Questions on Objectivist metaphysics

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Singularities and infinities which plague several attempted theories of gravitation (for example) are the result of mathematics that is simply not up to the job. So we have Singularity. We have Dark Matter. We have Dark Energy. These are place and concept markers for areas that require a lot more work.

It is not a good idea to reify or over-reify our abstractions. There is more in Heaven and Earth than can be comfortably cocooned in our equations.

Bob,

Without trying to sound arrogant, especially about mathematics I have not yet fathomed, this is exactly what I think.

I also have a problem with emergence and I do not think science has dealt with it yet in a satisfactory manner. What principle or fact explains when the emergence process comes to a halt and a complete entity is formed? Parallel to that, I wonder about the diversity of entities and what causes such diversity.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Singularities and infinities which plague several attempted theories of gravitation (for example) are the result of mathematics that is simply not up to the job. So we have Singularity. We have Dark Matter. We have Dark Energy. These are place and concept markers for areas that require a lot more work.

It is not a good idea to reify or over-reify our abstractions. There is more in Heaven and Earth than can be comfortably cocooned in our equations.

Bob,

Without trying to sound arrogant, especially about mathematics I have not yet fathomed, this is exactly what I think.

I also have a problem with emergence and I do not think science has dealt with it yet in a satisfactory manner. What principle or fact explains when the emergence process comes to a halt and a complete entity is formed? Parallel to that, I wonder about the diversity of entities and what causes such diversity.

Michael

In a thermodynamically open system far from equilibrium change and emergence probably do not end.

Bob Kolker

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ You have a prob with 'selection' being a term used, but, no 'selector' referred to. Methinks you are thinking of a selector as being conscious (the Blind Watchmaker ref'd.) Not necessary, even in pure physics, which I'm surprised no one's pointed out. I have no prob in considering the environment as itself being a selector re how an entity (rock or living) MUST be to even exist there, and if there, how it MUST (specifically, or, for living, within a range of allowances) act.

~ Consider a rock entering earth's gravity field; the gravity gradient is the 'selector'. Consider a small rock next to a lost tennis ball high up some rocky-desert's sloping talus, both on a very small ice-support. The sun arises, the ice melts. The environment is a factor in how the rock and the tennis ball act (each differently, according to their own entity-properties)...as well as the ice itself...when the ice melts.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ I do agree that there IS 'something more' re explanations needed re 'living organism' and 'consciousness.' La Mettrie's (MAN THE MACHINE) contemporary (and fairly condescending) followers believe they have their answers in chemical/atomic reductionism. Clearly, for them, they do. Its a matter of what's acceptable as not needing specifics established, but just merely presuming some physical principles established about X apply to X'. Basically, I think consciousness-reductionists are too en'raptured' with Penfield's studies and regard all contempory studies as merely confirming what they've already (over)induced from his, hence have no patience with debates that the earth really revolves around the sun and not vice-versa. To reductionists, it's about the morning-star and the evening-star. I see no point in debating there. Might's well debate abortion. East is east and West is west...unless one considers an 'outside-the-box' subject: the nature of 'explanations.'

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ A while ago ('81) Robert Nozick published PHILOSOPHICAL EXPLANATIONS. His 1st couple chapters stressed how 'Possible' explanations are often accepted (because of us humans' apparent need for such re most probs, which ties in for needs about 'certainty'...but, that's another thread ) if they merely seem to make things 'explainable', though in a given situation, the actual 'explanation' may stay forever unknown (Like: "Who took the last cookie?" All responses="Not me!")

~ The main prob re this whole subject is that the debate should really be about what the proper criteria should be for agreeing on just what should be 'enough' to accept as being 'explainable.' Reductionists think they have enough re mere component/internal-dynamics analysis; non-reductionists disagree, pointing to unpredicted 'emergent' properties. Until a 'Demarcation Line' is established, the twain shall never meet, hence, what point arguing?

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ Some quandry 'the nature' of consciousness, like Dennett; some quandry its origin, like Dawkins; some find the quandries pointless, like Gould. Sounds like Einstein, Hawking (Stephen) and Russell (Bertrand) debating the bottom-line of the universe.

~ To me, all such are educated-speculations and we just don't presently have enough info to figure out yet even a 'likelihood' if Consciousness (whatever its origin) is no more than merely 'physical.' I'll bet one thing though: if it is determined as such (and not merely presumed), we'll find that 'physical' has broadened its meaning (as it did re 'fields')!

~ I accept O'ism's (can I say apparent?) 'dualistic' view of Consciousness and Matter; I'd say though, that it's a merely 'pragmatic' one of Epistemology and not necessarily Metaphysics.

