a vast ocean of quantum ripples. Every particle is actually a vibration in an underlying field, like a wave moving through a pond. The ripples don't just stay still; they exist in a fuzzy superposition, being everywhere and everything at once until they’re forced to settle down. This means matter is essentially a ghostly blur of possibilities that only feels solid because all those waves are constantly interfering with each other.

That solid feeling comes from decoherence, which is basically the universe constantly "checking in on itself". Trillions of these quantum ripples are bumping into each other every nanosecond, which drags them out of their hazy, quasi-real state (I mean, quasi-real, quasi existing) and into something manifest. You’re less like a machine made of parts and more like a massive, standing wave held together by a bunch of relationships between 'things' that are to varying degrees real or 'in existence'. It’s a vibrating, mess of energy that only looks like a person because the ripples are all tangled up in a way that forces them to act in an apparent pattern.

I mean, things are real that don't exist in current thinking. They exist as a sort of field of potential and with degrees of presence. This quantum foam is a frantic set of virtual particles that borrow energy to pop into existence for a split second before vanishing again. No emptiness, quite, but blips and ripples. And even calling it energy is questionable. Some physicists think it might be better to say information or fluctuations in probability.

And no matter what science discovers, if the trend continues, it will call it physical, a kind of place holder term, carried over from long-ago substance battles.

[RickLewis]

the best tables appear periodically...

Ouch!!

another perspective... what if each atom was its own "solar system?"

I used to love this idea. And the tiny solar systems have their own tiny planets, inhabited by really tiny people, made up of infinitessimally small atoms, each of which is itself an even teenier solar system ... and so on ad infinitum.

Alas, turns out it is not so.

[RickLewis]

And no matter what science discovers, if the trend continues, it will call it physical, a kind of place holder term, carried over from long-ago substance battles.

So you think the category of "physical" has become too broad to be meaningful or useful? That's an interesting suggestion.

The one link between everything in this category may be just as you say - that "physical" is everything discovered by science. But isn't that itself rather important, because it implies a continuity, that all of the different fields, waves, particles etc etc are all intelligible one in terms of one another, or else connected causally in ways that at least potentially we can understand? If so, are you saying that a Cartestian mind potentially is "physical" in this very broad sense that has grown up, and therefore potentially accessible to science as it continues to advance?

[Walker]

And no matter what science discovers, if the trend continues, it will call it physical, a kind of place holder term, carried over from long-ago substance battles.

So you think the category of "physical" has become too broad to be meaningful or useful? That's an interesting suggestion.

The one link between everything in this category may be just as you say - that "physical" is everything discovered by science. But isn't that itself rather important, because it implies a continuity, that all of the different fields, waves, particles etc etc are all intelligible one in terms of one another, or else connected causally in ways that at least potentially we can understand? If so, are you saying that a Cartestian mind potentially is "physical" in this very broad sense that has grown up, and therefore potentially accessible to science as it continues to advance?

Science will call physical, that which affects the physical. How 'bout it.

[Walker]

_______

Not all thoughts affect the physical. Thoughts that do not affect the physical are in a physical stage of developing towards maturity. Thoughts that do affect the physical, are physical, which means they can exist as a principle independent of subjective origin, that have affects upon the physical with the aid of a catalyst, such as a human with opposable thumbs. Of course all this means redefining physical to include thoughts both budding and mature that have effects upon the physical, effects such as a long face caused by long-term dealing with the doldrums (or with horses).

[Iwannaplato]

So you think the category of "physical" has become too broad to be meaningful or useful? That's an interesting suggestion.

The one link between everything in this category may be just as you say - that "physical" is everything discovered by science. But isn't that itself rather important, because it implies a continuity, that all of the different fields, waves, particles etc etc are all intelligible one in terms of one another, or else connected causally in ways that at least potentially we can understand?

That the things that are considered real in science are intelligible in terms of each other either directly or through connection to other things considered real likely says something. I'm not sure what. Idealists could consider ideas or non-corporeal 'things' intelligible in terms of each other. Perhaps even dualists in some way.

If so, are you saying that a Cartestian mind potentially is "physical" in this very broad sense that has grown up, and therefore potentially accessible to science as it continues to advance?

I think changing the title of the ism might remove a bias when dealing with claims of a possible 'thing'/phenomenon) that seems to be non-corporeal or has been considered non-corporeal by believers or critics or both. iow if there really isn't a substance requirement, we simply have a system of verifying. In the ideal this is the way things are now, but I think the implied substance criterion creates a bias.

It may matter less in science itself, but more in the ways science (physicalism) is used by people outside it. I do see this problem a lot in philosophy. I suspect it makes certain areas sort of off limits for scientists, or at least risky. It is more likely it slows things down rather than stops certain things from being found.

We can look back and say, well, everything we decided was real interacts with other things we call physical so they are physical. And, in a sense, fair enough. It's not a substance claim, but looking backwards it doesn't hurt. But looking forward, science doesn't really need to think of that. If something cannot be detected, by machines/devices or at least by humans (or animals, I guess) it's hard to study it. To demonstrate it exists. But we don't need to have a category for things. Of course if no one is sensing a specific something or measuring it on some device, we have a dead end. And in that situation, we have mostly likely no one saying it exists. Perhaps a Rationalist of some kind. But then the Rationalist needs to explain why whatever it is matters and perhaps there is something to sense (over time perhaps) or measure there.

But otherwise we have phenomena/events and someone thinks there is a pattern or they saw it but can't demonstrate it exists or that it wasn't merely some subjective experience that was misinterpreted. But if you get many reports, you don't have to mull over 'but I can't think of a physical force or material that would allow for what they claim'. The attitude can be 'well, let's see if we can document the pattern.'

Like infrasound communication in elephants. There the natives who claimed to hear the sound and who were dismissed. There was no measurable sound so it must be a supernatural claim. Nothing physical can do this. I think the substance issue creates fog. Of course cautious scientists could simply say there might be something physical here that we can't measure yet or haven't. But I think the substance issue adds to the fog, because it creates a category for the claim and one that rules out the claim.

But really don't need to know if the universe is monist, dualist, idealist, physical, etc. It doesn't matter if claims or patterns seem to indicate something non-corporeal. That doesn't matter. All that matters for the scientist is 'can I find a way to demonstrate this or can I measure something.' Can we verify a pattern? is really the only question. If we can't (now) that doesn't mean we rule something out, but scientists can then ask 'what would you like me to do?' to the experiencers.

And it puts an end to all the discussions that boil down to but that's supernatural and there's nothing outside nature type debates where often both sides allow for an unnecessary substance focus. You could easily believe that the things catergorized as supernatural or transcendent or non-corporeal or the patterns thought to be present but not verified yet are natural. But you can have a long thread where neither side manages to get away from the substance debate or the believers are expected to demonstrate the non-corporeal can influence the corporeal. If everyone stopped worrying so much about what things were made of and does this rule out its existence we likely come to an impasse but at least it is a practical one, not pages of abstract speculation. Now you can move to what's the next step if I were to think you were on to something?

[seeds]

_______

Not all thoughts affect the physical.

That which is "physical" is itself nothing more than a thought in the mind of the higher (incorporeal) consciousness to whom the thought belongs.

It only appears as being "physical" to a lower (corporeal) consciousness who does not yet understand what "reality" is made of.[/quote]
_______