Why Physicalism is Wrong

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
seeds
Posts: 1004
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Why Physicalism is Wrong

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:46 pm ...For example, there is no experiment that can reach into the inner-dimension of a human mind in order to directly study the layout and composition of the three-dimensional features of a vivid dream.

In other words, the observance of the firing of neurons in your brain will in no way reveal the precise nature and makeup of that island paradise you may have visited last night while drooling on your pillow...
I think the fact that the researchers had to wake the subjects up in order to ask them what they were dreaming about, pretty much says it all...

...(see my response to uwot, below).
_______
seeds
Posts: 1004
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Why Physicalism is Wrong

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:41 am ...some things simply are not amenable to testing and experiments.
uwot wrote: Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:33 pm I think Arising is right to reserve judgement on the weight of the links, but do you not think it would be equally wise not to decide in advance the limits of experimentation?
Of course I would never say never about any reasonable theory.

However, there is absolutely nothing that the researchers in those links are doing that even remotely suggests that they could ever reach into the dream island depicted in my little drawing...

Image

...and literally measure the height and girth of the palm trees, or the distance between the trees and the water, etc., etc..

And even more importantly, none of the tests offer the slightest clue as to the physiological details and whereabouts of the dreamer.

And I truly hope that no one here is clueless enough to suggest that the paralyzed blob of material flesh lying there on the testing bed is what’s dreaming the dream.

And just to offer a humorous (if not ludicrous) example of what the researchers are actually doing with their MRI and EEG machines, please consider the following thought experiment:

Imagine a team of researchers observing the body of a subject who has somehow managed to project her consciousness into the inner-dimension of a parallel universe.

And upon seeing a twitch on the body's nose, the researchers immediately pull the subject’s consciousness back into her body (back in our universe) in order to ask her to describe what she was seeing or, perhaps, smelling in that other universe at the moment of the twitch.

Now that, in an analogical nutshell, is basically what is happening in the links provided by Arising_uk.

Now it is just my personal opinion, but I highly doubt that future innovations of human technology will ever overcome the metaphysical barriers that prevent us from entering the closed and sovereign dimensions of each other’s minds (at least not in any literal sense).
_______
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Physicalism is Wrong

Post by QuantumT »

uwot wrote: Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:48 am Hang on a moment; even if you are shocked by quantum mechanics, can you really describe the most fundamental behaviour of the universe as "abnormal"? Personally, I think it is waaaay more 'shocking' that there is a universe, that there is life and that there is consciousness, even if it is all "virtual", than that we don't quite understand how it all works. But if you want to get a handle on how the stuff we do understand works, do yourself a favour and click this link: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.com
I agree with you. We should not exist. Your site looks fine. We are on the same page.
When I call QM abnormal, it's because it can never be a part of a unified theory. It all might be unified mathematicly, but never in the big picture.
QM will always be the exception to the logic rules of nature. Always!
Maximum 1/10000 of my current size. It's on page 13 of the link.
1/10.000th ? That's very optimistic. I'd say 1/1.000.000.000th the size of an atom. Maybe smaller. Maybe not even there.
Our universe does not have matter. Only energy/data/information. Our thoughts are more complex and real than our bodies!
Last edited by QuantumT on Sun Jun 24, 2018 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Why Physicalism is Wrong

Post by Arising_uk »

seeds wrote: I think the fact that the researchers had to wake the subjects up in order to ask them what they were dreaming about, pretty much says it all...
______
Does it? You appear to to not understand how experimenting has to work in this area.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Why Physicalism is Wrong

Post by Arising_uk »

seeds wrote: ...and literally measure the height and girth of the palm trees, or the distance between the trees and the water, etc., etc.. …
Can you measure such things in your dream? If you can then the neurons responsible for such actions will trigger and they'll have a map of that and maybe one day will be able to calculate what you dream is a 'measurement'.
And even more importantly, none of the tests offer the slightest clue as to the physiological details and whereabouts of the dreamer.
The whereabouts are the body that is asleep.
And I truly hope that no one here is clueless enough to suggest that the paralyzed blob of material flesh lying there on the testing bed is what’s dreaming the dream. …
Please don't tell me you are a dualist?

