'Impossible Object' based on the Penrose Triangle: An Examples of a Visuo-Cognitive Illusion. It Shows how easily human perceptions based on intuition can be fooled. |
Comparison of paradoxes: to discriminate between the 'Cognitive Paradox' and the 'Logical Paradox'
Now Paradox 1 (P1) is, as I’ve already pointed out a readily recognizable case of reasoning that appears satisfactory upon a casual run through the mind but reduces to a self-entangled mess upon serious reflection. To re-iterate... this is what is an ACTUAL case of a paradox.
Whereas Paradox 2 (P2) is, I would contend, only an ‘Apparent Paradox’ while actually being a perfectly legitimate logical scenario with no necessary falsehoods. Surely it does exude unmistakable paradoxedness for many people… and that is precisely what I’d account for.
Whereas Paradox 2 (P2) is, I would contend, only an ‘Apparent Paradox’ while actually being a perfectly legitimate logical scenario with no necessary falsehoods. Surely it does exude unmistakable paradoxedness for many people… and that is precisely what I’d account for.
De-constructing the Cognitive Illusion of ‘Beginnings and Ends’
a.) Differentiatedness of Cognition
The origin of this strong “feeling” or “sense” or “intuition” of a paradox, the paradoxedness therein, lays in one of the most fundamental features of human cognition, in fact it may be said, in the very foundational quality of human cognition – THE DIFFERENTIATEDNESS OF THE COGNITIVE FIELD. (which gives rise to certain ‘cognitive order(s)’ i.e. intrinsic patterns… that we ‘impose’ on the world of experience to cognitively apprehend it… we’ll come to this part later!!!)
Cognitive field here is the sum total of all that one cognizes, i.e. the total aggregate Sentience of a being, Experience considered in its phenomenological fullness!! To now grasp what Differentiatedness means, it’d do us good to begin by thinking counterfactually, so we’d first attempt to define what Undifferentiatedness of the cognitive field could mean!
Undifferentiated is a cognitive field without any differentiation, without any cognitive contours, without any cognitive definition, without any foreground-background relation, without any object-subject dichotomy, without any gradient of intensity, without any Qualia…. In fact it is a cognitive field approaching (but not equal to) Non-Sentience or Non-Cognition or “Cognitive Nothingness” … While Differentiation is the original process that generates “Cognitive Thingness”!
Undifferentiated is a cognitive field without any differentiation, without any cognitive contours, without any cognitive definition, without any foreground-background relation, without any object-subject dichotomy, without any gradient of intensity, without any Qualia…. In fact it is a cognitive field approaching (but not equal to) Non-Sentience or Non-Cognition or “Cognitive Nothingness” … While Differentiation is the original process that generates “Cognitive Thingness”!
b.) Differentiatedness Instantiated: A case of a single nerve cell!!
(Explaining how Differentiatedness is necessary for ANY information processing system including human cognition)
(Explaining how Differentiatedness is necessary for ANY information processing system including human cognition)
Take for instance a rather simple cognitive architecture of a single nerve cell of the retinal ganglia in isolation. It (single isolated nerve cell of the retinal ganglia) is constitutionally capable only of registering a change in the electric potential of the pshyio-chemical reaction that occurs on the retinal wall of the eye when electromagnetic radiation falls on it. Now consider the
first case,
where any other force field, other than electromagnetic, were to fall on the retinal wall of the eye or even If electromagnetic force field below or above the frequency of the visible spectrum were to fall on it, there will be absolutely no pshyio-chemical reaction in the retinal wall and consequently no electrical potential generated and nothing registered by the nerve cell of the retinal ganglia under consideration. As far as the single isolated nerve cell is concerned this is a case of non-cognition… of cognitive nothingness. Now consider the
second case,
where there is indeed a genuine energy change detected by the nerve cell, this is a case of information (encoded in a pattern of energy change) being cognized by the neuron. The physical event corresponding to cognition by the neuron is – the ENERGY CHANGE inside the protoplasm of the cell. Now since we only considered an isolated nerve cell it is possible, for any SPECIFIED TIME, to enumerate the possible ‘states of cognition’ for it by enumerating all the possible physical events that correspond to a ‘state of cognition’ ,viz.
first case,
where any other force field, other than electromagnetic, were to fall on the retinal wall of the eye or even If electromagnetic force field below or above the frequency of the visible spectrum were to fall on it, there will be absolutely no pshyio-chemical reaction in the retinal wall and consequently no electrical potential generated and nothing registered by the nerve cell of the retinal ganglia under consideration. As far as the single isolated nerve cell is concerned this is a case of non-cognition… of cognitive nothingness. Now consider the
second case,
where there is indeed a genuine energy change detected by the nerve cell, this is a case of information (encoded in a pattern of energy change) being cognized by the neuron. The physical event corresponding to cognition by the neuron is – the ENERGY CHANGE inside the protoplasm of the cell. Now since we only considered an isolated nerve cell it is possible, for any SPECIFIED TIME, to enumerate the possible ‘states of cognition’ for it by enumerating all the possible physical events that correspond to a ‘state of cognition’ ,viz.
No Cognition: Resting Electrical Potential (Pr)
Cognition: Activation Potential (Pa)
(Energy Change in this case = Pa – Pr , where Pr>Pa)
It is not hard to imagine that more information can be cognized using such a cognitive architecture by encoding information into various ‘degrees of freedom’ still available to us… that is to say by ‘differentiation of parameters over time’ we can still encode an impressive complexity of information in this system having only two possible states of cognition at a given time.
