The Second Apocalypse
Miscellaneous Chatter => Philosophy & Science => Topic started by: H on April 29, 2019, 03:12:35 pm
-
"To understand mind one must understand matter.
To understand matter one must understand space and time.
And to understand space and time one must understand mind."
-Peter Sjöstedt-H
I like this. Because I am sort of coming to this place where I sort of see everything as "relational."
-
"To understand mind one must understand matter.
To understand matter one must understand space and time.
And to understand space and time one must understand mind."
-Peter Sjöstedt-H
I like this. Because I am sort of coming to this place where I sort of see everything as "relational."
Like there are only relations and no relata, or that all fundamental things-in-themselves stand in relation to other fundamental things?
I suspect I'm missing what you mean by "relational"...
-
Like there are only relations and no relata, or that all fundamental things-in-themselves stand in relation to other fundamental things?
I suspect I'm missing what you mean by "relational"...
Hmm, it's kind of just a "proto-thought" of mine, I think.
While I like Kant and there being a difference between phenomena and Noumena, but still, each only "exists" in the sense that they are not the other. So, something is only a something in so far as it is not other things, so by difference, but at the same time, it needs to all be a part of a whole thing (for example the Universe in toto). Again, this is a real "raw" thought here.
So, in the manner of the quote, is there mind absent matter? No, it's something derived from matter. Is there matter absent space/time? No, matter is ensconed in and influences/is influenced by space/time. And while space/time is a noumena to some degree, that is, it seems to have existed before we knew it did/actually did, but at the same time, as something experiential, it could only be relational to a thing to experience it.
So, I guess, as an example, if there is only a proton in the universe, is there space or time? Even if it was "moving" what is it moving toward or away from? What is it's speed then and how could it have one? What then would space or time mean?
Again, I don't think I'm really prepared for a "full implications" of this though, but a thought I had none-the-less.
-
Like there are only relations and no relata, or that all fundamental things-in-themselves stand in relation to other fundamental things?
I suspect I'm missing what you mean by "relational"...
Hmm, it's kind of just a "proto-thought" of mine, I think.
While I like Kant and there being a difference between phenomena and Noumena, but still, each only "exists" in the sense that they are not the other. So, something is only a something in so far as it is not other things, so by difference, but at the same time, it needs to all be a part of a whole thing (for example the Universe in toto). Again, this is a real "raw" thought here.
So, in the manner of the quote, is there mind absent matter? No, it's something derived from matter. Is there matter absent space/time? No, matter is ensconed in and influences/is influenced by space/time. And while space/time is a noumena to some degree, that is, it seems to have existed before we knew it did/actually did, but at the same time, as something experiential, it could only be relational to a thing to experience it.
So, I guess, as an example, if there is only a proton in the universe, is there space or time? Even if it was "moving" what is it moving toward or away from? What is it's speed then and how could it have one? What then would space or time mean?
Again, I don't think I'm really prepared for a "full implications" of this though, but a thought I had none-the-less.
Well I gotta disagree that Mind derives from Matter, but otherwise I "figga deal you" to quote from the timeless classic State Property 2.
-
Well I gotta disagree that Mind derives from Matter, but otherwise I "figga deal you" to quote from the timeless classic State Property 2.
Well, this is likely where the pansychist, or other theories lose me, most likely. I'm not sure how we derive Mind outside Matter. I guess it's sort of an Existential vs. Essential difference. Seems like a "chicken or the egg" case, really. Maybe it's the case that neither comes "before" the other though, they are just "relative" states.
-
Well I gotta disagree that Mind derives from Matter, but otherwise I "figga deal you" to quote from the timeless classic State Property 2.
Well, this is likely where the pansychist, or other theories lose me, most likely. I'm not sure how we derive Mind outside Matter. I guess it's sort of an Existential vs. Essential difference. Seems like a "chicken or the egg" case, really. Maybe it's the case that neither comes "before" the other though, they are just "relative" states.
It's tricky - matter implies something that has no referent, an invisible world beyond consciousness we'll never access directly. Consciousness, OTOH, AFAIK has a "for-ness" in all its triune aspects - someone has raw feels, someone has thoughts about things, someone using Reason.
So it's hard to see Consciousness as fulfilling the role of substance, though Idealism does have the example of dreams to draw an (IMO) strong argument from.
OTOH matter (along with fields, energy, etc) has no referents, no qualia, no logical standard so it is hard to see how a brain made of matter can produce those triune aspects...yet every day we find new physical relations linking mind & brain...
-
It's tricky - matter implies something that has no referent, an invisible world beyond consciousness we'll never access directly. Consciousness, OTOH, AFAIK has a "for-ness" in all its triune aspects - someone has raw feels, someone has thoughts about things, someone using Reason.
