ANightmareOnBakerSt t1_j9uffnz wrote
I think this comes down to semantics. Just because I come along and describe a bottle as a weapon and someone else describes it as an environmental disaster doesn’t mean that bottle is actually separate things.
There is a thing that bottle actually is. Though language may not be able to describe it wholly. And, just because we might come along and find different uses for the bottle or think up different ways to describe it, or maybe we even learn some new thing that is essential to its botttleness, this does not mean the bottle has changed in some fundamental way. The only thing that changes is the way we look at it, and describe it.
Otto_von_Boismarck t1_j9vn7cv wrote
There is no real "thing" called a bottle, there's just a collection of particles (or quantum disturbances, whatever the fundamental parts of our universe are, it's irrelevant really to the point) that we categorize as a bottle based on what functional purposes it can serve us. Those are based usually on the emergent phenomena that our brain can register from this collection of particles. It's a fundamental limit on the human psyche that we like to categorize stuff, when fundamentally these categories don't actually exist.
ANightmareOnBakerSt t1_j9wsg3m wrote
I call it a bottle only so that others may know what I am talking about. The actual word or wording I use for the name is irrelevant it could be bottle or botella if I was in Mexico. Saying it is a collection of particles, is just another way of describing the thing I am calling a bottle. If a less common used way of describing the thing that I am calling a bottle. It seems to me that your comment further proves that this is essentially a semantic issue.
Further, I would insist that the thing I am calling a bottle exists and I only describe it with the language I have using the data from my senses.
It seems to me though, that you seem to think, that the language I use, and the data I collect, from my senses are what the thing I am calling a bottle actually is.
The world around us is not the data from our senses. The data from our senses only informs us of what the world around us actually is.
Otto_von_Boismarck t1_j9ydgib wrote
Youre missing the point. There simply isn't an actual "thing" called a bottle, it's simply a category for a collection of extrinsic properties. The bottle only exists so far as it exists in the construct of your mind.
You keep trying to talk about this "thing" called a bottle, but it doesn't exist. I could use a flame thrower on the bottle and it would change into something entirely different, but would still broadly exist of the same subatomic particles. Just with different extrinsic properties, and therefore looking like something different to us.
Yes of course our mind doesn't actually make an accurate and realistic version of the universe. That's why we see "things" and not just clumps of fields interacting with each other. We can't actually see subatomic particles after all. But plenty of evidence suggests those exist.
ANightmareOnBakerSt t1_ja7cy2l wrote
Things either exist or they do not. It’s seems incoherent to say the bottle does not exist except in my mind and also to claim that thing in my mind exist as a bunch of fundamental particles. This seems to me what you are claiming is the case.
It is almost like you are saying the thing I am calling a bottle exists but not in the way I think it does. But, I do realize that the thing I am calling a bottle is made of a bunch of fundamental particles. It is just that is of no utility to me or anyone else to describe individual objects as a collection of fundamental particles, because that is such a general description that it could be used for any thing.
Otto_von_Boismarck t1_ja7o5qa wrote
Well no the mind is obviously also not real. It is also extrinsic. And our own mind interprets itself as a "thing". But regardless that wasn't the original subject of discussion. And yes you're right that it serves no utility. I don't deny that. The reason the human brain thinks in "things" is exactly because it serves a useful evolutionary purpose.
In general, it is a hard subject to talk about because our mind constantly wants to categorize EVERYTHING.
Edit: I have a way to explain it better. Essentially our mind constructs are an emergent property from our brain, while our brain itself emerged from biochemistry, while biochemistry emerged from chemistry and so on. They are all extrinsic, and somewhere down there there's "things" (again I use that terminology because our minds are simply limited in that way) that are in fact intrinsic. Electrons seem to be one for example. Meaning there is nothing that electrons themselves emerge from. And again, this might change based on developments in science.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j9x8ewt wrote
> There is no real "thing" called a bottle, there's just a collection of particle
That's what a "thing" entails. A collection of particles.
Yes, there is language and words concepts. But even when that gets played with and you call it a chupa, it doesn't change what it really is. The universe doesn't give two shits what's rumbling around your head.or what language you used. It existed long before you and that bottle will be around after your dead and just sitting in a land fill, probably.
Ugh, arguing with philosophers that reality exists. I need another beer.
hamz_28 t1_j9xwuok wrote
I don't think it's the existence of reality that's in question. Maybe the existence of mind-independent reality, or which properties are intrinsic to reality, but the existence of reality itself is pretty tough to argue against.
Otto_von_Boismarck t1_j9yedln wrote
Why do you people keep talking about language? That has nothing to do with the topic. Things are simply constructs of the human mind. A chair is only so much a chair as we all agree it is one. The universe as far as we know is made up of a bunch of intrinsic items (fields or whst have you) that create new emergent properties through a bunch of interactions we call extrinsic properties. And a collection of those extrinsic properties are in our brain constructed together to give the illusion that we are looking at a singular "thing", when such a thing in reality doesn't exist. It's a mind construct, useful at that, but a construct nonetheless.