So,
Intensity of stimulus can be encoded as ‘Frequency of Activation’...
Timbre/Hue of a stimulus can be encoded as the ‘Number’ (amount) and ‘Location’ (relative position) of the different neurons firing. (Frequency, Number and Location being the parameters that are differentiated over time).
Further information can be encoded and decoded by a higher circuitry which performs a meta-analysis of the primary data (which the brain does in the case of vision).
So,
Intensity of stimulus can be encoded as ‘Frequency of Activation’...
Timbre/Hue of a stimulus can be encoded as the ‘Number’ (amount) and ‘Location’ (relative position) of the different neurons firing. (Frequency, Number and Location being the parameters that are differentiated over time).
Further information can be encoded and decoded by a higher circuitry which performs a meta-analysis of the primary data (which the brain does in the case of vision).
This is thus an example of a simple cognitive system which is differentiated only along one gradient (of Electrical Potential) and only in Discreeet Quantums of energy (of fixed activation potential) which can encode for fantastic amount of complexity presented to it by the external world as stimulus in form of energy changes – i.e. a single cell is capable of cognizing by differentiating the world external to it into changing-not changing, more intense-less intense, this-that characteristic signature of the stimulus pattern!!!
The point I wish to make is that of presenting this as an example of a system that is MINIMALLY DIFFERENTIATED and
....that the complexity of the information cognized herein is a direct function of the extent of Differentiation of the cognitive field.
Differentiation leads to expansion of the “cognition possibility-space”. Just imagine in contrast that the human brain has at least a 100 billion neurons (and of many many distinct kinds) and trillions of interconnections among them… And if a single cell (of a single kind) is as potent a cognitive system as we just discerned then what must be the staggering ‘cognition possibility-space’ of the brain??
The point I wish to make is that of presenting this as an example of a system that is MINIMALLY DIFFERENTIATED and
....that the complexity of the information cognized herein is a direct function of the extent of Differentiation of the cognitive field.
Differentiation leads to expansion of the “cognition possibility-space”. Just imagine in contrast that the human brain has at least a 100 billion neurons (and of many many distinct kinds) and trillions of interconnections among them… And if a single cell (of a single kind) is as potent a cognitive system as we just discerned then what must be the staggering ‘cognition possibility-space’ of the brain??
Anyhow, the point is that ‘Beginnings and Ends’ is a ‘differentiation template’ of our cognitive system, in other words, ‘Beginnings and Ends’ is ...
>>>>>> an epistemological basis of ‘cognition’, but NOT an ontological basis of the ‘thing cognized’ <<<<<<
c.) ‘Beginnings and Ends’: The genesis of a cognitive template!!
I am referring here to ‘Beginnings and Ends’ as basic design feature of human cognitive architecture, so basic so as to enthymematically constitute EVERY act, event and instance of cognition… like an unstated premise!!
We humans exist in the meso-scale universe… and are subject to the laws of physics as they apply to the meso-scale universe. (that is why we do not cognize the phenomena of quantum physics or general relativity as they occur on the micro- and the macro- scale respectively). In fact, not only do we currently exist, but have always existed in the meso-scale universe… not only us but ALL of our evolutionary ancestors back to the very first single celled organisms between 3 to 3.5 billion years ago!!!
By extension, it is fairly simple to imagine that the entire GENESIS and EVOLUTION of the human cognitive system is embedded in this meso-scale universe and, obviously, is directed at cognizing better and better the phenomena of the meso-scale universe as that will cause a survival advantage to accrue to the better ‘Cognizer’. (just for instance the ability of the bats to cognize the environmental phenomena using Non-EM pressure waves allow them to “see” at night!!)
To understand completely the human cognitive architectural features, it is imperative to examine the architectural features of the meso-scale universe on earth, the advantage in cognizing which, was the driving force for the evolution of all cognitive systems on earth (including the human one).
In the unbelievably long evolutionary arc...
starting from simple single-celled life-forms which may have needed to cognize no more than the difference between luminosities of two adjoining regions in their proximate space…. ranging to the complex life-forms like land-dwelling social mammals which need to cognize a vast array of phenomena in their environmental matrix including (but not limited to) recognizing distinct individuals of their group, discerning the semantic content of the species-specific communications systems etc;
….we have many ‘Common Cognitive Denominators’ that underlie the Universal Cognitive Imperatives of living in the meso-scale earth! One of them is ‘Beginnings and Ends’!
Our cognitive apparatus evolved to enable functioning in a terrestrial environment and can often lead us astray |
1. All phenomena is composed of energy and matter (where both energy and matter are ‘informationally represented’ in the cognition)
2. It is beyond reasonable doubt that in known universe energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed but only transformed.
3. Nothing comes from Nothing i.e. Nothingness does not contain the potential for Somethingness. Only Something can lead to Something!
2. It is beyond reasonable doubt that in known universe energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed but only transformed.
3. Nothing comes from Nothing i.e. Nothingness does not contain the potential for Somethingness. Only Something can lead to Something!
…It becomes clear from a joint consideration of premises 1, 2 and 3 above that the mass-energy substrate of all phenomena is an unbegining, unoriginating and also unending, unterminating reality… it is perplexing that the ‘Beginnings and End’ template can (and is) indeed applied to a logically unbegining and unending phenomena by us humans all the time!!!