LLAP

J:D

Edited May 29, 2007 by John Dailey

[BaalChatzaf]

~ I accept O'ism's (can I say apparent?) 'dualistic' view of Consciousness and Matter; I'd say though, that it's a merely 'pragmatic' one of Epistemology and not necessarily Metaphysics.

LLAP

J:D

Consciousness is a kind of electro-chemical activity that takes place in your brain and nervous system. I partook of a study recently in which I get three MRI scans, a CAT scan and a PET scan. Using the PET scanner real-time I could see myself think. Fascinating. After watching these displays (some of them produced with the help of computer algorithms) one readily concludes that thinking is physical and thoughts are patterns of electro-chemical processes.

Bottom line: we are made of meat. Actually we are bags of mostly water.

Democritus and Lueccipis were right. We are just atoms in the void.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Dust in Wind Lyrics from Kansas

I close my eyes, only for a moment, and the moment's gone

All my dreams, pass before my eyes, a curiosity

Dust in the wind, all they are is dust in the wind.

Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea

All we do, crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see

Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind

[Now] Don't hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky

It slips away, and all your money won't another minute buy.

Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind

Dust in the wind, everything is dust in the wind.

Edited May 29, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ I've no doubt that was probably a (dare I re-re-iterate?) 'fascinating' experience. Watching a monitor showing the occurrences of one's own mental-activity/'thinking'(about what, btw?)/etc. I'm a bit aware of the electro-chemical activity occurring in one's brain and nervous system that takes place in human beings, conscious or sleeping, thinking or mentally-drifting. Yes: interesting, fer sure.

~ However, consider for a moment what you said: "After watching these displays..." Here is where you reductionists ("...readily conclude...") differ from us non-ones (uh, not so "...readily..."). You guys regard all this as a simple 'chicken or egg' prob, and pick the superficially apparent-for-the-time (sorry, Occam) of whichever. Us disagreers say that there's way more here than meets the eye. --- Consider further: you're watching a display of your thinking. Without your 'thinking', would there be any 'meat'-changes to display? I think you're picking the wrong one re the chick and egg.

LLAP

J:D

[BaalChatzaf]

Baal:

~ I've no doubt that was probably a (dare I re-re-iterate?) 'fascinating' experience. Watching a monitor showing the occurrences of one's own mental-activity/'thinking'(about what, btw?)/etc. I'm a bit aware of the electro-chemical activity occurring in one's brain and nervous system that takes place in human beings, conscious or sleeping, thinking or mentally-drifting. Yes: interesting, fer sure.

~ However, consider for a moment what you said: "After watching these displays..." Here is where you reductionists ("...readily conclude...") differ from us non-ones (uh, not so "...readily..."). You guys regard all this as a simple 'chicken or egg' prob, and pick the superficially apparent-for-the-time (sorry, Occam) of whichever. Us disagreers say that there's way more here than meets the eye. --- Consider further: you're watching a display of your thinking. Without your 'thinking', would there be any 'meat'-changes to display? I think you're picking the wrong one re the chick and egg.

LLAP

J:D

No doubt there is way more and it wall ALL be physical. All that exists is physical.

Democritus and Luecippus nailed it 2500 years ago.

There is no spirit, there are no ghosts, there is no soul and mind is just a form of matter in motion.

Everything that we are evolved from the primordial ooze.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Do you have any thoughts on why things are in motion and have evolved (even the ooze)?

Or is it something one merely accepts?

Or does it all start with oozeness?

Michael

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ Believe it or not, I share your 'Kansas' sentiment.

~ Pretty well most of us ARE 'dust in the wind.'

~ Most.

~ Still haven't figured out yet whether *I*'m mere dust...or...the wind itself.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ Are there 'fields' (you know: electric, magnetic, gravitic...maybe even 'quantum' [or, oh boy: quarkian])?

~ If so, can they be properly said to be 'physical'? Or, for that 'matter' (pardon the pun) even...er...'material'?

~ If not, are they ontologically relevent to 'physical'...matter?

~ Or, do my questions not really... ...matter?

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ I like your 'oozeness' concept; it's just as usefully ambiguous as Hsieh's 'objectivish'. Sorta like the idea of 'fuzzy logic' (which too many confuse with 'probabilistic logic'; NOT synonomous!)

~ It's got a kind of, not pizz-azz, but, a shmoo-ability about it.

~ Re your actual question "...why things are in motion..." I suspect that anyone with a provable answer probably has the answer to The Unification Theory...with no 'strings' attached (well, other than THAT theory, anyways). As to 'evolving/changing' or development...I think our Physics is in a stage equivalent to its own beginnings; we're just now starting to 'identify' what changes follow which, but the acceptable 'explanatory' reasons for such are all still speculative.