Your body is not paralysed when dreaming, it moves during sleep and it's becoming fairly apparent that the neurons are firing in tune with the actions of the dreamer.
And just to offer a humorous (if not ludicrous) example of what the researchers are actually doing with their MRI and EEG machines, please consider the following thought experiment:

Imagine a team of researchers observing the body of a subject who has somehow managed to project her consciousness into the inner-dimension of a parallel universe.

And upon seeing a twitch on the body's nose, the researchers immediately pull the subject’s consciousness back into her body (back in our universe) in order to ask her to describe what she was seeing or, perhaps, smelling in that other universe at the moment of the twitch.

Now that, in an analogical nutshell, is basically what is happening in the links provided by Arising_uk.

Now it is just my personal opinion, but I highly doubt that future innovations of human technology will ever overcome the metaphysical barriers that prevent us from entering the closed and sovereign dimensions of each other’s minds (at least not in any literal sense).
_______
Well they might not be able to become the other person but there're fair odds that they'll be able to image a close approximation of what one is dreaming about as there is no wafting-off to 'a parallel universe', just the universe of the CNS.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 672
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Why Physicalism is Wrong

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Philosophy Now wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 1:17 pm Grant Bartley argues that to say the mind is physical is an abuse of language.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/126/Wh ... m_is_Wrong
I was wondering how long it would take the author to bring up the quantum woo card. Disappointingly, not much: 3 paragraphs. That's when he reaches the point where this common myth of observation-dependent reality is stated:

Now we know, however, that some events at a subatomic level are affected by whether there is an observing mind.


Not worth reading after that.
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Physicalism is Wrong

Post by QuantumT »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Jun 24, 2018 5:40 pm I was wondering how long it would take the author to bring up the quantum woo card. Disappointingly, not much: 3 paragraphs. That's when he reaches the point where this common myth of observation-dependent reality is stated:
Now we know, however, that some events at a subatomic level are affected by whether there is an observing mind.

Not worth reading after that.
So, you disagree with the Copenhagen Interpretation? :mrgreen:
A myth even? Based on what new groundbreaking knowledge? :mrgreen:
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Why Physicalism is Wrong

Post by Arising_uk »

Hi uwot,
uwot wrote:... This is one way to conceptualise it (Can't remember who posted it first, but well done them.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ&t=304s ...
That was interesting and whilst I don't tend to do this it has led to a thought about such stuff which I hope you can tell me has been had before or not or is just nonsense. So, at the big stuff level the idea is that gravity is matter 'bending' or 'curving' 'spacetime' hence things don't follow Newton's path. Given this, at the small stuff level an electron, for example, has mass so presumably 'it' too bends 'spacetime', now it also appears it oscillates so could the 'pilot wave' that people wish for be 'gravity waves' in 'spacetime' produced by the oscillation of the electron a la the way the oil particles act in the vid on the fluid but in this case the 'fluid' being 'spacetime'?
Last edited by Arising_uk on Sun Jun 24, 2018 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Why Physicalism is Wrong

Post by Noax »

QuantumT wrote: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:02 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Jun 24, 2018 5:40 pm I was wondering how long it would take the author to bring up the quantum woo card. Disappointingly, not much: 3 paragraphs. That's when he reaches the point where this common myth of observation-dependent reality is stated:
Now we know, however, that some events at a subatomic level are affected by whether there is an observing mind.

Not worth reading after that.
So, you disagree with the Copenhagen Interpretation?
So do you apparently, so is this such a surprise? Conde Lucanor did not express a negative opinion of Copenhagen interpretation. He was commenting on the collapse-by-mind comment from the article (woo interpretation?).
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Physicalism is Wrong

Post by QuantumT »

Noax wrote: Sun Jun 24, 2018 11:10 pm So do you apparently, so is this such a surprise? Conde Lucanor did not express a negative opinion of Copenhagen interpretation. He was commenting on the collapse-by-mind comment from the article (woo interpretation?).
Excuse me?
...this common myth of observation-dependent reality...
Those words alone are so ignorant and biased, that any woo-whatever point becomes insignificant.
It's bad science! It's garbage!
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 672
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Why Physicalism is Wrong

Post by Conde Lucanor »

QuantumT wrote: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:02 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Jun 24, 2018 5:40 pm I was wondering how long it would take the author to bring up the quantum woo card. Disappointingly, not much: 3 paragraphs. That's when he reaches the point where this common myth of observation-dependent reality is stated:
Now we know, however, that some events at a subatomic level are affected by whether there is an observing mind.