On closer observation we accomplish an understanding that it is NOT the mass-energy substrate itself that is an object of our cognition and thus the canvass of our template of ‘Beginning and Ends’ BUT the object of our cognition is the various organizations/arrangements of that mass-energy substrate at the meso-scale... its various dynamics, its various configurations, its multiplexed matrices!!
On closer observation we accomplish an understanding that it is NOT the mass-energy substrate itself that is an object of our cognition and thus the canvass of our template of ‘Beginning and Ends’ BUT the object of our cognition is the various organizations/arrangements of that mass-energy substrate at the meso-scale... its various dynamics, its various configurations, its multiplexed matrices!!
For instance …we cognize changes in pressure fields in the air as sound! In its ontological basicality, sound is not a phenomenon ‘out there’… but a mass-energy substrate CONFIGURATION of a particular quality (the quality that is encoded specifically in pressure changes and decoded by auditory circuitry in the brain). ‘Sound’ thus is NOT the cognizance of the mass-energy substrate itself, BUT a cognizance of the configuration!!
Even the most mysterious phenomena in the meso-scale world.... Human Beings .... are merely a peculiar and complex Configuration of the mass-energy substrate!!
(Quoting from an earlier post).....
Human body is scant more than a metastable atomic configuration of an endothermically balanced open energy system - which is to say that it is a set of processes encapsulated in a vessel which continuously needs to consume energy to self-perpetuate, else it decays. It is just as subject to the universal tendency to chaos, i.e. thermodynamic entropy, as anything else is. Entropy, as the initiated would know, is a measure of disorder in any system, and for a system that is isolated (as human body is from its surroundings) it ALWAYS increases. Any system then, including the human body, will sustain only as long as the systemic entropy is overpowered by a net positive consumption of energy, which happens recurrently in our bodies as we burn organic compounds (mostly compound sugars)
Even the most mysterious phenomena in the meso-scale world.... Human Beings .... are merely a peculiar and complex Configuration of the mass-energy substrate!!
(Quoting from an earlier post).....
Human body is scant more than a metastable atomic configuration of an endothermically balanced open energy system - which is to say that it is a set of processes encapsulated in a vessel which continuously needs to consume energy to self-perpetuate, else it decays. It is just as subject to the universal tendency to chaos, i.e. thermodynamic entropy, as anything else is. Entropy, as the initiated would know, is a measure of disorder in any system, and for a system that is isolated (as human body is from its surroundings) it ALWAYS increases. Any system then, including the human body, will sustain only as long as the systemic entropy is overpowered by a net positive consumption of energy, which happens recurrently in our bodies as we burn organic compounds (mostly compound sugars)
So even while mass-energy have NO beginnings and NO ends, the configurations of mass-energy substrate DO have beginnings and ends. ALL evolutionarily relevant phenomena are different configurations of this mass-energy substrate and thus can be apprehended by cognition using the template of ‘Beginings and Ends’ even while the underlying reality need not (and CANNOT) have any beginning and end.
In Conclusion...
This is akin to other cognitive paradoxes that prevented humanity from chancing upon the General Theory of Relativity or the Laws of Quantum Physics till so recently in our history as a cognizing species.
Ames Room: Just because it "looks and feels" right.. it aint so!! |
The cognitive illusion of ‘Beginnings and Ends’ is thus a most intuitive, a most fundamental design feature of our cognition that allows us to cognize configurational phenomena… NOTWITHSTANDING that it does lead us astray at times … most prominently in fallaciously assuming the ‘Beginings and Ends’ template to apply to the origins of the mass-energy substrate of the universe!!!!
Coming to the point of the article, so while the paradox 1(P!) discussed in part 1 of the article is a logical paradox that ought to be treated as such … the paradox 2 (P2) is merely a cognitive paradox that does not take away form the logical integrity of the formulation… and as such the alternative position of ‘the Unbegining and Unending universe’ logically superior to the one presented by the ‘Cosmological Argument’.
End of Article
19 comments:
Ok I'm all scatterbrains right now coz what I'd written previously didn't get posted.
Anyway...
So earlier in the fb post, you'd said that the Big-bang was not the beginning. What I meant was the beginning of the space-time continuum. But of course, before the big-bang *something* had to reach the point of singularity -- the big crunch before the big bang. Big-bang may not have been the moment of creation (my term, since I'm arguing that it was 'created', and I'm distinguishing between creation and efficient material causation). Here, of course, one could tide over the objection that whether it makes sense to say *before* the big bang, since time began at the big-bang. However, space and time are just metaphysical abstractions intruding into our empirical world , according to Einstein, who said without matter there wouldn't be space or time. So taking that into account, we're using *before* as logically prior and not temporally prior.
So I think we can agree on one thing here: that *something* has always existed -- whether the uni-dimensional strings that are the basis of all reality, posited by string theory OR *God*, the basis of all reality, posited by the CA.
Now if you invoke Hume's concatenation and say causality and beginning-endings are illusions, or coincidences, then you'd have to reject any sort of cosmology or natural sciences. There's really no way around it; he pulled the plug out on the natural sciences and we survived the trip only coz scientists were paying lip service to Hume and co.
Another thing, it makes more sense to apply 'beginning-ending' traits to the universe. The universe is not a thing in itself (ding an sich) but a collection or set of things. Of everything we can or cannot know. A collection or set exists when any of its members exists. Hence, we're perfectly validated in using *causality* and *beginning-ending*.
But one may very well ask why we need logic and reason, a human construct, to explain existence itself. But that would be betraying the spirit of philosophical and scientific enquiry, which I presume you value highly.
