Playing at Physicalism

jamest · **#41** by **jamest** » Oct 26, 2016 9:58 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
jamest wrote:I'm happy to leave you rambling about a physical reality as you request, but please desist from belittling the blessed concept of idealism or I shall return wearing my castle armour. There shall be no mercy.

But it's a stupid concept. Incoherent and without detail. No one really believe that shit do they?

Only the anointed. :priest:

SpeedOfSound · **#42** by **SpeedOfSound** » Oct 30, 2016 1:30 pm

An idea from the aged creators of phenomenology is that of 'temporal thickness'. If something persists in it's place consistently for longer than a moment then it is called real and said to exist.

here seem to be ideas in disallowing for existence without persistence as an absolute. There is clearly a difference between existing as is forever and existing for a solid amount of time as opposed to existing only for a momentary glance. This is often ignored.

SpeedOfSound · **#43** by **SpeedOfSound** » Oct 30, 2016 8:01 pm

Kant, Husserl and some of their followers were adamant that perception is not possible at all without change. Temporal structure. This requires memory which Husserl broke into primary for perception and secondary for the episodic.

One difference to note between things I have written and Husserl is that we use adumbration and eidetic somewhat in reverse. More on that later I hope, barring loss of focus here.

So a clear result of this thinking on time is that awareness is only possible against a background of changing perceptions of VARYING durations.

SpeedOfSound · **#44** by **SpeedOfSound** » Oct 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Consider a brown blob on a blue background. A static percept. There are several parts to the structure of this.
- that it is unchanging
- the brown's size in comparison to the total background
- the location in the background
- the edge of the brown
- the color contrast between the two
- brightness
- lack of texture
- color saturation
- shape

To perceive the brown requires the background
To perceive all of these individual elements requires a backgrounding structure of memory.

So again, awareness cannot exist without content.

But can awareness exist without limited content?

SpeedOfSound · **#45** by **SpeedOfSound** » Oct 31, 2016 12:57 am

None of these structures could have developed if your entire life had been spent, with eyes paralyzed, all other sense and motor function non-existent, staring at just this one structure. Even the sense of color could not have developed.

Nor could any structure develop if just random pixels of many colors had been blasted at you for a lifetime.

So there is a tension between variation and fixedness required to build structure. I doubt just vision alone would have worked even with orderly experience. Or if you could only sense and not act there is doubt as well of development.

Kant believed this given a priori. But given when? Certainly not at conception. When?

My view is that the system bootstrapped itself into existence with the development of the body and billions of bits of experience.
Only then could there be awareness of the types I now have.

surreptitious57 · **#46** by **surreptitious57** » Nov 01, 2016 11:24 am

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Now metaphysical physicalism. The statement its ALL physical is typically how that is described. I call bullshit on that
What it means for something to BE physical is on shaky ground. I dont think there is a property called physical. Not yet

We determine the physicality of something by its properties and dimensions. And anything outside of that is deemed non physical. This is one interpretation. Another interpretation is to have both the physical and the non physical on the same spectrum. Calling this the physical spectrum might be confusing so a better title would be the existence spectrum. Since both the physical and the non physical exist [ though only one is physical ] Having a spectrum is important because of the relationship between the two [ one emanates from the other ] Of course this is just a model so one should not commit the cardinal sin of confusing the map with the terrain. Though this is no reason why the map cannot be as accurate as possible And an existence spectrum would seem more accurate than the false dichotomy between the physical and the non physical For reality is shades of grey rather than absolutes of black and white

SpeedOfSound · **#47** by **SpeedOfSound** » Nov 01, 2016 11:36 am

S57. I'm not sure what to make of that. Let's try some examples.

surreptitious57 · **#48** by **surreptitious57** » Nov 01, 2016 11:49 am

Thoughts emanate from the brain. Thoughts are non physical / brains are physical. But one causes the
other so better terminology is needed. They both exist so can therefore be on the existence spectrum

SpeedOfSound · **#49** by **SpeedOfSound** » Nov 01, 2016 11:55 am

SpeedOfSound wrote:Now metaphysical physicalism. The statement 'it's ALL physical' is typically how that is described. I call bullshit on that. What it means for something to BE physical is on shaky ground. I don't think there is a property called physical. Not yet.

Now a good statement for the MP (metaphysical physicalist- though you can see how that sounds like an oxymoron) would be that "all things we have access to as evidence supervene on other things we have access to as evidence".