Not worth reading after that.
So, you disagree with the Copenhagen Interpretation? :mrgreen:
A myth even? Based on what new groundbreaking knowledge? :mrgreen:
No new "groundbreaking knowledge" needed. It is well known that "observation" in the context of QM can be made by a device, with complete absence of human intervention.

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137


"Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?" -John Stewart Bell, 1981, Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists. .


According to standard quantum mechanics, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process (Bell, John (2004). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy.


Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not." (Feynman, Richard).


So no, it it's not true that events at subatomic level depend on an observing mind. That's the woo interpretation.
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Physicalism is Wrong

Post by QuantumT »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:17 am No new "groundbreaking knowledge" needed. It is well known that "observation" in the context of QM can be made by a device, with complete absence of human intervention.
So you are completely ignorant of the results from the delayed quantum eraser expriment?
You are in fact smarter than Bohr, Heisenberg and Einstein combined?
Well, congratulations! When will you get your Nobel prize?

PS. Saying there's no human intervention in an experiment, is like saying there is no light at daytime. Idiotic!
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Why Physicalism is Wrong

Post by Arising_uk »

How's your house doing?
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Why Physicalism is Wrong

Post by uwot »

Arising_uk wrote: Sun Jun 24, 2018 10:06 pm Hi uwot,
Wotcher.
Arising_uk wrote: Sun Jun 24, 2018 10:06 pm
uwot wrote:... This is one way to conceptualise it (Can't remember who posted it first, but well done them.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ&t=304s ...
That was interesting and whilst I don't tend to do this it has led to a thought about such stuff which I hope you can tell me has been had before or not or is just nonsense. So, at the big stuff level the idea is that gravity is matter 'bending' or 'curving' 'spacetime' hence things don't follow Newton's path.
Well that was how Einstein originally intended it. The issue that some physicists have with it is that it is an ontological claim, and as we all know, ontology is metaphysics. Physicists are no different from the rest of us and have some absolute batshit ideas about ontology, but when they are doing the day job of actually making things work, they are instrumentalists. If they need the most accurate mathematical description of gravity, they turn to Einstein, because his field equations are more accurate than Newton's inverse square law. But that does not commit them to Einstein's ontological claim that spacetime is some actual stuff that is warped by matter. (Ever wondered how matter warps spacetime? Apparently nor did Einstein; ironically, it's spooky action at a distance.) Anyway, part of the ambivalence to the existence of spacetime in general relativity, is that special relativity is predicated on the assumption that it doesn't exist.
Arising_uk wrote: Sun Jun 24, 2018 10:06 pmGiven this, at the small stuff level an electron, for example, has mass so presumably 'it' too bends 'spacetime', now it also appears it oscillates so could the 'pilot wave' that people wish for be 'gravity waves' in 'spacetime' produced by the oscillation of the electron a la the way the oil particles act in the vid on the fluid but in this case the 'fluid' being 'spacetime'?
Maybe, but bearing in mind that LIGO can only detect incredibly violent events, we not likely to prove it anytime soon. You know how I think everything works. ( https://willijbouwman.blogspot.com for anyone who doesn't) All I'm saying really, is that 'spacetime' is the stuff that went bang 13 billion years ago-everything is made of this stuff, so there is no issue about how two different substances interact, and there is a relatively easy way to understand how particles 'emerge' and cause waves.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Why Physicalism is Wrong

Post by -1- »

uwot wrote: Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:38 amparticles 'emerge' and cause waves.
Those particles will yet one day emerge too much in too large numbers and rock the boat so much by causing waves that it will sink.

Whatever boat and sink are equivalent to in the imaginary concept of space-time which brought the world into motion.
Post Reply