On a digressive note, science can only tell us about things that exist, but not about existence itself. Even if you tried, first you'd have to prove an objective universe exists -- a claim that cannot be arrived at by the scientific method. But one always takes it on faith, an assumption at the best. Science can only tell us about efficient material causation, but not why there is such a law in the first place.
One goes where the evidence leads, but what you're saying amounts to dismantling the very boat in which we're sailing in this vast ocean of uncertainty.
I think we could lay down the cards this way, 3 contenders so to speak, at least one of which is most likely.
A) Our 13.7 billion-year-old space-time continuum is all there is
B) An infinite number of universes exists, each with varying initial conditions and laws
C) There is a metaphysical entity, a transcendent cause that brought everything into being
If we're clear on this, we could take this forward.
Best!
Yaar.. I get the general impression that you have under-understood my propositions and substituted for that understanding some of the historical positions on this debate.... which as it do not have any bearing on my stance.
A few calrifications, lest my position be force-fitted into a false historical mould.
1. Big-Bang was certainly NOT the logical beginning of everything. No cosmologist of any repute will assert that today. (NO ONE!!!)
and my point in fact was that... there CAN BE NO beginning of everything.
2. On time-space. Directionality of Time (i.e. the appearance of time moving from past to future) that delineates our empirical universe is, in the most accurate scientific view thus far, a Low Entropy Fluctuation of mass-energy equivalence gradually unfolding towards Higher Entropy Thermodynamic Equilibrium. Ergo, once the universe is at theermodynamic equilibrium then Time will lose any directionality and will just fluctuate randomly about a mean (which in abstract metaphysical lexicon would mean end of the past-present-future distinction). Infact, the laws of physics, as we know them, are anyway time-invariant. this directionality is only a macroscopic phenomena for systems in disequilirium. (quantum phenomena have fluctuating time not linear time)
3. It is INCORRECT to say that Universe as whole is not a thing-in-itself or at least that it cannot be considered as such. Universe as a whole is, as far as current understanding goes, the most perfect example of a closed system, and as such a most suitable phenom for being considered a thing-in-itself ...a noumena as opposed to a phenomena.
anything at all infact, be it a set of other things, can perfectly legitimately be considered a thing in-itself insofar it is considered as a whole set.
4. I NEVER questioned causlity anywhere in my post. Nothing i Say leads to a contradiction of causality. Thus the question of comparing my position with Hume doesnt arise.
IN fact i hold causality to be a most fundamental handle we have on the implicate order in the "unfolding of the universe" and it is a very real physical/epitemic correlate of the 'equilibrating' universe.
5. 'begining-end' can be applies ONLY to configurations. that is to say, if one were to consider string theory or some variant of it, to only the 'configurations' that the strings take and NOT the strings themselves.
so insofar the universe is a giant configuration of strings... the universe as a whole can be subject to 'begining-end' but NOT the strings themselves.
In fact this logic is inherent in the structure of reason itself. You CAN not have ANYTHING at all unless SOMETHING at all has always existed.
6. The point about natural sciences being rid of their essential premise is completely fasle and, far as im concerned, represents the most gross misunderstanding on your part.
For scientific inquiry, we only need the 'configuarations' (i.e. phenomena), and assume an inherent order in arrangement between the phenom that make the phenomena. (where one phenom is temporality)
it has NO bearing on possibility of scientific enquiry, that the substrate of which the phenomena is a configuration is without a begining-end.
It is enough to pay attention to this simple example to understand the logic of this. 'Sound' can be scientifically studied even if we assume that the energy that constitutes the sound is eternally conserved(which it is).What BEGINS is 'sound' the phenomena but energy ( the substrate of that sound) has no beginning in the sense of temporal origination.
I don't see how you even begin to draw inferences of the sort you did above from this.
7. Finally, i have pointed out that evolutionary origin of the non-intuitiveness of this idea in Part 2. I think that sufficiently accounts for any psychological dis-ease that this position might initially cause.
let me know if i have clarified my position. if i have then you can re-formualte your position and we can take it from there.
Perhaps you might like this :D
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven
Yaar.. I get the general impression that you have under-understood my propositions and substituted in place of that understanding some of the historical positions on this debate.... which as it is, do not have any bearing on my stance.
A few calrifications, lest my position be force-fitted into a false historical mould.
1. Big-Bang was certainly NOT the logical beginning of everything. No cosmologist of any repute will assert that today. (NO ONE!!!)
and my point in fact was that... there CAN BE NO beginning of everything.
2. On time-space. Directionality of Time (i.e. the appearance of time moving from past to future) that delineates our empirical universe is, in the most accurate scientific view thus far, a Low Entropy Fluctuation of mass-energy equivalence gradually unfolding towards Higher Entropy Thermodynamic Equilibrium. Ergo, once the universe is at theermodynamic equilibrium then Time will lose any directionality and will just fluctuate randomly about a mean (which in abstract metaphysical lexicon would mean end of the past-present-future distinction). Infact, the laws of physics, as we know them, are anyway time-invariant. this directionality is only a macroscopic phenomena for systems in disequilirium. (quantum phenomena have fluctuating time not linear time)
3. It is INCORRECT to say that Universe as whole is not a thing-in-itself or at least that it cannot be considered as such. Universe as a whole is, as far as current understanding goes, the most perfect example of a closed system, and as such a most suitable phenom for being considered a thing-in-itself ...a noumena as opposed to a phenomena.
anything at all infact, be it a set of other things, can perfectly legitimately be considered a thing in-itself insofar it is considered as a whole
contd from above...