So it's hard to see Consciousness as fulfilling the role of substance, though Idealism does have the example of dreams to draw an (IMO) strong argument from.
OTOH matter (along with fields, energy, etc) has no referents, no qualia, no logical standard so it is hard to see how a brain made of matter can produce those triune aspects...yet every day we find new physical relations linking mind & brain...
Well, I definitely agree, neither Mind nor Matter fit as "Substance." In the same way that Space nor Time (or Spacetime) does. I mean, I don't know we've come very far since Leibnitz was trying to imagine would "Substance" would/could be.
But I don't think Mind can be detached from Matter, nor Matter from Mind. They are sort of relationally bound, as I have a very hard time imagining the possible sense that Mind could exist absent matter. Perhaps I am thinking about this all wrong, but it would seem to me that Space/Time ensconces Matter/Energy which ensconces Mind/Consciousness. That in turn is the matter in which to render Space/Time intelligible.
Obviously this is not some genius-level shit and I am always looking to revise this view. I do like Idealism, but I also see it has "issues" just as Materialism, or Physicalism has too. Again, I default to a view that things are not as simple as we'd like them to be, things aren't necessarily binary.
-
It's tricky - matter implies something that has no referent, an invisible world beyond consciousness we'll never access directly. Consciousness, OTOH, AFAIK has a "for-ness" in all its triune aspects - someone has raw feels, someone has thoughts about things, someone using Reason.
So it's hard to see Consciousness as fulfilling the role of substance, though Idealism does have the example of dreams to draw an (IMO) strong argument from.
OTOH matter (along with fields, energy, etc) has no referents, no qualia, no logical standard so it is hard to see how a brain made of matter can produce those triune aspects...yet every day we find new physical relations linking mind & brain...
Well, I definitely agree, neither Mind nor Matter fit as "Substance." In the same way that Space nor Time (or Spacetime) does. I mean, I don't know we've come very far since Leibnitz was trying to imagine would "Substance" would/could be.
But I don't think Mind can be detached from Matter, nor Matter from Mind. They are sort of relationally bound, as I have a very hard time imagining the possible sense that Mind could exist absent matter. Perhaps I am thinking about this all wrong, but it would seem to me that Space/Time ensconces Matter/Energy which ensconces Mind/Consciousness. That in turn is the matter in which to render Space/Time intelligible.
Obviously this is not some genius-level shit and I am always looking to revise this view. I do like Idealism, but I also see it has "issues" just as Materialism, or Physicalism has too. Again, I default to a view that things are not as simple as we'd like them to be, things aren't necessarily binary.
Yeah it is really hard for me to accept Idealism. I try to convince myself but the for-ness aspect of consciousness just makes it difficult to see it as a building block for the Real.
The Unus Mundus idea of Pauli and Jung, that there's some underlying unification between Matter & Mind, seems like the right track...
-
Yeah it is really hard for me to accept Idealism. I try to convince myself but the for-ness aspect of consciousness just makes it difficult to see it as a building block for the Real.
The Unus Mundus idea of Pauli and Jung, that there's some underlying unification between Matter & Mind, seems like the right track...
I need to read up more on Deleuze and maybe his work on Bergonism as the "same sort" of idea, that all things are "parts" of the "same thing." At least, maybe that is what he is saying, I'm not sure.
But I don't think Consciousness "informs" the Real, so much as it is just a part of it. Like, the concept of Space/Time has no "meaning" without Matter and Mind (nothing is anywhere at any time, all things are the same thing, practically). And Matter has no "meaning" without Space/Time and Mind (there isn't anything to be anywhere at any time and no way to think about any of that). Mind has no meaning without Matter and Space/Time (what would we think "with" and where and when would we think it?).
Does this even make sense? Not sure, just trying to "talk through it."
-
Yeah it is really hard for me to accept Idealism. I try to convince myself but the for-ness aspect of consciousness just makes it difficult to see it as a building block for the Real.
The Unus Mundus idea of Pauli and Jung, that there's some underlying unification between Matter & Mind, seems like the right track...
I need to read up more on Deleuze and maybe his work on Bergonism as the "same sort" of idea, that all things are "parts" of the "same thing." At least, maybe that is what he is saying, I'm not sure.
But I don't think Consciousness "informs" the Real, so much as it is just a part of it. Like, the concept of Space/Time has no "meaning" without Matter and Mind (nothing is anywhere at any time, all things are the same thing, practically). And Matter has no "meaning" without Space/Time and Mind (there isn't anything to be anywhere at any time and no way to think about any of that). Mind has no meaning without Matter and Space/Time (what would we think "with" and where and when would we think it?).
Does this even make sense? Not sure, just trying to "talk through it."