I also don't deny reality exists. Quite the opposite. I'm a physicalist after all.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_ja015q5 wrote
>I also don't deny reality exists
Cool
>Things are simply constructs of the human mind.
Try to reconcile those two ideas.
If there were no human minds, would nothing exist in reality?
See, your whole stance is the philosophical take of social constructionism. Which has been watered down if late. For Berger and Luckmann circa 1966, it was the basis of reality. But this take isn't the defacto standard and I dunno how to tell you this any more plainly than a chupa exists as a chupa even when you don't know what a chupa is.
Otto_von_Boismarck t1_ja0lcva wrote
You seem to intentionally misinterpret my point. No I am not a social constructionist. A reality exists outside of our minds, that reality is just built up out of intrinsic objects (subatomic particles/quantum fields). Everything else is extrinsic and essentially emerges from interactions between those intrinsic items. Which includes anything the human mind can see. Therefore there isn't such a thing as a bottle, just a collection of subatomic particles/quantum fields that human minds like to construct into a cohesive object for purposes of survival.
My view lends some ideas from social constructivism however most of such constructivism is just inherently done by the brain, not necessarily defined through social interaction.
I am very aware of post modernism and social constructionism, don't need to explain it to me. My views are distinctly different even if surface level similar.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_ja0sjov wrote
>A reality exists outside of our minds, that reality is just built up out of intrinsic objects (subatomic particles/quantum fields)
Cool. Those subatomic particles (quarks) make atoms which make things. This is very straightforward and provable. If you want I can walk you through all the supporting evidence showing how stuff is made out of these fundamental particles.
> Everything else is extrinsic and essentially emerges from interactions between those intrinsic items. Which includes anything the human mind can see.
That's...... a social constructionist. The watered down one where "some things" are social constructs instead of everything. You've got two opposing views in your head.
>My view lends some ideas from social constructivism
"Borrow"
>most of such constructivism is just inherently done by the brain, not necessarily defined through social interaction.
A distinction that I'm not sure matters. A solipsistic take on social constructionism isn't really awe inspiring. I'm wholly unimpressed by both. They're misdirection at best. Let's take "the obvious example" of money. If people don't agree something is money (or you personally don't think it is), then it can't be used as money. And yes, something being a means of exchanging wealth does depend upon there being an exchange, implying two entities, and therefore a society. I get the concept. But far far too many people use and abuse this idea to justify the end conclusion of "it doesn't really exist" / "doesn't really matter" / "I just really like post-modernism". Like how social darwinism or eugenics were used and abused by terrible people to justify their murder. The scientific or philosophical application of these ideas is just a cover. A distraction from the real intent. Now, that's unfair to you. And it's unfair to all the eugenicists who want a better species. I am throwing out the baby with the bathwater here because the baby is bad. (haha, it's a eugenics joke. Cmon that's funny.) But social construction (and your idea of solipsistic construction) isn't that useful and has been too far abused to be publicly lauded. Extensions like including things which don't depend on social agreement, or things in general. Which is nuts.
And don't dodge it: If there were no human minds, would nothing exist in reality?
Otto_von_Boismarck t1_ja0wyfc wrote
> If there were no human minds, would nothing exist in reality?
Reality would exist, just as it always has, made up of a bunch of intrinsic particles/fields that interact with each other. And those interactions in turn are what emerges the rest of reality from. You're trying to gotcha me where there is nothing to gotcha.
> But far far too many people use and abuse this idea to justify the endconclusion of "it doesn't really exist" / "doesn't really matter" / "Ijust really like post-modernism".
I'm wholly uninterested in arguing about ethics, or how something being real or not somehow makes it matter or not. Whether reality is real or not to me has no bearing on how much any of it matters. If you disagree that's fine, that's your prerogative. I'm basically a socialist so wouldn't exactly call myself a eugenicist or against most values western society tends to hold right now. Actually, my worldview would imply that human subjective experience is a rare gift that if anything, we should hold dear. Again though, I'm not interested in formalizing or overthinking ethics. I've been through that already, it's boring.
In addition, I don't care in what way my views are "useful in broader society". In my view it's simply a description of reality.
> A distinction that I'm not sure matters.
Well, it does matter. The color "red" in the way I experience it is something that is constructed by the brain, while the concept of the color red, in the way we describe it and try to communicate the experience to other people would be a social construct. There's a pretty clear difference between the two, wouldn't you agree?
I'll be honest I've had a short post-modernist arc but it got pretty boring, it's a philosophical dead end broadly, same with solipsism. I also find it absurd how you accuse me of solipsism when I'm pretty clearly stating (at least that's how I feel) that my experience of reality is as real as any other, meaning, not "real", just an emergent phenomenon from a whole host of complex interactions. This personally does not bother me, if it bothers you then...I'm sorry?