4. I NEVER questioned causlity anywhere in my post. Nothing i Say leads to a contradiction of causality. Thus the question of comparing my position with Hume doesnt arise.
IN fact i hold causality to be a most fundamental handle we have on the implicate order in the "unfolding of the universe" and it is a very real physical/epitemic correlate of the 'equilibrating' universe.
5. 'begining-end' can be applies ONLY to configurations. that is to say, if one were to consider string theory or some variant of it, to only the 'configurations' that the strings take and NOT the strings themselves.
so insofar the universe is a giant configuration of strings... the universe as a whole can be subject to 'begining-end' but NOT the strings themselves.
In fact this logic is inherent in the structure of reason itself. You CAN not have ANYTHING at all unless SOMETHING at all has always existed.
6. The point about natural sciences being rid of their essential premise is completely fasle and, far as im concerned, represents the most gross misunderstanding on your part.
For scientific inquiry, we only need the 'configuarations' (i.e. phenomena), and assume an inherent order in arrangement between the phenom that make the phenomena. (where one phenom is temporality)
it has NO bearing on possibility of scientific enquiry, that the substrate of which the phenomena is a configuration is without a begining-end.
It is enough to pay attention to this simple example to understand the logic of this. 'Sound' can be scientifically studied even if we assume that the energy that constitutes the sound is eternally conserved(which it is).What BEGINS is 'sound' the phenomena but energy ( the substrate of that sound) has no beginning in the sense of temporal origination.
I don't see how you even begin to draw inferences of the sort you did above from this.
7. Finally, i have pointed out that evolutionary origin of the non-intuitiveness of this idea in Part 2. I think that sufficiently accounts for any psychological dis-ease that this position might initially cause.
let me know if i have clarified my position. if i have then you can re-formualte your position and we can take it from there
1)
"Big-Bang was certainly NOT the logical beginning of everything. No cosmologist of any repute will assert that today. (NO ONE!!!")
Most cosmologists' attempts at theories describing the pre big-bang cosmos are, at the very best, speculations. Mathematical models can only be an ontological basis for truth; one can't confer efficient causation on them (mathematics is causally inert). String theory, M-theory, multiverse -- all show some kind of desperation on part of physicists to explain things away. And when they come up with "our current universe evolved from a 4-dimensional emptier, smaller de Sitter universe" kind of stuff, we definitely know they're taking the piss out on us common folks.
And then we have the great Stephen Hawking who takes one step ahead and boldly asserts: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing". There, he just defied your earlier claim that nothing can come out of nothing. But one also wonders whether laws pre-exist matter in a Platonist form sort of way :) And one is also forced to wonder how gravity could even arise in the absence of matter and energy.
Now he says millions of such universes can spontaneously spring forth, and have been doing so. Anyway, they've left the empirical domain, so the best they can do now is pen best-sellers for mass consumption. However, there are atheist-cosmologists who do not agree with string theory or the multiverse (Lee Smolin).
Anyway, going by empirical evidence, I'll put my money on the Big-bang until demonstrable evidence points to something else. So far, there is ZERO evidence for any alternative.
But how do you account for the beginning in the big-bang? Going by your model, you are either pre-supposing laws that allow such transformations to take place, or you assume that the physical substrates are laws by themselves. But don't you know, chess pieces by themselves cannot account for the rules of the game?
2)
"It is INCORRECT to say that Universe as whole is not a thing-in-itself or at least that it cannot be considered as such...."
Wrong, wrong and wrong. If the universe is the set of everything we know, and this set is a thing-in-itself, then that makes the universe a member of its own set. And thus you reach Russell’s paradox – a thing cannot be a member of its own set.
3)"....and as such the alternative position of ‘the Unbegining and Unending universe’ logically superior to the one presented by the ‘Cosmological Argument’."
If you look at Aquinas’ refined Cosmological Argument, he had made the case for an eternal universe. He always thought the universe was eternal – because he knew of no philosophical proofs to prove the contrary. So his argument already allows for an eternal universe, so the CA is in no grave danger. An eternal universe will still need a beginning. It is entirely conceivable to think of a series of email forwards that can go on forever, provided there is someone to do it. However, one would need a starting point.
Both Aristotle and Aquinas made this argument from efficient *essential causation*. They distinguished it from *accidental causation* which could go on forever, but for an *essentially-ordered* series, the antecedent cause and every cause prior to it must still remain in motion. For e.g. a saxophonist playing a tune. The player breathes into the reed, the reed vibrates causing air to vibrate in the chamber, which amplifies the sound and we hear the tune. At any point, if the saxophonist ceases to blow, the music will stop. But an accidental series is different and it can go on forever: like a domino effect. Domino A topples Domino B topples Domino C. For B to topple C, A need only move once. Then it might as well wink out of existence, but B will go on to topple C, which will move D and so on and so forth.
According to Aristotle and Aquinas, the universe is *essentially-ordered* and hence, there always needs to be a first mover, an uncaused cause that keeps everything going. This series may have been going on for an eternity, but it still needs the First Cause or the prime mover.
4) "so insofar the universe is a giant configuration of strings... the universe as a whole can be subject to 'begining-end' but NOT the strings themselves."
Where or what is your evidence for this assertion? Or rather, assumption.
5)"For scientific inquiry, we only need the 'configuarations' (i.e. phenomena), and assume an inherent order in arrangement between the phenom that make the phenomena. (where one phenom is temporality)"
Yep, you say it yourself that we "assume an inherent order in the configurations". Without this assumption, one couldn't do science. But assumptions are no different from faith, maybe less credible than faith but not greater than faith.