If you're saying all these things are interdependent, and thus extant all at once (arguably for Eternity), I'd be inclined to agree with you. I have wondered about Descartes saying Mind is not extended - it's unclear to me why there cannot be phenomenal...stuff...that has spatial measurements.
-
If you're saying all these things are interdependent, and thus extant all at once (arguably for Eternity), I'd be inclined to agree with you. I have wondered about Descartes saying Mind is not extended - it's unclear to me why there cannot be phenomenal...stuff...that has spatial measurements.
Sort, yeah, although it's unclear the "level" of dependence in each case, but that also depends on what we figure dependence is really. I guess I am saying that none of them are specifically independent of the other. Somehow the inversion there seems key (to me). That is why I say, relational, because they are related to each other, even if Space/Time does not cause mind, nor Mind cause Space/Time, they are still things only in the sense of them being "parts" of a "relational whole." Sort of like how a proton, a neutron and an electron are all particles, but atoms are "relations" of those things?
The extension part though, that I am not sure about. Maybe we have to just consider the basic physics though? Spacetime interval/"speed of causality"/conservation of energy, perhaps? It's not clear, but neither is the question of what mind even is, let alone it's potential for expansion. I mean, what keeps it in my "head" and not have it fall out onto my desk? A silly example, but if mind is not some sort of function of matter, what makes it "local" at all? I'm not clear on that.
-
If you're saying all these things are interdependent, and thus extant all at once (arguably for Eternity), I'd be inclined to agree with you. I have wondered about Descartes saying Mind is not extended - it's unclear to me why there cannot be phenomenal...stuff...that has spatial measurements.
Sort, yeah, although it's unclear the "level" of dependence in each case, but that also depends on what we figure dependence is really. I guess I am saying that none of them are specifically independent of the other. Somehow the inversion there seems key (to me). That is why I say, relational, because they are related to each other, even if Space/Time does not cause mind, nor Mind cause Space/Time, they are still things only in the sense of them being "parts" of a "relational whole." Sort of like how a proton, a neutron and an electron are all particles, but atoms are "relations" of those things?
The extension part though, that I am not sure about. Maybe we have to just consider the basic physics though? Spacetime interval/"speed of causality"/conservation of energy, perhaps? It's not clear, but neither is the question of what mind even is, let alone it's potential for expansion. I mean, what keeps it in my "head" and not have it fall out onto my desk? A silly example, but if mind is not some sort of function of matter, what makes it "local" at all? I'm not clear on that.
But physics is measurements in consciousness, and is grounded in mathematics which [h]as an obvious mental quality?
I don't Mind & Matter are separate, though "Bottom Up" Panpsychism isn't the right way of looking at it IMO. I prefer to think the "stuff" of reality is "dual aspected" as in it's how you look at it that really makes it seem "mental" or "material".
-
But physics is measurements in consciousness, and is grounded in mathematics which [h]as an obvious mental quality?
I don't Mind & Matter are separate, though "Bottom Up" Panpsychism isn't the right way of looking at it IMO. I prefer to think the "stuff" of reality is "dual aspected" as in it's how you look at it that really makes it seem "mental" or "material".
I hope you don't mind, but I split this topic off, since we were kind of beyond the scope of the Quotes topic.
Hmm, I need to think about this more thoroughly, but could it be that "mind" (whatever that is) is a function of matter in a "particular" structure? So, in a sense, a rock could have a mind, were it to have something that "worked" like our brain works?
So, it could be the case, that matter has this "dual nature" but it's more just a case of "structure?" In the same way that any matter could be a black hole, except only "certain matter" is in the right structure to actually be a singularity?
-
But physics is measurements in consciousness, and is grounded in mathematics which [h]as an obvious mental quality?
I don't Mind & Matter are separate, though "Bottom Up" Panpsychism isn't the right way of looking at it IMO. I prefer to think the "stuff" of reality is "dual aspected" as in it's how you look at it that really makes it seem "mental" or "material".
I hope you don't mind, but I split this topic off, since we were kind of beyond the scope of the Quotes topic.
Hmm, I need to think about this more thoroughly, but could it be that "mind" (whatever that is) is a function of matter in a "particular" structure? So, in a sense, a rock could have a mind, were it to have something that "worked" like our brain works?
So, it could be the case, that matter has this "dual nature" but it's more just a case of "structure?" In the same way that any matter could be a black hole, except only "certain matter" is in the right structure to actually be a singularity?
Yeah, I'm a big fan of metaphysically neutral examination of structure. Of course the "Why" of the structure would be a mystery, but I think there is ultimately either an appeal to God-as-Ground or Natural-Regularities-as-Ground no matter what metaphysics one accepts...though only the former could be shown to philosophically necessary and only the latter have been suggested by deep examination of reality via science...
