Philosophy Now Forum

The most mundane default truth of all time, re humans, must be this one.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:57 am

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:33 am It is true the scientific framework is “polished conjectures.” Why treat it as if it is ultimate truth? It is the case that science can unravel the mysteries of the physical world which for some is all there is, so they expect science to solve all the mysteries of life. It may point the way, if at the quantum level everything is tenuous, there are no events without an observer.

Just in case, I never treat it as an ultimate truth.

To ground anything on the human condition would require an understanding of what that is; it is physically subject to motion, time, space, and the atom, to forces, to change; all tenuous. Building one’s house on sand rather than on a rock” would be a Christian perspective of this grounding.

Living by knowledge as it unfolds in the course of time without a template is possible but not desirable. As above anything that is creditable cannot be founded on the human condition or the temporal.

Ground in this case meant it will always be connected to the human conditions without exception.
There is no way humans can extricate themselves from the reality [all there is] they are part-and-parcel-of to conclude any judgment that is absolute independent.

Anything that is credible cannot be founded on individual[s]'s opinion and beliefs but must relate to a credible framework of knowledge constructed by humans thus agreed intersubjectively as objective.

Intuition that is real is not metaphysical speculation. Einstein was hesitant about revealing his theory of relativity although he knew it was true. He also knew it would be attacked. Knowing that his theory solved the longstanding problem of Mercury’s orbit, miscalculated by Newton, gave Einstein the courage to reveal it. He had used abstract thought alone. Real intuition is similar it is not idle speculation bearing no relationship to reality. Depending on empirical things to supply answers is the opposite of being grounded in reality.

A hypothesis can be developed into a theory by a process, that involves reason more than perception. Perception is more a connecting of the dots; knowing how to make connections, it is more intuitive than cerebral. Real intuitive perception can be given credence by accord but it has credence prior to any accord, as it corresponds to reality; to time-space reality which is far as science can go. Quantum reality may be other, and ultimate reality still other. Reality has different levels based on perception.

Note the triune brain which is very general and crude but relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain
You familiar with this?


1. Whatever the intuition, it must be related to reptilian and mammalian brain. There is no other type of 'intuition' that is independent of such conditions.
2. From the intuition, it give rise to perceptions when related to things.
3. From there 'reason1-2-3' [understanding] polishes it to be real.
4. But that intuition and perception can also be wrongly polished by crude reasoning and EXTENDED and stretch to be something unreal beyond possible experience resulting in metaphysical ideas that can never be verified as real, thus are illusory, e.g. God, absolute original cause and the likes.

It seem you are subtly trapped by 4 which is a psychological matter where you seemingly gravitate to something or some original.

If you want to consider being subtly trapped think of focusing on processing without understanding what is elemental to it. This is the case in biology and in neuroscience. Process is extrapolated to be the nature of reality. It would take an understanding of what is totally elemental to move away from seeing processing as primary. Earth, water, fire/heat; air/atmosphere; and space are perceived as the totality responsible not only for what is hardware (form) but also to what is (software) mind, intelligence, and individuality. It is especially confusing when humanity is limited to these elements. Mind, intelligence and individuality are expected to fit within this paradigm. As a result process is focused on and how the five elements and their combining as chemistries enable it. It is the equivalent of seeing a lamp as the source of light or light as a chemical element.

The triune brain has been debunked. Check out ‘Neuroscience myths and the work of Lisa Feldman Barrett. Heartmath.org researches the brain/heart connection and its implications for intuition.

The physical and mental as limited to five elements leaves not only mind, intelligence, and individuality in limbo but also the metaphysical. If the totality of what is elemental is not understood it is early days in attempting to understand what is not elemental. What philosopher’s term ‘the hard problem.’ Once there is movement past processing and chemistry, if five elements are not seen as doing the work of eight elements, than a clearer picture will emerge.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 12:40 am If you want to consider being subtly trapped think of focusing on processing without understanding what is elemental to it. This is the case in biology and in neuroscience. Process is extrapolated to be the nature of reality. It would take an understanding of what is totally elemental to move away from seeing processing as primary. Earth, water, fire/heat; air/atmosphere; and space are perceived as the totality responsible not only for what is hardware (form) but also to what is (software) mind, intelligence, and individuality. It is especially confusing when humanity is limited to these elements. Mind, intelligence and individuality are expected to fit within this paradigm. As a result process is focused on and how the five elements and their combining as chemistries enable it. It is the equivalent of seeing a lamp as the source of light or light as a chemical element.

I note the elements basis you mentioned are too classical.
The Chinese has been on it for eons.
For such refined issues I believe Quantum elements would be more effective.