What is evidence. Evident is derived from 'to see'. Evidence for X has a more careful meaning culturally of being the available body of facts indicating whether or not something is the case. Further stiffening of the term has it that this body of facts is verifiable independently by all of us, in principle.

With that stiffening awareness does not quite make it into the evidence bucket. But if we were to allow for a self-report of being aware of something, we could in fact test independently for the some truth on this matter. We would clearly see that every single instance of such a report SUPERVENES on actual evidence. We could find what is common in this actual evidence for say seeing an orange, and find for independent evidence of awareness. A little bit dodgy but we could allow it.

The MP's position will be that there can be no awareness of X without correlating difference in actual multiply verifiable evidence.

To find this to be false would require clear belief that some subject can be aware in X while nothing at all has changed in his brain. We call that a Dead Person just in case. Well. Dead and frozen to absolute zero might do it.

Correlation without causation complaints do not apply. What we need to prove the MP wrong is causation with no correlating change. No supervenience. Awareness with no evident changes. A does not supervene on B.
...

What this does is to define physical as `something` that never happens without some change in what is evident and multiply verifiable. If I say I 'am aware of my car' then that is my `something': awareOf(car) .
Now you could hook me up to some apparatus and watch the change of state of 'me' from when I was not aware to when I was aware, and say that my awareness A supervenes on the apparatus measured state B. In every case there will be some thing common in state that went along with or correlates with my awareness. A supervenes on B.

So we can say that A is physical. Now it could be that something C causes B. Makes no matter. B still changes every time A changes. Now ,maybe C is something we cannot ever, in principle measure. Or find. Well, then we have something for which we have really no reason to believe in.

So C now has to have some kind of logical entailment instead of measure or observation. That's is a difficult thing to prove. I don't think it has ever been done successfully.

SpeedOfSound · **#50** by **SpeedOfSound** » Nov 01, 2016 11:57 am

surreptitious57 wrote:Thoughts emanate from the brain. Thoughts are non physical / brains are physical. But one causes the
other so better terminology is needed. They both exist so can therefore be on the existence spectrum

I'm saying in my last post that if thoughts always supervene on some difference in brain state then we are justified in calling them physical with no reservation. Creating a spectrum and asking about the physicality of thoughts without being clear what we mean by that just complicates matters.

SpeedOfSound · **#51** by **SpeedOfSound** » Nov 01, 2016 11:58 am

If I cross the room and hit my wall after five steps then the number five is real and physical as well.

SpeedOfSound · **#52** by **SpeedOfSound** » Nov 01, 2016 12:01 pm

Now you may want, instead of calling thoughts out as physical, to consider what we mean by thoughts. Don't doubt what we can measure and observe multiply but rather doubt that thoughts exist in such a way that we can speak of them like this.

surreptitious57 · **#53** by **surreptitious57** » Nov 01, 2016 4:40 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
If I cross the room and hit my wall after five steps then the number five is real and physical as well

The act of walking is what is physical in this scenario. The number of steps is non physical since numbers are abstract. If we did not have the cognitive capability to understand such abstractions the concept of five would be unknown to us. Although it would still exist. But we do not classify it as physical but non physical so as long as every one understands the distinction there is no problem. But such a system of demarcation is entirely arbitrary. It is not set in stone but we use it because it is useful to us. Though it could be replaced by another system of demarcation if that one proves to be better in some way or other. However until that time comes we will continue to use the present one since it is the best which we currently have

SpeedOfSound · **#54** by **SpeedOfSound** » Nov 01, 2016 5:11 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
If I cross the room and hit my wall after five steps then the number five is real and physical as well

The act of walking is what is physical in this scenario. The number of steps is non physical since numbers are abstract. If we did not have the cognitive capability to understand such abstractions the concept of five would be unknown to us. Although it would still exist. But we do not classify it as physical but non physical so as long as every one understands the distinction there is no problem. But such a system of demarcation is entirely arbitrary. It is not set in stone but we use it because it is useful to us. Though it could be replaced by another system of demarcation if that one proves to be better in some way or other. However until that time comes we will continue to use the present one since it is the best which we currently have

There are serious problems with this separation of the abstract. The word itself means to 'draw off'. There must be something to 'draw from'. Considering that it is only in your mind leaves us with representationalism and I seriously doubt brains work like that.

Now if we did not have the cognitive ability to draw off the number five from my example of walking across the room then we simply wouldn't be known to us, as you have written. This does not in any way entail that it does not exist independent of us. Quite the opposite. with nothing to draw from, nothing can be drawn off.

Obviously we can continue to abstract many levels upon the numbers system but it si all still based upon the simplicity of walking or pairing our fingers with pebbles.

Too much credit is given to the goo inside our heads, thinking that it is the creator of something from nothing.

surreptitious57 · **#55** by **surreptitious57** » Nov 01, 2016 5:44 pm

If another animal were to take five steps it would not know how many since five would be an entirely alien concept to it. So its ignorance of it would not disprove its existence. Unless you possess omniscience you can not be certain that what you do not know is not true or does not actually exist. Now I think that mathematics was discovered not invented so therefore it is mind independent and does not require us to validate this in any way. The fact we can actually use it is entirely incidental

SpeedOfSound · **#56** by **SpeedOfSound** » Nov 01, 2016 7:55 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:If another animal were to take five steps it would not know how many since five would be an entirely alien concept to it. So its ignorance of it would not disprove its existence. Unless you possess omniscience you can not be certain that what you do not know is not true or does not actually exist. Now I think that mathematics was discovered not invented so therefore it is mind independent and does not require us to validate this in any way. The fact we can actually use it is entirely incidental

Sounds like you agree with me then.

SpeedOfSound · **#57** by **SpeedOfSound** » Nov 01, 2016 10:07 pm

I did say at the beginning of this that it makes no sense really to ask about abstract entities being real. When it comes up though, I feel this tendency to think that they must be in a certain aspect. If you consider whether or not 'L' shaped things exist in the world, consider that a neural net when given such shapes hundreds of times in many orientations and subtle variations actually learn to identify them. The weights of the connections train to the shape by error correction. so the 'concept' of an 'L' shape actually exists in a physical substrate.

It must also, on that condition, be in the world as something real. Something about the structure in the world trained that network. So there IS L-ness in the world.

The idealist be damned but the transcendental idealist will insist that the world is some way but that the L-ness is entirely in our minds as a structuring of the that-in-itself. I don't think that this dim view is it at all. Consider that ME conceives of, learns of, L-ness from that which is in the world and that ME is also in the world, as a structure. Call it Me-ness. When you combine that which is like an 'L' with the structure of Me you get L-ness. L-ness is a perspective on that which is in the world and it is in the world as L-ness. To say it is not is to imagine that we are quite another thing with a vastly omniscient perspective, that somehow 'knows' the thing-itself for what it 'actually is'. But there are no gods like that and hence there is no 'actually is'. There is no contrasting condition for this 'actually' so it is nonsense.

We perceive the world exactly as we should given what we and the world are together. Realism. (and non-dualism to boot! :smoke:

)

igorfrankensteen · **#58** by **igorfrankensteen** » Nov 02, 2016 11:34 pm

You appear to have gone down an imaginary alleyway, and lost track of the difference between conceptual tools, and reality.

If you consider whether or not 'L' shaped things exist in the world, consider that a neural net when given such shapes hundreds of times in many orientations and subtle variations actually learn to identify them. The weights of the connections train to the shape by error correction. so the 'concept' of an 'L' shape actually exists in a physical substrate.

It must also, on that condition, be in the world as something real. Something about the structure in the world trained that network. So there IS L-ness in the world.

No. Simple test: Let's say you bring into a secure room, a certain number of perceptive beings who can remember what they are shown or taught, and you educate them all in your idea of an L shape being useful or significant. They do not appreciate "L-ness" because it "exists." They understand that the arrangement of physical objects in a certain general kind of relationship to each other, has been given a name by you, of "L."

Now for the key part of the experiment: the proof of reality.

Remove all of your "students," and all of your teaching tools from the room.

Does "L-ness" remain there?

No.

"L-ness" does not have existence independent of observer choice.

SpeedOfSound · **#59** by **SpeedOfSound** » Nov 03, 2016 1:52 am

igorfrankensteen wrote:...
"L-ness" does not have existence independent of observer choice.

Does the relationship between the objects leave the room as well?

And why did I need the objects to support the relationship?

edit: Needs a revisit

SpeedOfSound · **#60** by **SpeedOfSound** » Nov 03, 2016 2:51 am

igorfrankensteen wrote:You appear to have gone down an imaginary alleyway, and lost track of the difference between conceptual tools, and reality.
...

How am I doing that exactly? Where did I lose my track?

You appear to be confusing the language for concepts with the concept itself.

Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Re: Playing at Physicalism

Who is online