The ontological assumptions of science.

Fresco, very nice. To know the world is to experience it (or to have knowledge is to have experiences), but in this case knowing and experience are primarily matters of insight--or insighting.

Joe, I did not rest my case because I was tired; I did so because you made it for me. Smile

0 Replies

Fresco, very nice. To know the world is to experience it (or to have knowledge is to have experiences), but in this case knowing and experience are primarily matters of insight--or insighting.

Joe, I did not rest my case because I was tired; I did so because you made it for me. Smile

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Terry, it looks like you are engaged in two difficult issues at once. In the one with me you argue that your observation of your existence is a fact rather than an assumption. Your sense of "being" is for me no more than a sensation behind my eyes. You insist that your "I" is what sees your hands typing, and you ask how that can be if your "I" doesn't exist. You also note that your ego is real because you are aware of it. That reflexivity is not evidence for the reality of ego; it is a description of the illusory sensation of ego.
Can't you see that your feeling of being a subject of the experience of typing and "self"awareness is the problem? When you realize that the "self" is merely a sensation--an object rather than a subject--of experience you will not become a robot; indeed, you'll become a freer being, free from the belief that your language's grammar reflects the structure of reality. It only reflects your language community's presumptions about that reality.
I am not an "I" because my grammar requires I break things up into subject and predicate. Remember Nietzsche's assertion that grammar is the metaphysics of the masses.

JL, I don't feel that we are communicating here. You seem to think that the ego is like an itch or a rainbow, both of which are perceptions based on neurological impulses that have a physiological basis, but "itches" and "rainbows" themselves have no actual existence and do not persist (although memory of them can).

Agreed that my mind/self/ego similarly only exists when certain areas of my brain are active, but the neuronal networks that produce it when needed are themselves quite "real." Unlike itches and rainbows, they persist as long as my brain retains its ability to function. They may have changed greatly over the years, but there is a thread of continuity in my remembered history of experiences that I can point to and ungrammatically say "this is me." Have you read "The Feeling of What Happens" by Antonio Damasio?

Either my mind/self/ego "exists" and can make decisions and initiate or proscribe actions, or it is an illusory artifact of a robotic body and brain and serves no useful function. I am someone who believes that she exists and has the freedom to impact a real world. In what sense am I a "freer being" if "I" don't exist?

You and fresco seem to be saying that I am a non-existent obsever of nothing who creates reality simply by languaging with other non-existent observers. So how do you explain events that none of the observers involved wanted or expected to happen?

Why do you think that languaging obsevers created a grammar that does NOT reflect reality? Isn't reality whatever we agree on?

Quote:

Either all egos are "mythic" (i.e., false") or all egos are real.

I can perceive my ego directly. I cannot perceive yours, although I may infer that you have one even if you deny it (who is denying it?). If I am the only "real" observer and you are part of the universe I dreamed up, all egos but mine are mythic. Egos may be of "mythic" proportions or virtually non-existent due to brain defects, trauma, or abuse. Does a chimp have a "real" ego? Does a beagle? Does a snake or a bacterium? What about AI?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Thus Bose-Einstein condensates suggest that reality on a human scale may be scientifically shown as a matter of perception (at least in the case of Bose-Einstein condensates).

I watched the piece about BECs on Nova. While I have doubts that something that exists only inside a magnetic trap at a billionth of a degree above absolute zero and evaporates as soon as you try to look at it is truly "visible" to the naked eye, it does border on the macroscopic. But unlike some other quantum effects, the quantum properties of BECs do not depend on the perception of observers. They do not challenge the principle that quantum effects disappear on a "human" scale (which is still ~ 10^^25 since adult height differentials are less than an order of magnitude although weight can vary more) and cannot legitimately be used to support the belief that the existence of the entire universe is negotiable.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

It's obvious to me that what we are observing here is a conflict of cognitive (and ultimately "spiritual") styles*. Fresco, I and some other A2Kers take a relativist, non-dualist, and processual approach to philosophical problems (this includes both the questions and their answers: i.e., we would not even take seriously some of the problems raised by Joe and vice versa). Joe's ilk takes a more absolutist, dualist and logico-structural approach to the identitification and analysis of philosophical problems. Logic seems to have a rather "Vulcan" value for them, whereas intuition is of approximately equal value for me and my ilk. Nondualistic "mysticism" is a legitimate path of inquiry for us whereas it is no better than the speculations of historical religions and New Age fashions for Joe's ilk.
I suspect the differences may even have roots in our neurology. That reflects my pessimism regarding our possibilities for mutual understanding.
* this is seen in our very strong tendencies not to hear each other, and to consistently talk past each other. This is not because of ill will; it reflects our fundamentally different philosophical values or presuppositions

And there you have it. For fresco, JLN and their ilk, all that matters is that the right observers (dualists excluded) agree on something. Fresco's belief system does not recognize an external universe so questions that challenge it based on our perceptions of an ontic reality are not legitimate. It does not require or admit external evidence nor submit its tenets to logical questioning. "Maturana says it, I believe it, that settles it."