To quote Robert Spitzer, author of New Proofs for the Existence of God: "when the logical and metaphysical necessity of an efficient cause, the demonstrable absence of a material one, and the proof that there was an absolute beginning to any universe or multiverse are all conjoined with the fact that our universe exists and its conditions are fine-tuned immeasurably beyond the capacity of any mindless process, the scientific evidence points inexorably toward transcendent intelligent agency as the most plausible, if not the only reasonable explanation.”
Right mate!! The post above helps.. as earlier I thought you were approximately correct and now I see that you are exactly incorrect.
Before I go on to list all the faults, or at least the major ones, I’d again deplore the lack of consideration on your part of my point of view as expounded in the articles above. In general, you still seem to be responding to points and arguments that I have not made… and I suspect it is because you are attempting to contextualize my points and arguments in a readily accessible but logically inappropriate historical frame of reference.
Anyway…. Moving on to specifics:
1. “Most cosmologists' attempts at theories describing the pre big-bang cosmos are, at the very best, speculations ……. smaller de Sitter universe" kind of stuff, we definitely know they're taking the piss out on us common folks.”
You are responding to an assertion of the kind: science has all the answers to the questions about pre-bigbang existence.
Whereas my point was an assertion of the kind: there indeed HAS TO BE a pre-bigbang existence. (with no claim as to the status of knowledge about it)
I hope you see the misapprehension on your part.
2. “And then we have the great Stephen Hawking who takes one step ahead and boldly asserts: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing"………However, there are atheist-cosmologists who do not agree with string theory or the multiverse (Lee Smolin).”
Just to get it out of the way as this point has nothing to do with our discussion – The controversy between Lee Smolin and Brian Greene is the controversy in the physics orthodoxy on the question of which theory is a better candidate for a theory everything - the Superstring/M theory or a suitable theory of Quantum Gravity.
Coming back to Hawkins.. he DID not contradict what I said… in fact you sir!! Did not read neither Hawkins carefully nor what I wrote in my article. While Hawkins is talking of the energy-neutrality of space-time and NOT of primordial metaphysical nothingness that you seem to infer from his claim. (a claim that was published on a forum and in a language meant patently for mass consumption). Also… allow me to quote verbatim from part I of my article
“If the universe does come out of some primordial emptiness… then it can be concluded that THAT emptiness contained the potentiality of a universe and thus …was NOT nothing”
Ergo, there is no contradictory entanglement of my position with that of Hawkins’
3. “Wrong, wrong and wrong. If the universe is the set of everything we know, and this set is a thing-in-itself, then that makes the universe a member of its own set. And thus you reach Russell’s paradox – a thing cannot be a member of its own set.”
Do you even know what thing-in-itself means?? I suspect not!
Allow me to clarify the meaning of Ding-an-sich - in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) or the Noumena is the contra-distinctory part(and thus opposed to) what Kant called the phenomenon - the thing as it appears to an observer. Kant postulated this in the course of discursive forays into the possibility and validity of a rational epistemology.
Ergo, anything (including the universe or any part of it) as it is within the phenomenal field of an observer, is a phenomena and as it is without the phenomenal field of an observer, is a noumena or ding-an-sich.
Whereas your point about a set-theoretic universe is IRRELEVANT here. In fact considering the Universe as a Set of defined elements leads to an instantiation of a separate problem of self-referentiality in non-axiomatic set theory (or the naïve set thoery)…. and is NOT related to the noumenal-phenomenal dichotomy as arises in attempting to reconcile a realist epistemology with a rationalist one.
4. “Both Aristotle and Aquinas made this argument from efficient *essential causation*. They distinguished it from *accidental causation* which could go on forever, but for an *essentially-ordered* series, the antecedent cause and every cause prior to it must still remain in motion
AAAH!!! Now I get it… the springwell of your misunderstandings is an uncritical acceptance of a outdated and arbitrary Aristotelian four-causal framework of causality.
The idea of causes being of four kinds, and by implication of four essentially different kinds, is complete HOGWASH!!
There is ONLY a material cause of everything…. Period!!!
“Formal“ and “Efficient” causes are only higher-order arrangements of multiple material causes. They are, as they say, 'subvenient' to fundamental material causes.
Whereas "accidental" cause is an illogical anthropocentric categorization of nature... all causes are necessary.. i.e all existence is physicalist and deterministic!!
"final causes" is a mystical/teleological/semi-religious scribbling of a mind that tried to understand the world 2500 years ago and (believe it or not) thought that semen contained seeds of tiny, perfect, male human beings called "homunculi" & also that most humans are "natural born salves" :-\ !!!
Please Google search(do it right away) “Supervenience” (& preferably also "Emergence") and you’ll get your head around the modern rational understanding of the outdated Aristotelian view. (And...er... i dint think you’d read any philosophy so uncritically.)
If you have read and internalized conceptual import of ‘Superveninene’ then I hope you can see that Aquinas’ and Aristotle’ arguments boil down to the same flaw... of assuming the conclusion in premise… and Aquinas particualarly is also guilty of 'special pleading'.
5. "so insofar the universe is a giant configuration of strings... the universe as a whole can be subject to 'begining-end' but NOT the strings themselves."
Where or what is your evidence for this assertion? Or rather, assumption.”