I'm sure you're well aware yourself but you should turn it down with the straw man fallacies, it's not a very intellectual way of engaging and doesn't seem very productive to me. Your response didn't seem to hold much substance except for accusations. So please respond with substance and proper argumentation instead if you would.
krussell25 t1_j9whzfm wrote
If bottles don't exist, does anything exist?
Otto_von_Boismarck t1_j9wld4k wrote
Objects with intrinsic properties exist. Which would be whatever are the foundational blocks of all of reality. Quantum fields or what have you. Everything else is extrinsic, so are emerging from those quantum fields interacting with each other. Kind of like how everything on our computer screens are just bits switching on and off.
GepardenK t1_j9xg72u wrote
> Which would be whatever are the foundational blocks of all of reality. Quantum fields or what have you.
Since you seem to be appealing to empirical concepts I feel compelled to point out that according to empiricism this idea that only the smallest components represent reality is just flat out wrong.
Empiricism holds that there is no universal reference frame. Empiricism even go as far as saying, some would argue to a fault, that apriori knowledge doesn't exist at all - i.e. nothing can be said to be true independent of experience.
Thus: the quantum level, or what have you, have no more claim to truth than the cosmic level or any other frame. If a property, like solidness, exists in one frame but not the other then that in no way invalidates it's existence. According to empiricism something is real if it can be experienced; scale matters not.
It is tempting to think that "smaller is truer" because we usually have to go smaller when following the arrow of causality. But finding the origin of causality just means finding the origin of causality; it dosen't make it any more or less true than any other phenomena.
Otto_von_Boismarck t1_j9yfeoh wrote
I don't disagree with your point, however my definition of "realness" hinges on the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic properties. And current scientific knowledge does seem to imply there is stuff with intrinsic properties, where interactions between them generates everything we feel, see, and experience in this universe.
I personally also don't put any "virtue" in something being real or not. I couldn't give a rat's ass if the universe was a simulation or a dream for example. Or what have you. So that's why I'm confused as to why people are such ardent defenders in this sub? The fact that all our experiences just arise from almost infinitely complex interactions between infinitesimally small objects is quite beautiful, in my opinion.
Edit: Also my definition isn't based on something as silly as "smallest". It's based on something that is INTRINSIC, meaning that it's something that can't be subdivider into smaller parts and that itself isn't an emergent property of other interactions. Some intrinsic items can be bigger than others. Electrons for example seem to be intrinsic, even though they're interacting with other extrinsic properties all the time. Size or whatever is irrelevant. If there was a huge intrinsic particle the size of a human that we could see, it would still be real vs unreal things.
plateauphase t1_ja4k5eh wrote
"current scientific knowledge does seem to imply there is stuff with intrinsic properties, where interactions between them generates everything we feel, see, and experience in this universe."
contrariwise, the standard model, as currently understood through QFT doesn't clearly motivate the existence of corpuscular, individual, intrinsic existents/properties. that's a folk ontology sourced myth. there's a really good book about this, called 'every thing must go' by james ladyman and don ross. also interdependence - biology and beyond by kriti sharma
+ these two articles sketch out some serious difficulties with interpreting QFT and its predictive success and physicalism -
[1] -- does the mathematical nature of physics underline physicalism?
[2] -- what is real?
you also connected your opinion with statements about how experientiality - phenomenal consciousness arises/appears, but physicalist theorizing about consciousness so far has been woefully unclear regarding precise mechanisms and lacking empirical substantiation. the hard problem cannot be handwaved away, the difference between qualitative and quantitative is a principled one, where the latter is an attribute of the former as far as we can know, so attempting to pull out the territory from the map is understandably 'difficult'.
Otto_von_Boismarck t1_ja56oaw wrote
If it turns out there isn't anything intrinsic, I'm willing to change my view. Doesn't bother me. But it seems unlikely to me that reality just keeps going smaller ad infinitum. Nothing seems to suggest that, thus with current scientific knowledge it seems like a reasonable conclusion. I also didn't mean to suggest that necessarily it has to be interactions between separate intrinsic items. I just phrased it like that for simplicity's sake. It could also just be a singular intrinsic field with disturbances throughout it, or something else entirely. Just one or several "things" that are intrinsic. I never decided to focus on this point because it's, well, irrelevant.
Also it is my understanding that QTF hasn't actually proven itself as a solid framework as of yet. Regardless that's besides the point.
Hard problem of consciousness isn't a hard problem at all. I never found any of the arguments particularly engaging. Of course figuring out how consciousness emerges is difficult. Doesn't mean there is reason to believe it somehow arises through magic. Absence of evidence of it being an emergent property is not evidence of absence. People used to think the earth was the centre of the universe and now idealists and what have you think the same about consciousness. Please, get real.
The whole consciousness conversation is just boring. Simply a matter of waiting for science to explain it, nothing more.
[deleted] t1_j9vonuv wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments