The ontological assumptions of science.

JLNobody wrote:

Consider your belief that "you" actually will your body to make certain movements. It certainly seems to be so, but look more carefully and you might see that there is no agent of actions, only actions which are interpreted in terms of agency--part of the mythology of ego.

True, "you" cannot feel what "I"* am feeling, nor can I feel yours. That is part of the configuration of our unity, not proof of our metaphysical separation.

* see how our language biases our thoughts?

Agreed that many actions that are interpreted in terms of agency are not, really (according to some studies), but there still are some that "I" can will myself to do - and many more instinctive reactions/behaviors that I can choose to override. "Will" may be illusory, but there is some evidence for the existence of "won't."

Your ego may be mythic, but mine is quite real, at least to me. How could I observe myself to exist if "I" did not exist to do the observing or be observed? Perhaps it is just a misunderstanding of how each of us defines "observer" "I" "self" and "ego." I equate them, although "ego" also has psychological connotations.

Who do you think is typing these words, if "I" don't exist?

Who or what configured our unity? Why is non-congruity of thought and location not proof of separation?

0 Replies

Terry, you are talking common sense, and that's the problem. When you say "How could I observe myself to exist if 'I' did not exist to do the observing," you are echoing Descartes' commonsensical but false "I think therefore I am". You both are begging the question. Do you really believe that in addition to the body that acts (e.g., types your words) there must be within it a homuncular-like being that guides that action?
You insist that while my ego 'may be mythic' yours is real. Both statements can't be true.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Chumly wrote:
I was suggesting the philosophical implications that some may associate with QM (but in general is countered by the argument that QM only applies on the atomic / subatomic level) may be not the case any more, due to the demonstration of the Bose-Einstein condensate.

So.....philosophical considerations as to how QM affects perception/reality may indeed have applicability to man's "macro world".

Why?

Because the results of QM have now been proven to not be limited to effects on the atomic/subatomic level. Sort of a macro-scaled version of the potential philosophical implications behind Schrodinger's Cat!

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).

BECs only form under extreme conditions in a lab and I have no idea why you would think they are applicable to the perception of reality on a human scale:

Wikipedia wrote:
Compared to more commonly-encountered states of matter, Bose-Einstein condensates are extremely fragile. The slightest interaction with the outside world can be enough to warm them past the condensation threshold, forming a normal gas and losing their interesting properties.

Terry wrote:

BECs only form under extreme conditions in a lab and I have no idea why you would think they are applicable to the perception of reality on a human scale:

That's a really silly question. In actual fact BEC's are without a doubt applicable to the perception of reality on a human scale.

In actual fact BEC's have plenty of human-scale consequential mass and volume.

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.

0 Replies

JLN, it is a fact, not an assumption, that I observe myself to exist. I see and feel parts of my body, but my mind is a sense of "being" that persists even when I close my eyes and don't think about anything. I don't really know how to describe it. Who is looking at my hands typing these words if "I" don't exist?

"I" am not a homuncular-like being (which would only compound the problem of consciousness) but am the conscious aspect of the top layer of my brain hierarchy.

My ego is real to me because I am aware of myself. You, however, may be a robot or a computer or an egoless human being, but I rather doubt it since you have been known to use the word "I."

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

That's a really silly question. In actual fact BEC's are without a doubt applicable to the perception of reality on a human scale.

In actual fact BEC's have plenty of human-scale consequential mass and volume.

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 brought up BECs as evidence that QM is applicable to human-scale objects and events. It isn't. BECs may be a few million atoms or so, that's all. We probably have 10 to the 25th or so molecules in our bodies (a guess on my part, based on Avogadro's number). The molecules that we are made of do not form BECs. There is no quantum uncertainty in the position of any object that you can see with the naked eye, it is not in an indeterminate state, and there is zero chance that it will do any quantum tunneling.

Quantum mechanics does not refute the existence of an ontic reality, any more than the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.

0 Replies

Terry,

I am pleased you took time to "look at" the references even though your entrenchment prevented you from appreciating their meaning at this stage. I have therefore taken your name off the censorship committee and suggest that your recent prolific posts indicate an encouraging self examination on your part. I leave you with the words of Max Plank regarding Einstein's controversial ideas of early last century.

Quote:

A new theory does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

The irony is that Einstein himself resisted QM throughout his lifetime.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

You brought up BECs as evidence that QM is applicable to human-scale objects and events. It isn't.

Wholly and completely false that BEC's are not applicable to human-scale objects and events. Watch Nova's "Absolute Zero: The Conquest of Cold".

Terry wrote:

BECs may be a few million atoms or so, that's all.

Wholly and completely false. Watch Nova's "Absolute Zero: The Conquest of Cold".