The triune brain has been debunked. Check out ‘Neuroscience myths and the work of Lisa Feldman Barrett. Heartmath.org researches the brain/heart connection and its implications for intuition.

As I had stated the Triune Brain is crude but still relevant.
It is so obvious there are 3 main parts and phases in the physical brain. Do deny this?
However we cannot assumed they have distinct functions [as in the Triune theory] as there are loads of shared functions between them.

The physical and mental as limited to five elements leaves not only mind, intelligence, and individuality in limbo but also the metaphysical. If the totality of what is elemental is not understood it is early days in attempting to understand what is not elemental. What philosopher’s term ‘the hard problem.’ Once there is movement past processing and chemistry, if five elements are not seen as doing the work of eight elements, than a clearer picture will emerge.

As I had stated the elemental basis is too classical and crude.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 5:03 am

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 12:40 am If you want to consider being subtly trapped think of focusing on processing without understanding what is elemental to it. This is the case in biology and in neuroscience. Process is extrapolated to be the nature of reality. It would take an understanding of what is totally elemental to move away from seeing processing as primary. Earth, water, fire/heat; air/atmosphere; and space are perceived as the totality responsible not only for what is hardware (form) but also to what is (software) mind, intelligence, and individuality. It is especially confusing when humanity is limited to these elements. Mind, intelligence and individuality are expected to fit within this paradigm. As a result process is focused on and how the five elements and their combining as chemistries enable it. It is the equivalent of seeing a lamp as the source of light or light as a chemical element.

I note the elements basis you mentioned are too classical.
The Chinese has been on it for eons.
For such refined issues I believe Quantum elements would be more effective.

The triune brain has been debunked. Check out ‘Neuroscience myths and the work of Lisa Feldman Barrett. Heartmath.org researches the brain/heart connection and its implications for intuition.

As I had stated the Triune Brain is crude but still relevant.
It is so obvious there are 3 main parts and phases in the physical brain. Do deny this?
However we cannot assumed they have distinct functions [as in the Triune theory] as there are loads of shared functions between them.

The physical and mental as limited to five elements leaves not only mind, intelligence, and individuality in limbo but also the metaphysical. If the totality of what is elemental is not understood it is early days in attempting to understand what is not elemental. What philosopher’s term ‘the hard problem.’ Once there is movement past processing and chemistry, if five elements are not seen as doing the work of eight elements, than a clearer picture will emerge.

As I had stated the elemental basis is too classical and crude.

Macro elements and micro are both effective and real. Before there were macro they were micro. Micro element study; QM is relatively new, they provide better clues to the nature of reality than the macro elements. Although the latter have been studied extensively. Physicists would disagree that elementary particles are either classical or crude.

The triune brain is: the subconscious, conscious, and super conscious minds. Similar to the psychological perspective of unconscious, conscious or ego, and super conscious, or super ego. Freud’s view of the subconscious; incorrectly referred to as unconscious was limited and unaware of its richness. Carl Jung’s view was more comprehensive and based on his encounters with it which was a dangerous enterprise but he gained a lot of information.

The position of the eyes denote where consciousness is: downward; sleep, looking outward; awake. Turned upward; trance or super consciousness as often appear in pictures or representations of saintly personages.

Physicists would disagree that elementary particles are classical or crude. Space is swarming with them, physicists are always coming up with names for the ones that show up. In regard to Chinese elements they may refer more to qualities or attributes of personality. Not sure as I am not too familiar with them but have a idea that is what they are. The elements of physics are things, some virtual, arising and disappearing in space and freezing into actuality when observed. According to Carlo Rovelli’s theory they become things as a consequence of events.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:43 am Macro elements and micro are both effective and real. Before there were macro they were micro. Micro element study; QM is relatively new, they provide better clues to the nature of reality than the macro elements. Although the latter have been studied extensively. Physicists would disagree that elementary particles are either classical or crude.

The point is the more micro elements the more realistic [relatively] they are.
No matter how micro they are, they are not independent substances but rather merely non-independent events or relations.

The triune brain is: the subconscious, conscious, and super conscious minds. Similar to the psychological perspective of unconscious, conscious or ego, and super conscious, or super ego. Freud’s view of the subconscious; incorrectly referred to as unconscious was limited and unaware of its richness. Carl Jung’s view was more comprehensive and based on his encounters with it which was a dangerous enterprise but he gained a lot of information.

I find the basis of the Triune Brain very useful but must be used with a lot of reservation.
At one time, it was claimed fear was triggered from the amygdala in mid-brain but now it is discovered 'fear' is linked to the lower brain and heart [heart-maths as you mentioned] and perhaps the whole body.
In anycase, whatever we know of the brain at present must be taken with a ladle of salt.

