What kind of thing is the mind? A sound deductive argument

@fresco,

How can you agree what a pattern is without predicting? Your mind automatically predicts what it can do with the pattern in the future doesn't it?

Patterns that are being observed in the physical world are physically real at the moment they are observed. The physical universe is what it is. Delusions only happen when all the information is not taken in and remembered for proper interpretation and/or the interpretation does not match the message of the author.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

No 'the physical universe' is a shifting mental construction of humans.
If you were a member of a particular tribe (the Hopi I think) who saw 'the world' as a manifestation of various 'spirits', you might have two different 'waters'...one which you cross, which was taboo to drink, and another for the drinkable type. For a native these are physically different.
Or if you were living centuries ago you would be familiar with 'the morning star' which was different from 'the evening star'. The fact that these later turned out to be Venus, merely highlights the point about shifting models of physicality.
Modern physics requires at least ten 'dimensions' for current physical models. We are lucky if we can get our heads round the first four ! You don't seem to understand the significance of the role played by abstract mathematical models in accounting for what we call 'the universe'. 'Naive' realism is certainly no longer an option and even 'realism' itself has been discounted as an irrelevance.

2 Replies

@fresco,

I enjoy reading you're very erudite explanations of the mind in relation to the universe. You're obviously much more knowledgeable on the subject then I am, and you present it with an deep clarity.

I think there's also room for a mystical approach, such as the hippie term "wow!" used in moments of awe-inspired joy, or what I call the Alan Wattsian approach of standing amazed at the mere phenomena of human mind and the universe. That, to me, is religion, or maybe spirituality.

1 Reply

@coluber2001,

I am familiar with the esoteric (as opposed to specifically mystical) cosmology of Gurdjieff which although 'weird' is interesting for its dialectical logic, andbecause it seemed to anticipate the wave properties of matter. But also you will probably have noticed my allusions to meditational thinking (the observer is inextricable from the observed) which Niels Bohr was critically aware of in his contributions to atomic theory. (Bohr adopted the Yin Yang symbol as his coat of arms when knighted by the Swedish Court}.
But IMO the problem with 'spirituality' as far as science is concerned is the same as that of theism...namely the resorting to ineffability as a characteristic of 'awe'. Ineffability has no place in the contextually pragmatic role that science plays for humans but it does at least ring a warning bell to those scientists who become so attached to the edifice of vocabulary they have constructed to the extent that they assume their concepts have independent ontological status (what in lay contexts is often called 'reality').

1 Reply

@fresco,

Have you read The Origins and History of Consciousness by Erich Neumann?

I've had it setting on a table next to me for several years now, but I've never got around to reading it. But then I haven't done much reading lately.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

No 'the physical universe' is a shifting mental construction of humans. . . Or if you were living centuries ago you would be familiar with 'the morning star' which was different from 'the evening star'. The fact that these later turned out to be Venus, merely highlights the point about shifting models of physicality.

Our "understanding" of the universe is a shifting mental. The physical universe remains the same whether we understand it well enough to devise accurate models to describe it or not.

100 years from now Venus is likely to still be a planet and that model will not change because, we have obtained enough information to be fairly certain we can model it accurately.

Quote:

Modern physics requires at least ten 'dimensions' for current physical models. We are lucky if we can get our heads round the first four ! You don't seem to understand the significance of the role played by abstract mathematical models in accounting for what we call 'the universe'. 'Naive' realism is certainly no longer an option and even 'realism' itself has been discounted as an irrelevance.

The mathematical models some people are using (string theory)to predict measurements taken in physics require 10 dimensions. Unfortunately, those mathematicians refuse to use naive realism to construct a physical model that would provide something they could picture as a reality (like picturing Venus as a planet for the morning star) for their mathematical model.

It is not that hard to picture 10 spatial dimensions to describe reality. Once you can picture it (like the planet venus) you can be pretty sure it is right.

All of empty space is filled with entangled Higgs bosons constructed of 4 virtual 0 dimensional point particles. Each higgs boson is a 2 dimensional space embedded in our 3 dimensional space time continuum. There are the first five dimensions of the 10 dimensional space.

A hydrogen atom is made up of two higgs bosons which and each is a 2 dimensional boson embedded in a 3 dimensional atom. There are your next 5 spatial dimensions.

When you add the 5 embedded dimensions that make up the space time continuum with the 5 spatial dimensions that make up the atom you end up with 10 spatial dimension constructing all of matter and space. It is easy to picture and therefore naive realism provides a logical solution that will stand the test of time.

If you can't picture it as a reality it will not stand the test of time till you can. If there are multiple interpretations that provide possible alternatives the true reality will eventually be understood if the correct questions and are asked and the correct assumptions are made.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

When you use vacuous phrases like 'true reality' you are moving from the pragmatics of 'science' to the speculation of 'religion'. On that point we no longer communicate. The universe does NOT remain the same becauuse successive transitions of observer states correspond to transitions of states in 'the observed'. (Developmental Psychology 101 PIAGET). Observer and observed are inextricable.

2 Replies

@coluber2001,

Thanks for that reference. I may look it up .

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

When you use vacuous phrases like 'true reality' you are moving from the pragmatics of 'science' to the speculation of 'religion'. On that point we no longer communicate.

If, I admit that I am speculating from a physical model that forms a picture of the universe at the quantum level while providing a physical relationship between qm and relativity; will you admit that the pragmatic mathematical models that predict multiple "undetectable" universes and dimensions is also speculative and I think more so because pictorial models represent what is physically happening better than mathematical models?

Would you admit pictorial models represent what is physically happening in a way that is easier to understand because pictures can be easier related to what our senses experience than a mathematical model is?

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

The universe does NOT remain the same becauuse successive transitions of observer states correspond to transitions of states in 'the observed'. (Developmental Psychology 101 PIAGET). Observer and observed are inextricable.

Wiki on Piaget:

Quote:

Stages
The four development stages are described in Piaget's theory as:

1. Sensorimotor stage: from birth to age two. The children experience the world through movement and their senses. During the sensorimotor stage children are extremely egocentric, meaning they cannot perceive the world from others' viewpoints. The sensorimotor stage is divided into six substages:[45] . . .

2. Preoperational stage: Piaget's second stage, the pre-operational stage, starts when the child begins to learn to speak at age two and lasts up until the age of seven. During the pre-operational Stage of cognitive development, Piaget noted that children do not yet understand concrete logic and cannot mentally manipulate information. Children’s increase in playing and pretending takes place in this stage. However, the child still has trouble seeing things from different points of view. The children's play is mainly categorized by symbolic play and manipulating symbols. Such play is demonstrated by the idea of checkers being snacks, pieces of paper being plates, and a box being a table. Their observations of symbols exemplifies the idea of play with the absence of the actual objects involved. By observing sequences of play, Piaget was able to demonstrate that, towards the end of the second year, a qualitatively new kind of psychological functioning occurs, known as the Pre-operational Stage. . . .

3. Concrete operational stage: from ages seven to eleven. Children can now conserve and think logically (they understand reversibility) but are limited to what they can physically manipulate. They are no longer egocentric. During this stage, children become more aware of logic and conservation, topics previously foreign to them. Children also improve drastically with their classification skills

4. Formal operational stage: from age eleven to sixteen and onwards (development of abstract reasoning). Children develop abstract thought and can easily conserve and think logically in their mind. Abstract thought is newly present during this stage of development. Children are now able to think abstractly and utilize metacognition. Along with this, the children in the formal operational stage display more skills oriented towards problem solving, often in multiple steps.

It appears to me that you and the scientific community are stuck in phase 1 and 2 of Paget's theory of developmental stages.

Being adults (I am assuming you are one) that have experienced all four stages of Paget' theory of cognitive development, can we discuss what we are experiencing at that level of cognitive development instead? I would like to get beyond a 7 year old's level of cognitive thinking because mature people can conserve and think logically (they understand reversibility) even if they sometimes are limited to what they can physically manipulate. They are no longer egocentric. During this stage, people have become more aware of logic and conservation, topics previously foreign to them. We as adult people, also can improve drastically with our classification skills.

Plus, adults can develop abstract thought and can easily conserve and think logically in our minds. Abstract thought is present after this stage of development. Adults are able to think abstractly and utilize metacognition. Along with this, people in this formal operational stage display more skills oriented towards problem solving, often in multiple steps.

So, maybe the reason you and the scientific community cannot understand the 10 or more dimensional universe in a way that matches our experiences as, our senses help us to perceive them, is you are still egocentric (refusal to move to phase 3) and refuse to admit there is an author to all the information you are experiencing with a more objective view than yours. Which, is stopping from using your metacognition (which have would developed in stage 4) and would help you to understand how you and, more importantly, other people think.

And, if you would recognize all mature and intelligent people think following a similar pattern, wouldn't it be a good idea to assume that pattern was followed by the person or people that created all the information you are experiencing as all the matter in the universe?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

I am impressed wth your Piaget follow up. But you may not realise that his 'genetic epistemology' goes beyond human development, to the consideration of the development of 'a body of knowledge' as an entity in its own right. Thus knowlege in state 1 interacts with and is receptive of input from world 1. That input shifts knowledge to state 2 which 'sees' world 2 ...and so on ad infinitum. There is no requirement of any 'ultimate states' (or 'ultimate truth') in this view of epistemological development. Mutual knowldege-world states (aka mutual observer-observed states} are antithetical to naive realism in which both 'world' and 'information' have independent status. The reason humans tend to agree on such states is due to their common perceptual apparatus and mutual concerns. When those 'concerns' differ, as in the case of Galileo and the Pope, or in the case of the current politics of global warming, 'data' (i.e. measurements considered 'informational'} are selected or ignored by differing parties according to their perticular agenda.
You whole approach to this point has assumed that we think of 'the universe' is independent of the nature of human consciousness. I reject that completely together with any form of attempt at attributing such consciousness to be in 'the gift of a mythical creator of the universe'.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Do you believe the universe existed before human consciousness existed?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

A potentially meaningless question since 'time' is a human construction and 'existence' is relative, not absolute. Things exist relative to thingers.