Joe and I see that the nondualistic belief system is incongruent with what we observe, has internal inconsistencies, and cannot/refuses to answer fundamental questions. It is an utter failure at explaining the world we observe (or "language"). So what use is it, really, other than as an intellectual curiosity?

The tenets that Truth is whatever you believe, knowledge is innate and intuitive and beliefs are not subject to logical debate sounds suspiciously like a religion, not a philosophy.

IMO Truth is what really "IS" in a universe containing "real" matter and energy that can exist and persist even in the absence of observers. Individual perceptions of it depend of physiological senses and how they are processed, either of which may render the perceptions inaccurate (but not "wrong"). And our interpretations of it are subject to change as more is learned about the world - and ourselves.

0 Replies

Terry, your response reminds me that the so-called "realization" of the true (illusory) nature of the ego-self is not a purely intellectual understanding. You are obviously very intelligent, and if what I am indicating to you were only an intellectual truth you would surely perceive its merit. But it's more than that; it's a product of intuitive capacity. You either see it, like the point of a joke, or you do not. In this sense you have no sense of humor.
The complex epistemological perspective raised by Fresco is consistent with, but not identical with, what I am indicating. Our non-dualistic perspective is not a commonsensical position, as can be seen by our difficulty in promoting it. Your dualistic position--one that conceives of the world in terms of conceptual opposites--is built into our language and culture, and this makes it both more easy to believe (to intuit) and to discursively defend. I feel that I have fulfilled my obligation: to indicate as best I can my perspective on the nature of the ego-self. I've done that. Thanks for listening.

0 Replies

Terry,

JLN makes sense when speaks of talking past each other.

As a point of interest I went to a lecture today on "The History of Hearing Voices" by a expert in the field. The problem of definition of "hallucination" came up and the lecturer confessed this was not as obvious as some of the audience seemed to think since the "modern view" was that "observer" and "world" were co-dependent. In fact the term "hallucination" was not even conceived until the late 19th century when "psychiatry" was born to deal with aberrant (non-consensual) behaviour in Western society. (Maturana was not even mentioned !)
Alas...all this meant nothing to several members of the audience.

0 Replies

When someone cannot answer questions which point to inconsistencies in their beliefs and tells me that the problem is that I lack either faith or the intuitive capacity to understand their perspective, I suspect that it is their religion that is fundamentally flawed, not me.

Even if we cannot agree on the nature of ego, I would still like to know how you think the non-dualistic belief system accounts for experiences that are not desired or expected by observers, and where the observers came from in the first place.

If non-dualism was an accurate portrayal of reality, it would be consistent with everyone's experiences and our language would reflect that. You said that languaging creates our perception of reality, so how can the majority of languagers be "wrong?" Is it possible that you few are hallucinating and the rest of us are "right"?

If languaging between observers is so important in your belief system, why do you find it so difficult to communicate with us?

0 Replies

Terry, my last comment on this subject--for now: I've said a number of times that dualism and the feeling of being a distinct self, "surrounded by" an external world is illusory but necessary for the conduct of human social life. Indeed, they have, as useful fictions, survival value (even though they vary subtly across cultures). I feel that non-dualism (qua our immediate experience rather than our cognitive orientation) is the case, seen most clearly in meditation.
But, I regret having offended you. I meant to say that you have not (yet developed) the capacity to intuit the nature of our understanding of the no-self (zen: "no-mind") and reality's unity; for all I know you have powerful intuitions of other matters.
I do not understand your last sentence. I am having trouble communicating my views to you and Joe (I have no trouble with at least a half dozen other A2Kers) because of the incompatibility between those views and your orientations.
I hope you do not see this as a failure on my part to appreciate you as a thinker and person.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

If languaging between observers is so important in your belief system, why do you find it so difficult to communicate with us?

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Quote:

If languaging between observers is so important in your belief system, why do you find it so difficult to communicate with us?

"Important" ? Smile

Because "languaging" has the same status as a "dancing" and you don't do some of the dances.

0 Replies

Fresco, you are certainly good at dancing around issues! Laughing

I may not have experienced "oneness with the universe," but I am quite capable of understanding anything written in plain English. I'd really like to see your own thoughts on the subjects of non-dualism and an ontic reality, not somone else's.

If the theory of observer-created reality is correct, all languaging observers must be able to communicate in order to form a consensual picture of reality. If they cannot, then each and every mutually-communicating group presumably creates their own reality - and no one's version of reality should be privileged.

If some of the observers claim that their belief system is exalted and others are "wrong" but they fail to communicate any explanation of their unconventional beliefs to anyone outside of their clique, are we not justified in assuming that they cannot substantiate their assertions and are simply hiding behind their self-declared superior status?

If dualism and an ontic universe are illusory, why raise children to believe in them? Where did the ideas first come from? Where did the observers? Of what use is it to anyone to believe in what is not real? Does non-dualism explain any facet of existence better than other belief systems? Is there any way it can be demonstrated to people who do not want to spend years practicing meditation?

And lastly: can you tango, or do you only know how to side step?

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Terry, my last comment on this subject--for now: I've said a number of times that dualism and the feeling of being a distinct self, "surrounded by" an external world is illusory but necessary for the conduct of human social life. Indeed, they have, as useful fictions, survival value (even though they vary subtly across cultures). I feel that non-dualism (qua our immediate experience rather than our cognitive orientation) is the case, seen most clearly in meditation.
But, I regret having offended you. I meant to say that you have not (yet developed) the capacity to intuit the nature of our understanding of the no-self (zen: "no-mind") and reality's unity; for all I know you have powerful intuitions of other matters.
I do not understand your last sentence. I am having trouble communicating my views to you and Joe (I have no trouble with at least a half dozen other A2Kers) because of the incompatibility between those views and your orientations.
I hope you do not see this as a failure on my part to appreciate you as a thinker and person.

JLN, I am not offended by what you wrote, just frustrated that you and fresco will not (or cannot) answer questions about your beliefs.

You seem to think that I can't understand what you are talking about. Granted I have not experienced it myself, but I have read enough to have an intellectual understanding of the no-self, the effects of meditation on blood flow in the posterior superior parietal lobe (the part of the brain that orients us in space and time) and the sense of certainty that such experiences induce.

I suspect that yours is like other religious experiences - only those who experience them can fully understand the life-changing effects they have on the psyche. But you don't seem to be willing to allow me the same latitude: you cannot experience the world through my eyes or truly judge whether my ego is separate from the external world. You can only speak for yourself and your present state. What makes your view "right" and mine "wrong"?

Scientifically speaking, it is much more likely that your personal experience is illusory than that my entire universe is. I do not mean to trivialize your experiences which I am sure feel very real to you and fresco. But I have to wonder if they are any different than those who are absolutely convinced that they experienced the personal presence of God - and similarly ignore inconsistencies when they are questioned. Since the feeling of a Presence can also be induced by epilepsy or stimulating the temporal lobe with magnetic fields and the sense of unity can be produced by quieting the parietal lobe with meditative practice or drugs, both experiences may be spandrels rather than a true indication of reality. (As could my own perceptions, of course.)

You don't seem to deny the existence of an ontic reality as fervently as fresco does. So do you think that the universe may really exist, even if individual egos don't?

Why would dualism be built into our language and culture if it were not the case? You admit that it is a necessary and useful belief and has survival value - but why would it if it wasn't true? Why is it shared by so few of the observers who presumably are required to concur in the creation of reality? How does it explain the origin of those observers or the external world, suffering, death, or why/how things are as they are (or appear to be)?

I can accept non-dualism or an illusory world as easily as quantum mechanics, if someone can provide evidence that this is how it "is" or present any logical arguments against an ontic reality. If you can't do that, at least please try to explain why my questions are meaningless in your belief system.

0 Replies

Terry,

It is as clear to me as it is to countless other thinkers that we do not experience "the world" as such because all experience results from interaction of particular physiology with that world. Moreover, our very description of that physiology is subject to the same problem ! It follows that "reality" or "details of the world" is a consensual construct resulting from socialization within language and mutual group activities. Such a view was clearly indicated by Thomas Khun in his "Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

You ask questions like "how do we communicate ?" and "how can we be surprised by external events ?". Both of these questions are answerable but NOT by linear (causal) reasoning. The answers lie in proposing metalogical systems such as those of Piaget and Maturana whose coherence lies within sets of supporting axioms which transcend a concept of unobserved reality. Irrespective of "reality" considerations, such coherence has been shown by Hilbert to operate in mathematical, (Geometry for example) which are then utilised to underpin out "understanding". In that sense, your "questions" are equivalant to asking me to explain why say "the angle in a semi circle is a right angle" whilst you refuse to accept/study the underlying mutually dependent principles of angle and line properties. Note also that we accept tradional geometry because "it works" even though it has limited applicability in our modern concepts of "a curved universe". The fact that "straight lines" are a psychological construct doesn't bother us in our parochial transactions.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Thus Bose-Einstein condensates suggest that reality on a human scale may be scientifically shown as a matter of perception (at least in the case of Bose-Einstein condensates).
I watched the piece about BECs on Nova. While I have doubts that something that exists only inside a magnetic trap at a billionth of a degree above absolute zero and evaporates as soon as you try to look at it is truly "visible" to the naked eye, it does border on the macroscopic. But unlike some other quantum effects, the quantum properties of BECs do not depend on the perception of observers. They do not challenge the principle that quantum effects disappear on a "human" scale (which is still ~ 10^^25 since adult height differentials are less than an order of magnitude although weight can vary more) and cannot legitimately be used to support the belief that the existence of the entire universe is negotiable.

I am not convinced you are correct in your assertion as to BECs not being dependent on the perception of observers. Why? Because the fact is that they are a quantum state and that their properties are not as of yet fully qualified / quantified.

You forward the Straw Man Logical Fallacy as I did not claim that BEC's can legitimately be used to support "the belief that the existence of the entire universe is negotiable". However you cannot legitimatly make the claim that the "quantum properties of BECs do not depend on the perception of observers".

In actual fact there are numerious investigations into the view I suggested as per BEC's.

Quote:

S28.008] Phase engineering of Schrodinger cat states and nonadiabatic production of squeezed states in Bose-Einstein Condensates in multiple wells
Mary Ann Leung (University of Washington), Khan W. Mahmud, William P. Reinhardt
We propose a model for the generation of Schrödinger cat states of BEClegitimatelynumerousSchrödinger in multiple wells, and also show how squeezed states can be produced nonadiabatically. The condensate in the multiple well evolves, starting with a certain initial phase difference between the neighboring wells, to a state with a well defined entanglement. We propose a general formula for the initial phase difference: j 2 pi/N where j=1,2,..,N-1, and N is the number of wells. We show the generation of cat states for these different phase configurations in two, three and four wells, and thus generalize this method to any number of wells, even or odd. In addition to the macroscopic superposition states, the method can also be used to generate squeezed states in a nonadiabatic fashion.

This work was supported by NSF grant PHY-0140091 and the Computational Science Graduate Fellowship program.

http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR04/MAR04/baps/abs/S6680008.html

Quote:

Proposals for creating Schrödinger cat states in Bose-Einstein condensates

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tmop/2001/00000048/00000012/art00007

And to a point in which (I would assume) you and I would have to agree

Quote:

Well, I'll give you a bit to start with. If you take a bucket of liquid helium and cool it down to within a few degrees of absolute zero, it undergoes a phase transition called Bose-Einstein condensation. All the atoms hurry to enter the same quantum state, because that minimizes their total energy. So you wind up with a bucket full of atoms that have all agreed to be in the same state. What happens when you try to use it like a normal fluid?

Well, you'll notice it flows without viscosity. That's right, it flows without resistance through even the very smallest pores in your container, and through even the smallest pipettes. Why? Because all the atoms are already in their lowest energy state. Since they're all doing the same thing, though, the walls of a pipette can't smack them around too much -- you can't smack around one, you have to smack around every single last trillion of them.

Super-fluids also will only permit certain values of angular momentum, e.g. 3 or 5 or 7 rotations per second. Even if you spin the bucket at 4 rotations per second from now to eternity, the helium atoms won't care. Angular momentum is quantized for their collective quantum state, and they'll only rotate at 3, 5, or 7, and never, ever at 4.

And the list goes on. You can basically consider a bucketful of liquid helium to be like one giant macroscopic quantum object

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-18907.html

I further note Terry that you have failed to meet the challenges of the following as per my post # 3049027:

- It matters not one wit that BEC's are found within an express set of specific conditions, the same can be said for all states of matter/energy given the specific matter/energy in question.

- You make no rational argument as to why the normal mass of the human body should be considered a function of human perception as per BEC's.

- It can be argued that BEC's are in an indeterminate state at times.

- As to the full and complete properties of BEC's that remains to be seen.

0 Replies

Terry, your thoughtful response seems to boil down to the presumption/conclusion that you and I reside in very different perceptual worlds. My point has always been--if only implicit--that I, and Fresco, understand your point of view insofar as we share them: we think most of the time dualistically and perceive the world from the standpoint of an "ego." It's just that we've realized the fictive, albeit PRACTICALLY eufunctional, nature of that perspective, and during meditation one can actually SEE (as opposed to cognitively deduce) that such is the case. On the other side, I believe that you also "know" this at your pre-reflective levels of immediate perception of reality. Your mind and mine are no different in that respect (pardon the comparison), but you seem to not "realize" that kind of "knowledge" by thinking it out of your awareness. It's not for me to talk you into an intellectual realization of your perceived one-ness with the world; it's up to you to have an extra-intellectual realization of that unity (the dualistic and egocentered perspective is ultimately SPIRITUALLY dysfunctional). Pardon my religious tone here, but it is obvious that the only way I can approach the subject intellectually or meta-scientifically is to refer you to the theoretical writings of those who can--as does Fresco.

0 Replies

JLN,

Your reference to "sprituality" concurs with my concluding remarks in a recent paper presented to my local philosophy group.

Quote:

A valid evaluation of Maturana cannot ignore the cultural forces which inform the history of ideas.

Firstly the rise of "esotericism" with its non-Western concepts of "states of consciousness", can be loosely associated with domains of observation with the proviso that Maturana appears to be "deflationist" about consciousness rather than "transcendental". Also the non-duality of observer and observed is clearly reflected by M's system.

Secondly we see the move to eco-politics where "sustainability" is being advocated over chauvinistic consumerism. Maturana's present activities are well subscribed from this angle.

Finally, it might be noted by those interested that both of these forces leave the door open to "spirituality" even though the second tends to close it on anthropocentric theology.

0 Replies

Fresco, agreed that language is a consensual construction, but why would observers (whose own existence is problematical) construct a language with a word for "trees" if they had not actually observed tall woody/leafy things growing in an ontic forest?

What principles/axioms would I need to accept on faith in order to understand your metalogical system?

0 Replies

Terry, I'm sorry but you are asking the wrong questions (at least they have nothing to do with my position). Trees exist but not "trees"; you exist but not "you."
Please do not challenge this claim until you feel quite certain that you understand it.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I am not convinced you are correct in your assertion as to BECs not being dependent on the perception of observers. Why? Because the fact is that they are a quantum state and that their properties are not as of yet fully qualified / quantified.

Exactly what difference do you think observation makes to a BEC?

Quote:

You forward the Straw Man Logical Fallacy as I did not claim that BEC's can legitimately be used to support "the belief that the existence of the entire universe is negotiable".

Then what was the point of bringing up BECs in a discussion of ontic reality?

Re your links: Has anyone actually produced cat states in BECs? Superfluidity and Bose-Einstein condensation are not exactly the same thing, although they can occur together.

Quote:

- It matters not one wit that BEC's are found within an express set of specific conditions, the same can be said for all states of matter/energy given the specific matter/energy in question.

It is incredibly difficult to coax a quantity of matter into a coherent state and keep it there, and the billionth of a degree above absolute zero required for BECs does not occur naturally. The "normal" state of matter making up the world human beings deal with - and we are the observers in question, are we not? - is decoherent. Human-scale objects such as trees and cats do not behave the same way as quantum/mesoscopic scale things do and cannot be in a state of superposition. Quantum theory cannot be extrapolated to "prove" that the universe is observer-dependent. (I am not suggesting that you believe this, since you previously argued that mass has inertia independent of observation, but it is often posted by others.)

Quote:

- You make no rational argument as to why the normal mass of the human body should be considered a function of human perception as per BEC's.

You are the one who brought up "human-scale" mass and volume. If human beings are not the basis of that scale, what is?

Quote:

- It can be argued that BEC's are in an indeterminate state at times.

You can argue anything you like, but can you back it up?

0 Replies

The ontological assumptions of science.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know