-
Yeah, I'm a big fan of metaphysically neutral examination of structure. Of course the "Why" of the structure would be a mystery, but I think there is ultimately either an appeal to God-as-Ground or Natural-Regularities-as-Ground no matter what metaphysics one accepts...though only the former could be shown to philosophically necessary and only the latter have been suggested by deep examination of reality via science...
On "confounding" part might be, that "time" as the experiantial thing we generally refer to, is not what Time, as General Relativity informs us it seems to be. The "trouble" is, of course, that we are not really made to think in terms of 4D non-Euclidean sapcetime, because, well, it's really at practical at all. So, Time, as experienced, is actually a category of Mind. "Proper time" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time) is a whole different, confusing beast, and again, maybe shows us why that is not how our brain "works."
I think, I guess, maybe, that something balanced is the right way to go, but what is the "proper" balance between science and metaphysics?
-
Yeah, I'm a big fan of metaphysically neutral examination of structure. Of course the "Why" of the structure would be a mystery, but I think there is ultimately either an appeal to God-as-Ground or Natural-Regularities-as-Ground no matter what metaphysics one accepts...though only the former could be shown to philosophically necessary and only the latter have been suggested by deep examination of reality via science...
On "confounding" part might be, that "time" as the experiantial thing we generally refer to, is not what Time, as General Relativity informs us it seems to be. The "trouble" is, of course, that we are not really made to think in terms of 4D non-Euclidean sapcetime, because, well, it's really at practical at all. So, Time, as experienced, is actually a category of Mind. "Proper time" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time) is a whole different, confusing beast, and again, maybe shows us why that is not how our brain "works."
I think, I guess, maybe, that something balanced is the right way to go, but what is the "proper" balance between science and metaphysics?
Re: the Time stuff...above my brain's pay grade I'm afraid!
On the proper balance I think it goes back to being reasonable. For example I just cannot believe materialism is true, but for me to then pick a religion and try to legislate its tenets into American law seems quite a leap to me.
-
Re: the Time stuff...above my brain's pay grade I'm afraid!
On the proper balance I think it goes back to being reasonable. For example I just cannot believe materialism is true, but for me to then pick a religion and try to legislate its tenets into American law seems quite a leap to me.
Time is a real confusing thing, even in the physics sense. This short video series (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKbJ9leUNDE) does decently trying to explain it simplistically, but the mathematical nature of it all, plus that fact that it is specifically unintuitive, means it often does not make "sense." (Not to mention the causality part he gets in to.)
On the other point, it's generally people's "instinct" that morality and legality should be tied, even though, were you to question them, they would actually not agree with that at all. So, the position is really not a reasonable one at all, even for the people who advocate it. I don't even think a "hard Materialist" would necessarily agree to that, so I'm not sure there is anything "metaphysical" about that sort of position.
-
Re: the Time stuff...above my brain's pay grade I'm afraid!
On the proper balance I think it goes back to being reasonable. For example I just cannot believe materialism is true, but for me to then pick a religion and try to legislate its tenets into American law seems quite a leap to me.
Time is a real confusing thing, even in the physics sense. This short video series (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKbJ9leUNDE) does decently trying to explain it simplistically, but the mathematical nature of it all, plus that fact that it is specifically unintuitive, means it often does not make "sense." (Not to mention the causality part he gets in to.)
On the other point, it's generally people's "instinct" that morality and legality should be tied, even though, were you to question them, they would actually not agree with that at all. So, the position is really not a reasonable one at all, even for the people who advocate it. I don't even think a "hard Materialist" would necessarily agree to that, so I'm not sure there is anything "metaphysical" about that sort of position.
Ah I was thinking of applying one's position on science/metaphysics, which does get tricky. I think there's enough Mystery for people to accept they can be wrong in their beliefs...this starts getting us into morality though...
On the question of how much do you lean to arguments from philosophy vs empiricism, I guess it depends on what lines of argument/evidence one finds compelling.
-
Ah I was thinking of applying one's position on science/metaphysics, which does get tricky. I think there's enough Mystery for people to accept they can be wrong in their beliefs...this starts getting us into morality though...
On the question of how much do you lean to arguments from philosophy vs empiricism, I guess it depends on what lines of argument/evidence one finds compelling.
I was watching a video with physicists talking about time and one of them put it in an interesting way, something like, that time is not really a thing-in-itself, rather, time is the concept, the sort of category we use to talk about, think about, relate the state of the universe. So, I'd think it's sort of "all about" relative motion, in that sense. So, if nothing ever moved, nothing ever changed, then of course, there would never be anything like time.
Indeed though, if time is sort of "about" motion, than it makes "sense" to me that space and time being "one thing" is, of course, a fact. Although, time, as experienced, seems to almost certainly be, in my mind, just that, something of the mind.