If you ask instead whether current standard mental pictures of the evolution of what humans currently call 'the universe' make sense with respect to current knowledge states, I would say 'yes'. But those 'currents' imply that I expect those pictures, like the Big Bang' to be subject to revision given, that some aspects of them are already in dispute.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

If you ask instead whether current standard mental pictures of the evolution of what humans currently call 'the universe' make sense with respect to current knowledge states, I would say 'yes'.

Can we talk about these mental picture?

What does a Higgs Boson look like.

What does the 10 spatial dimensions of space look like.

What does an atomic orbital and the inside of an atom look like.

What does the higgs mechanism look like.

What is waving when they detect a gravitational wave and what is inflating when they say the universe is expanding (Is it the higgs field, the space-time continuum, the aether or are all three correct and are different terms for the same thing)?

Or is your statement " current standard mental pictures of the evolution of what humans currently call 'the universe" a nonsensical statement because there is no such thing? (which means, there is a need to develop one)

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

I'm getting the feeling that we are just stringing this out.
By 'picture' I do not mean a complete scenario. I mean some aspects can be visualized, and some reside in the symmetry of themaths in which general 'group properties' are understood as patterns. I have no idea how to visusalize 'the HiggsBoson' except as a piece of a jigsaw required to complete a such pattern. You on he other hand seem to be fixated on it...maybe you are taking its title as 'the God particle' too literally ! Wink

Much more interesting to me are the frontier problems of 'dark matter' etc which imply that uanswered questions far outweigh what we think we know .

1 Reply

@fresco,

What are some aspects that can be visualized. ?

I am not stringing you along I am truly interested in your answers.( let me rephrase that I am really interested in your answers. )

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

And I didn't mean the obvious things that are observable matter. I meant quantum mechanical things like dark matter, dark energy etc .

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

With the proviso that I agree with Rorty that 'visualization' as an aid to 'explanation' is an over rated habit which we inherited from the Greeks, I tend, for example, to think of particles' as nodes of reinforcement of multidimensional waves. Indeed 'standing wave patterns ...harmonics' are useful in understanding discrete 'electron orbits'. However, with alternative non-euclidean'geometries' in mind ( like Einstein Wink

)' I also make use of the concept of 'projective geometry' in which positive and negative 'infinities' meet giving the possibility of a time independent closed entity space. (NB Goethian phenomenolgical 'science' already uses projective geometry as a substrate}. 'Systems theory' has been another useful area for modelling allowing for concepts of 'emergence' with respect to embedded systems.

The point is that different 'geometries' and different 'logics' can be employed to model counterintuitive data in science. What matters is internal coherence, not picturability.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

With the proviso that I agree with Rorty that 'visualization' as an aid to 'explanation' is an over rated.

I think it is a requirement for to have the most complete understanding possible.

Quote:

The point is that different 'geometries' and different 'logics' can be employed to model counterintuitive data in science. What matters is internal coherence, not picturability.

One thing is for sure, mathematical models that are testable and proven accurate are more than likely accurate. Relative, and Schrodinger wave equation can be combined to five a picture of reality.

You can even view the shape bounded by an electron orbital at different energies. Those boundaries are an accurate physical model that can be visualised like viewing the boundary between a piece of matter and space with our eyes or sensing a surface with your hands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Thanks for the reference.
I reject the word 'complete' coupled with 'understanding' because for me 'understanding' can only be 'contextual'. I think that your religiosity affects your choice of 'complete' here. The philosopher Derrida has pointed out that 'privileging' one perceptual system over others, or even one assertion over another, tends to selectively focus attention at the expense of alternatives. This selectivity is useful in particular contexts, but can lay no claim to providing universal understanding. (Remember my reference to the proscribing of the word 'is' ?)
My own interest in 'picturing' is largely from the time I used to teach physics at high school level, and also philosophy of linguistics at college level. In the latter for example I used to point out that neural structures in the brain might be pictured as 'logic circuits' as in information processing, or alternatively as 'finite state machines' as employed in generative linguistic theory. The point was that the 'static' logic of information theory, was different to the 'dynamic' logic of state transitions. This difference of implication of 'pictures' underpins a prior objection to the word 'complete' even before I read Rorty and Derrida.

2 Replies

What kind of thing is the mind? A sound deductive argument

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know