~ We're still in the cave checking shadows.

LLAP

J:D

PS: B-U-T, it's a much larger cave nowadays; indeed, I think there's an opening to the 'outside'...

Edited May 30, 2007 by John Dailey

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Do you have any thoughts on why things are in motion and have evolved (even the ooze)?

Or is it something one merely accepts?

Or does it all start with oozeness?

Michael

My guess about the causes of evolution is that it derives (metaphysically) from the quantum electrodynamic character of matter. This is just a guess (or hypothesis). Eventually we will find out why inert chemicals became living substances. It was all be a manifestation of natural processes. No gods. No spirit. No ghosts. No soils. Just matter in motion in space-time.

And yes, all life on earth starts with ooziness. The basis of life on this planet is water and mud.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

[BaalChatzaf]

Baal:

~ Are there 'fields' (you know: electric, magnetic, gravitic...maybe even 'quantum' [or, oh boy: quarkian])?

~ If so, can they be properly said to be 'physical'? Or, for that 'matter' (pardon the pun) even...er...'material'?

~ If not, are they ontologically relevent to 'physical'...matter?

~ Or, do my questions not really... ...matter?

LLAP

J:D

Take a bar magnet. Place a thin cardboard sheet over it. Sprinkle iron filings on the sheet. See how they line up. If that is not evidence of a field, then nothing is. Fields are as real as rain. We infer this from their effects.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[John Dailey]

~ I didn't ask if fields were 'real.' I had freshman physics also, so I've no need to see if the paper-thingee still works.

~ I asked if they, like matter, should be considered as 'physical'; especially since some matter is not affected by some fields.

LLAP

J:D

[Dragonfly]

Physical and real are equivalent.

[BaalChatzaf]

~ I didn't ask if fields were 'real.' I had freshman physics also, so I've no need to see if the paper-thingee still works.

~ I asked if they, like matter, should be considered as 'physical'; especially since some matter is not affected by some fields.

LLAP

J:D

They are -real- therefore they are -physical-. Only physical things and processes are real.

All matter is affected by gravitational fields, so there is nothing in the universe that does not interact with some kind of field.

Everything there is, is physical.

Democritus was basically right. Plato confused physical brain-farts with shadows on the Wall of his Cave.

After the pre-socratic Ionians, philosophy went down the crapper until the time of the English Empiricists, when it was redeemed from foolishness and banality.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ Ok. THAT 'basic' is cleared up. Your axiomatic starting point in ontology (or 'real'ity) is that anything that shows a consistent physical consequence upon matter is itself physical, even if not all matter appears affected (such as the paper sheet WITHOUT the iron filings), nor that 'it' is sensorially identifiable but must be inducible. Ie: "If it's to be regarded as 'real', then it IS to be regarded as 'physical.'

~ To a point (as I think I've pointed out, re when 'physical' once meant ONLY 'matter'), I can accept that. However, since we ntl know that the magnetic field is not the magnet, the gravitational field is not the 'matter'-source, why accept that the mind IS nothing more than...its source: the brain? Why the 'jump' here, not made elsewhere?

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Everything there is, is physical.

Bob,

Would that include THE singularity?

Or is that mathematical?

(Don't mind me. I'm just watching the Silver Surfer of Time surf the waves of math to oblivion... )

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Baal:

~ Ok. THAT 'basic' is cleared up. Your axiomatic starting point in ontology (or 'real'ity) is that anything that shows a consistent physical consequence upon matter is itself physical, even if not all matter appears affected (such as the paper sheet WITHOUT the iron filings), nor that 'it' is sensorially identifiable but must be inducible. Ie: "If it's to be regarded as 'real', then it IS to be regarded as 'physical.'

~ To a point (as I think I've pointed out, re when 'physical' once meant ONLY 'matter'), I can accept that. However, since we ntl know that the magnetic field is not the magnet, the gravitational field is not the 'matter'-source, why accept that the mind IS nothing more than...its source: the brain? Why the 'jump' here, not made elsewhere?

I appreciate the parallel here between magnetic field/magnet and mind/brain, but I question the premise that "the magnetic field is not the magnet." I think this is based on a "solid matter" model of entities. On this model, the earth's magnetosphere is not part of the earth, just as (supposedly) the mind is not part of the body.

Consider a different perspective, as discussed at this website:

http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa091497.htm

The Earth is not just a body of rock, and geology is not just about rocks. When you study rocks enough, eventually the questions you ask and the answers you find lead upward into the atmosphere and beyond. Earth extends into space in a literal sense, and instruments based in space are an integral part of geology.