I began with the term “insofar” which means “to the extent” thus rendering my argument a general form of the argument…
“Only configurations have beginnings and ends… and the substrate of those configurations can possibly have NO beginning or an end if it were to be taken as only a substrate qua substrate (and not a configuration on a sub-substrate)”
6. “Without this assumption, one couldn't do science. But assumptions are no different from faith, maybe less credible than faith but not greater than faith.”
That is profoundly annoying!! Such inanities are usually the preserve of foolish televangelists and red-neck creationists.
The assumptions of science are continuously tested, continuously refined, even changed and replaced with better ones and continuously applied in the real world. SCIENCE (with all its assumptions) WORKS IN THE REAL WORLD
The breed of faith that you refer to(popular religion) is complete and utter horseshit that is DEMONSTRABLY false and PATENTLY contradictory to the known facts of existence.
So even if the theory of Evolution is an “assumption” it is a much superior assumption to a theory of ‘intelligent design’!!! - I can’t believe I’m having to even say this point here to someone like you…. one might find it in even in some ‘Philosophy for Retarded Dummies’ book if there is such a one!!
"You are responding to an assertion of the kind: science has all the answers to the questions about pre-bigbang existence.
Whereas my point was an assertion of the kind: there indeed HAS TO BE a pre-bigbang existence. (with no claim as to the status of knowledge about it)"
No. My response was to your claim that "no cosmologist of any repute claims big-bang is the beginning of everything". I'm saying that these new empirically unverifiable cosmologies are nothing but mathematical models indulging in speculations. They're derived from quantum wave function probabilities.
I know what your basic assertion is. That the substrate has always existed. But it is one thing to simply postulate a thing, and quite another to come up with evidence/syllogisms/deductive proofs. On what basis do you say, "there indeed HAS TO BE a pre-bigbang existence"? Is it one of those Flying Spaghetti Monster thingie commandments that the atheists so love?
You are simply asserting that the substrate JUST IS, while I am deducing (FROM THE PROPERTY OF THIS SUBSTRATE: CAUSALITY, MOTION AND ESSENCE) that the existence of a metaphysical and immaterial being is necessary to account for the substrate.
“If the universe does come out of some primordial emptiness… then it can be concluded that THAT emptiness contained the potentiality of a universe and thus …was NOT nothing”
But of course, JUST HOW the universe came out of this primordial emptiness is a mere detail right? This sort of selective picking has become very rampant. When you feel like it, just say that's the way IT IS. That's no way to do science or philosophy.
"Do you even know what thing-in-itself means?? I suspect not!
Ergo, anything (including the universe or any part of it) as it is within the phenomenal field of an observer, is a phenomena and as it is without the phenomenal field of an observer, is a noumena or ding-an-sich."
Gee sorry I didn't know that! But neither do I know what you're trying to say here. Kant himself said that we cannot know a thing-in-itself. Whatever you perceive is abstracted through senses and space-time by the mind and hence the real thing, the 'ding an sich' is forever inaccessible to us. Which applies not just to the universe, but anything. So to avoid the confusion, feel free to substitute "thing-in-itself" with "thing". Hence, it still holds that the universe is not a "thing" by itself, insofar as it is a collection of all things.
The other problem is you seem to think the universe is just another bubble in an ocean of infinite universes. This is just convenient definition-altering. When you realise that the universe is a collection of all physical/material things, you'll see why your statement begs the question. For your position, you first need to prove there is a multiverse and "more stuff out there" than our universe. That's the conclusion you have to come to, not assume as a premise.
"AAAH!!! Now I get it… the springwell of your misunderstandings is an uncritical acceptance of a outdated and arbitrary Aristotelian four-causal framework of causality."
AH! The argument from modernism. That everything contemporary is better/ more tenable than the ancients. Btw, without Aristotle, there would be no natural sciences.
"There is ONLY a material cause of everything…. Period!!!"
What absolute idiocy. A triangle can exist as an ideal body even without having any material basis. Where is the material cause for a triangle?
A gory scene can induce horror-tokenings even though no physical contact is taking place.
Thoughts. I think and bring my hand to my knee. What was the physical substrate that brought about this action? If you pry the brain apart, you won't find any physical correlates.
Likewise, gravity is immaterial; it is a property of matter but there are no particles in the immaterial gravitational field. Only the curvature of space-time can be detected. And yet, it moves stuff!
Qualia are immaterial. There is no physical substrate but the image of a Teacher's bottle can trigger a chain of causes that eventually leads me to make a drinking plan.
To reduce the rendering of a Mozart symphony to material causes and airwave compressions is missing the point grossly. It says nothing about what the piece is, how it came about and what is the experience that comes by listening to it. The cause of the Mozart classic, hence, is not vibrating strings and air compressions but music, that's immaterial.
Your obsession with materialism is one of those fads introduced by the scientific revolutionaries: deny the existence of anything that cannot be measured and controlled. This is science as envisioned by Bacon and Descartes, subjecting science to engineering so as to conquer *feminine* nature by *masculine* science. All the symptoms you show derive from that medieval belief.
But Aristotlean Science was Pure while Baconian science was Applied.
“Formal“ and “Efficient” causes are only higher-order arrangements of multiple material causes. They are, as they say, 'subvenient' to fundamental material causes."
Aristotle's 4 causes cover pretty much all bases between them. It would indeed be a challenge to show a cause that cannot be explained by these 4 causes.
"final causes" is a mystical/teleological/semi-religious scribbling of a mind that tried to understand the world 2500 years ago and (believe it or not) thought that semen contained seeds of tiny, perfect, male human beings called "homunculi" & also that most humans are "natural born salves" :-\ !!!