The position of the eyes denote where consciousness is: downward; sleep, looking outward; awake. Turned upward; trance or super consciousness as often appear in pictures or representations of saintly personages.

That is too simplistic.
Looking upward is more likely because the brain is above the physical eyes.

Physicists would disagree that elementary particles are classical or crude. Space is swarming with them, physicists are always coming up with names for the ones that show up. In regard to Chinese elements they may refer more to qualities or attributes of personality. Not sure as I am not too familiar with them but have a idea that is what they are. The elements of physics are things, some virtual, arising and disappearing in space and freezing into actuality when observed. According to Carlo Rovelli’s theory they become things as a consequence of events.

Note Rovelli's views;

• Instead of seeing the physical world as a collection of Objects with definite properties, Quantum Theory invites us to see the physical world as a net of Relations.
  Objects are its nodes.
  
  Properties do not reside in Objects, they are bridges between Objects.
  *Objects are such only with respect to other Objects, they are nodes where bridges meet.
  
  His [Mach] most radical suggestion is to stop thinking of phenomena as manifestations of Objects and to think, instead, of Objects as nodes between phenomena.
  
  The best description of Reality that we have found is in terms of Events that weave a web of interactions.
  “Entities” are nothing other than ephemeral nodes in this web.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 6:39 am

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:43 am Macro elements and micro are both effective and real. Before there were macro they were micro. Micro element study; QM is relatively new, they provide better clues to the nature of reality than the macro elements. Although the latter have been studied extensively. Physicists would disagree that elementary particles are either classical or crude.

The point is the more micro elements the more realistic [relatively] they are.
No matter how micro they are, they are not independent substances but rather merely non-independent events or relations.

The triune brain is: the subconscious, conscious, and super conscious minds. Similar to the psychological perspective of unconscious, conscious or ego, and super conscious, or super ego. Freud’s view of the subconscious; incorrectly referred to as unconscious was limited and unaware of its richness. Carl Jung’s view was more comprehensive and based on his encounters with it which was a dangerous enterprise but he gained a lot of information.

I find the basis of the Triune Brain very useful but must be used with a lot of reservation.
At one time, it was claimed fear was triggered from the amygdala in mid-brain but now it is discovered 'fear' is linked to the lower brain and heart [heart-maths as you mentioned] and perhaps the whole body.
In anycase, whatever we know of the brain at present must be taken with a ladle of salt.

The position of the eyes denote where consciousness is: downward; sleep, looking outward; awake. Turned upward; trance or super consciousness as often appear in pictures or representations of saintly personages.

That is too simplistic.
Looking upward is more likely because the brain is above the physical eyes.

Physicists would disagree that elementary particles are classical or crude. Space is swarming with them, physicists are always coming up with names for the ones that show up. In regard to Chinese elements they may refer more to qualities or attributes of personality. Not sure as I am not too familiar with them but have a idea that is what they are. The elements of physics are things, some virtual, arising and disappearing in space and freezing into actuality when observed. According to Carlo Rovelli’s theory they become things as a consequence of events.

Note Rovelli's views;

• Instead of seeing the physical world as a collection of Objects with definite properties, Quantum Theory invites us to see the physical world as a net of Relations.
  Objects are its nodes.
  
  Properties do not reside in Objects, they are bridges between Objects.
  *Objects are such only with respect to other Objects, they are nodes where bridges meet.
  
  His [Mach] most radical suggestion is to stop thinking of phenomena as manifestations of Objects and to think, instead, of Objects as nodes between phenomena.
  
  The best description of Reality that we have found is in terms of Events that weave a web of interactions.
  “Entities” are nothing other than ephemeral nodes in this web.

Micro elements are fluid until an event happens; they become some thing as a result of an event at the QM level.

The perspective on the brain is varied. An ancient sage said nothing happens without three, so maybe three minds, or modes of being is the case. We know we sleep, wake, and can be engaged in sense perception or cognition. So different modes, mental states is a possibility. The cognitive function is above the physical eyes, so focus would be there in cognition and maybe willing as well.

It is the case that all is a net of relations, it took a long time to see it that way, it was perceived as mathematically deterministic, as a clockwork mechanism in the past. If events are primary to things and objects are nodes between phenomena and entities are ephemeral nodes it may apply to QM and to the weak force’s role.

Once it comes to entities with sensation or intelligence it is a question whether macro forms can be referred to as entities or ephemeral nodes, as the macro is less ephemeral as forms for a while, although a macro form may be in flux, its form (image) is maintained by the L-field which sounds suspiciously similar to the defunct ether. The Mach theory may be less applicable at the macro level, although the forces are active at all levels.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 9:14 pm Micro elements are fluid until an event happens; they become some thing as a result of an event at the QM level.