Similarly, the human organism is not just a mass of tissues and organs, and biology is not just about physical organs. Consciousness is a biological phenomenon. (Nathaniel Branden originally called his psychology "Biocentric Psychology.") The human organism extends into its consciousness in a literal sense. An organism's consciousness ~is~ its nervous system in operation.

Roger Bissell

[BaalChatzaf]

Similarly, the human organism is not just a mass of tissues and organs, and biology is not just about physical organs. Consciousness is a biological phenomenon. (Nathaniel Branden originally called his psychology "Biocentric Psychology.") The human organism extends into its consciousness in a literal sense. An organism's consciousness ~is~ its nervous system in operation.

Roger Bissell

Bingo! Mind is neural material in a kind of motion, so to speak. There is no standalone mental substance. The res cogitens of Descartes is humbug. There is only res extensa, but one must include all the interactions among the parts. Physical Reality is not alive, but it is surely a lively place. All of its parts are in never ending motion. Plato's static and perfected domain never was.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[John Dailey]

~ Uh, nope: I think there's a mis-read number on that 'Bingo.'

~ Re my magnet analogy, if it's an electro-magnet and the electricity is shut off, the 'magnet' (which is no longer one) is still there, but, the magnetic field o-t-other-h...

~ Alternatively, can not a lodestone be 'de'-magnetized?

LLAP

J:D

[Dragonfly]

~ Re my magnet analogy, if it's an electro-magnet and the electricity is shut off, the 'magnet' (which is no longer one) is still there, but, the magnetic field o-t-other-h...

The magnetic field is not some isolated phenomenon, it is a particular manifestation of the electromagnetic field. For an observer moving relative to an electric charge there is a magnetic field, which is not there for an observer who doesn't move relative to that charge, who only sees an electrostatic field. Yet both describe the same physical system (Einstein's principle of relativity). How the fields appear in different situations is described by Maxwell's equations. Now when you shut off the current in your example, the electrons no longer move around in the circuit, which changes the field configuration, so it isn't surprising that you no longer feel a magnetic field. To use a crude analogy: if there is water running from a tap, you'll hear the noise of the falling water (density fluctuations in the air). When you shut off the tap, the density fluctuations in the air will also stop, but that doesn't mean that they weren't a real physical phenomenon. A soap bubble is a special configuration of water, soap and air. Touch the bubble and it disappears. Its constituents don't disappear of course, but that special configuration does. Yet that soap bubble was a very real physical thing.

~ Alternatively, can not a lodestone be 'de'-magnetized?

Probably. A permanent magnet has small magnetic domains, in each of which the magnetic moments of the atoms are aligned, so each domain acts as a small magnet. If all (or a substantial percentage) of those domains are aligned (by means of an external magnetic field) the magnet becomes magnetic. You can randomize the directions of those small magnets by submitting the magnet to a alternating magnetic field (degaussing). When they are more or less randomly oriented, there is no macroscopic magnetic field left, but the fields of the individual domains are still there. As with the soap bubble, it is the special configuration (lining up of the domains) that causes the phenomenon (in this case the macroscopic magnetic field).

If you want a metaphor for the combination brain-consciousness, you'd better think of the combination hardware-software of a computer. Software is not some special stuff, it is a specific configuration in the hardware. Physically a computer is nothing but hardware. It works by using very specific combinations of hardware (a certain voltage here combined with a certain voltage there will result in a certain voltage in another place etc.). Instead of talking about voltages, we use the symbols 0 (voltage x) and 1 (voltage y). Still rather clumsy to work with, so we combine those 0's and 1's to form elementary instructions, and then we combine these elementary instructions to more accessible instructions of a higher computer language, etc. But physically there are only electrons moving around.

[John Dailey]

Dragon:

~ I'm unclear as to why you responded to this point I was making re there being a 'physical' distinction between a 'source' (magnet or matter) and its 'field.' I'm not confused about why the field disappears when the electricity is shut off. I quite understand the difs re perspectives going on even relativistically (and not sure why Relativity was brought in anymore than the running water). --- I was commenting on Roger's point about there being, in effect, no difference (by new views of 'physical' and 'matter') 'twixt the sources and (what I regard as) the consequences. I agree that the field is a...'manifestation' of its source. This, per se, does not make the field and the magnet identical subjects with merely different labels anymore than a queen bee and her honeycomb.

~ My concern was whether they should be considered as separate (though chronically conjoined) 'things', or, merely 2 limited-views of the same 'thing.'