Terry wrote:

We probably have 10 to the 25th or so molecules in our bodies (a guess on my part, based on Avogadro's number).

This is a Non Sequitor Logical Fallacy unless or until you made a 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 gotta problem with dwarfs?

Terry wrote:

The molecules that we are made of do not form BECs.

I see no relevance to stating the obvious, however if you have a point to make it's not been made by this assertion, alas.

Terry wrote:

There is no quantum uncertainty in the position of any object that you can see with the naked eye.........

False the naked eye can see BEC's. Watch Nova's "Absolute Zero: The Conquest of Cold". Further, you have made no viable argument to substantiate your inference that the naked eye must the function by which BEC's should be assessed from a human perspective.

Terry wrote:

.........it is not in an indeterminate state

False it can be argued that BEC's are in an indeterminate state at times. Watch Nova's "Absolute Zero: The Conquest of Cold".

Terry wrote:

.......and there is zero chance that it will do any quantum tunneling.

As to the full and complete properties of BEC's that remains to be seen this you claim is unsubstantiated as it relates to BEC's.

Terry wrote:

Quantum mechanics does not refute the existence of an ontic reality, any more than the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.

I see no relevance to stating the obvious, however if you a point to make it's not been made by this assertion, alas.

0 Replies

Chumly,

I have had my doubts about Terry's interpretation of "boundary science" for some time, and your comments seem to support that.

Terry,

Irrespective of the above discussion with Chumly, if what you require as a "satisfactory answer" lies within the paradign of "causality" then you have no hope of understanding Maturana (et al) who sees the concept of causality as a product of cognition, not an explanation of it.

0 Replies

Hi Fresco,

I recently saw Nova's "Absolute Zero: The Conquest of Cold" and this thread came to mind. It certainly made me scratch my head about BEC's, QM and the nature of reality, not that I'm any kind of expert on the matter!

I hope y'all liked my dwarf reference, I thought it was kind'a funny given Terry's inference that human body mass is somehow relevant to human perception of BEC's!

A couple of typos in my last post:

".......this you claim is unsubstantiated as it relates to BEC's" should read "thus your claim......"

"..........however if you a point to make it's not been made by this assertion, alas." should read "however if you have a point to make...."

Since I mentally filled in the blanks when I proof-read my post earlier, and thus saw no errors, does this suggest anything about your views on perception?

0 Replies

Chumly,

If only they were my views alone ! Smile

NB I was told that professional proof readers scan a document backwards in order to reduce perceptual set.

Also you might be interested in googling "Signal Detection Theory" (Green and Swets). This work was an experimental examination of perceptual set showing that "detection" could be manipulated as a function of "payoff". This work was extended to the n-space of speech parameters by Morton in an attempt to explain "successful" reception of degraded signals.

0 Replies

One could think there was some kind of subliminal perception of your post, Fresco, but it turns out you just did spellcheck after actually posting.

Anyway, my reception of your degraded signals was successful... Cool

0 Replies

I've Googled it a bit, and it turns out that according to Wiki much of the early work in detection theory was done by radar researchers.

Intriguing!

0 Replies

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.

I've had my say. Good luck with Fresco and Chumly.

0 Replies

JLN,

The "two" issues are related.

I am not sure whether we have touched on this before, but we are asking dissenters to commit the equivalent of suicide in their eyes. In the days when religion held sway and the "self" existed by virtue if its relationship to an "external deity" we would have been condemned as heretics. In recent times, "self integrity" and "self-assertion" have taken a more prominent role this time "existing" in relationship to a belief in "control" bolstered by the "success" of scientific and technological endeavor. Little wonder that "selves" coexistential with such Western ideals will resist attacks on such which might result in destruction of the dependent "self".

Yet those respondents who cling to the "reality of self and world" are quite happy to dream at night in the guise of "another"....quite happy to adopt inconsistent personae in their differential dealings with their social world...and may be even aware of the fragility of mental cohesion in the aging process. Gurdjieff seemed to be onto something when he called such an existence "sleep walking" in which the little "I's" are buffered from each other.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

You insist that while my ego 'may be mythic' yours is real. Both statements can't be true.

Why not?

0 Replies

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

0 Replies

I am doing a fair bit of driving these days and I am looking to download really interesting discussions / interviews / radio plays etc.

Any suggestions on where to find good stuff?

0 Replies

Chumly,

Go to the BBC websiite/Radio and check out the index. In particular the "In our time" programmes have excellent discussions (on Radio 4).

0 Replies

Great thanks, I'm checking it out!

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

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

But that relies on the inductive premise that all egos are alike. How do you arrive at that premise? Also, it relies on the law of non-contradiction for its truth. Do you accept that the law of non-contradiction is valid, even non-dualistically?

0 Replies

The ontological assumptions of science.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know