According to QM [Heisenberg] the most minute we can observed [micro elements] are relations, period. There is nothing prior to that. Any attempt to reify anything beyond that would be metaphysics which is likely to lead to the illusory.

The perspective on the brain is varied. An ancient sage said nothing happens without three, so maybe three minds, or modes of being is the case. We know we sleep, wake, and can be engaged in sense perception or cognition. So different modes, mental states is a possibility. The cognitive function is above the physical eyes, so focus would be there in cognition and maybe willing as well.

It is the case that all is a net of relations, it took a long time to see it that way, it was perceived as mathematically deterministic, as a clockwork mechanism in the past. If events are primary to things and objects are nodes between phenomena and entities are ephemeral nodes it may apply to QM and to the weak force’s role.

Once it comes to entities with sensation or intelligence it is a question whether macro forms can be referred to as entities or ephemeral nodes, as the macro is less ephemeral as forms for a while, although a macro form may be in flux, its form (image) is maintained by the L-field which sounds suspiciously similar to the defunct ether. The Mach theory may be less applicable at the macro level, although the forces are active at all levels.

Macro forms are also nodes in that sense. The macros are merely more complex relations comprising interrelated micro relations.

Sentience, sensations or intelligence are merely emergents out of those complex relations which can only be approached from a top-down basis based on the observables or potentially observables.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 4:29 am

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 9:14 pm Micro elements are fluid until an event happens; they become some thing as a result of an event at the QM level.

According to QM [Heisenberg] the most minute we can observed [micro elements] are relations, period. There is nothing prior to that. Any attempt to reify anything beyond that would be metaphysics which is likely to lead to the illusory.

The perspective on the brain is varied. An ancient sage said nothing happens without three, so maybe three minds, or modes of being is the case. We know we sleep, wake, and can be engaged in sense perception or cognition. So different modes, mental states is a possibility. The cognitive function is above the physical eyes, so focus would be there in cognition and maybe willing as well.

It is the case that all is a net of relations, it took a long time to see it that way, it was perceived as mathematically deterministic, as a clockwork mechanism in the past. If events are primary to things and objects are nodes between phenomena and entities are ephemeral nodes it may apply to QM and to the weak force’s role.

Once it comes to entities with sensation or intelligence it is a question whether macro forms can be referred to as entities or ephemeral nodes, as the macro is less ephemeral as forms for a while, although a macro form may be in flux, its form (image) is maintained by the L-field which sounds suspiciously similar to the defunct ether. The Mach theory may be less applicable at the macro level, although the forces are active at all levels.

Macro forms are also nodes in that sense. The macros are merely more complex relations comprising interrelated micro relations.

Sentience, sensations or intelligence are merely emergents out of those complex relations which can only be approached from a top-down basis based on the observables or potentially observables.

Virtual particles are considered to be real particles, in combinations they are the quanta of the electromagnetic field; elementary to the field. Nothing metaphysical or illusory about that. That they are fluid (as quanta) until an event happens is not contradictory to science.

Events according to Carlo Rovelli who extrapolates his theory of what happens at the QM level to the macro level, also enables macro things. That events influence humans at the psychic level is likely at the physical level also likely; cause and effect in action.

Mind: sensation, intelligence are studied at the observable (macro) level. Mind is not being studied or considered as potentially observable at the QM (micro) level. There is not sufficient scientific data at either level on mind until all that is elementary at the QM level is known and classified. Events cause things but not independently of quanta that are indeterminate until the event. For mind to emerge independently of elementary quanta would require events to cause a thing that does not exist first as quanta; not elemental. So far there is no evidence in QM that that occurs.

Veritas Aequitas quoted Rovelli:

“Entities” are nothing other than ephemeral nodes in this web.

Thanks for intro to Rovelli.
Does Rovelli (and Heisenberg) say the nodes are dynamic?

I imagine they are, and some more so than others to the degree that very dynamic modes sometimes appear to have free will.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:47 pm Veritas Aequitas quoted Rovelli:

“Entities” are nothing other than ephemeral nodes in this web.

Thanks for intro to Rovelli.
Does Rovelli (and Heisenberg) say the nodes are dynamic?

I imagine they are, and some more so than others to the degree that very dynamic modes sometimes appear to have free will.

Yes they are dynamic.
I have not come across Rovelli discussing the subject of Free Will related to this matter.

My point is even if these nodes are associated with free will, it has to be relative free will and not absolute free will, since everything about QM is about relations thus relative.