Yes, wipe the floor with the man who's known as the founder of Natural Sciences.
So Aristotle said semen contains tiny perfect males called homunculi! And the presence of WHAT chromosome determines the male sex??? XX....XY rings a bell?
Dude, just because he didn't have access to genetics doesn't mean he was a dodo. Only a superluminary like Aristotle could have gauged this subtle idea some 2300 years ago. And btw, all of modern philosophy in the last 400 years hasn't been able to refute Aristotle's arguments from motion, cause and essences.
"That is profoundly annoying!! Such inanities are usually the preserve of foolish televangelists and red-neck creationists."
No. Your implication that I am towing the creationist/ID/theistic line is false. I said it to show that scientific claims to epistemic truths is as shallow as faith. It is inductive, nuff said!
The breed of faith that YOU refer to (I never referred to any breed of faith) is a strawman argument. Popular religion is nothing to go by. No one is arguing for them.
However, the first cause as a necessary conclusion of deductive reasoning is superior to the faith-based, inductive theories of science.
"So even if the theory of Evolution is an “assumption” it is a much superior assumption to a theory of ‘intelligent design’!"
If only the "evolutionazis" knew how to distinguish theory from fact!! Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact. The theory is natural selection. Gravity is a theory; falling bodies is a fact. Between facts and theories lie laws, the absence of which is why the framework of Evolution is inferior to gravity or electromagnetic waves. So I never denied Evolution happens. You are doing precisely what you're (wrongly) accusing me of -- unreasonable inferences while also tarring me with the same brush as religious fundies.
Btw, Philosophy for Retarded Dummies should ideally apply to Modern Philosophy. We have a bunch of guys groping around in the dark because they're debating whether they exist or not, and apply their minds to prove they don't have one. I do enjoy reading their works for entertainment, but ala Laplace to Napoleon: "I simply have no need of that hypothesis" :)
“I'm saying that these new empirically unverifiable cosmologies are nothing but mathematical models indulging in speculations.”
NOTHING BUT mathematical models??
Good Sir!! do you understand what mathematics is?? Mathematics is a description of necessary truths that result from an axiomatic base!
Mathematical models are the best possible schematic of reality... its sheer buffoonery to say that mathematical models are epistemologically equivalent to “nothing but speculations”.
We can model the universe (or anything in it) mathematically under different set of parameters. Now to prefer one set of parameters over another, one set of functions over another, for the purpose of modeling is a legitimate and desirable variance in the scientific discourse. However to make a leap of idiocy to say that mathematical modeling is no better than speculation… is to completely (and I suspect willfully) ignore almost ALL the modern advances of knowledge that are based on mathematical modeling.
“But it is one thing to simply postulate a thing, and quite another to come up with evidence/syllogisms/deductive proofs. On what basis do you say, "there indeed HAS TO BE a pre-bigbang existence"? Is it one of those Flying Spaghetti Monster thingie commandments that the atheists so love?”
LOL!!
You are quite a bad reader. I already pointed out my (deductive)bases on which I make that claim. I’d reiterate for your benefit.
Undeniable premise: Nothing can come out of nothing . (Exo Nihilop Nihil Fit)
Same Premise stated differently: Mass-energy equivalence is conserved.(Law of conservation)
Conclusion: There always has been and always will be “stuff”
Please get our head around that.
There is quite simply no logically valid description of causality that leaves any space for some celestial magnificence. You fondness for Non-sequitur is disturbing.
“while I am deducing (FROM THE PROPERTY OF THIS SUBSTRATE: CAUSALITY, MOTION AND ESSENCE) that the existence of a metaphysical and immaterial being is necessary to account for the substrate.”
YOU ARE NOT DEDUCING.
You are POSITING a new category of being!! And as I said, its a complete Non-Sequitur.
Deduction is a function that maps a set of categories to an ontologically equivalent set of categories. You Sir, are mapping matter onto some fantastical “god stuff”. That is a violation of its own premise and complete rubbish
The epistemological status of your positing (and things posited) is equivalent to mythologizing.
“JUST HOW the universe came out of this primordial emptiness is a mere detail right? This”
you just don’t listen do you??
Again you are responding to an argument of the kind: “ we know how the universe came to be as it is”
Whereas I am making a much humbler, much less extravagant claim of the kind: “there always has been and always will be thing”… as there is just no sensible description that allows otherwise.
“Kant himself said that we cannot know a thing-in-itself.”
“Kant himself said that we cannot know a thing-in-itself.”
Firstly,
It’s an appeal to authority!!!
Shameful Shone!!! There is no greater intellectual disgrace than appealing to authority instead of appealing to reason to make a point.
I sense this as a general problem with your approach to philosophizing. You uncritically accept everything that a philosopher has said on the grounds only that a subset of all that he said was brilliant. That was also evident in your uncritical regard for Aristotle.
It is, apart form being a disgrace-in-itself (LOL) … also a betrayal of your ignorance (or I suppose deliberate disregard) for the history of progress of knowledge.. All thinkers of antiquity have had most of their claims refuted (NOT discredited ..ONLY refuted as a part of ongoing discourse)!! Please ex-corporate idolatry from your philosophizing.
Secondly,
The claim itself that a thing-in-itself is unknowable. There is considerable ambiguity in this statement. I’d urge you to explain yourself before I frontally attakck it.
But just for the moment, to say that I cannot “know” a thing in-itself, say a book lying on a table, reduces to a debate over semantics. Because even if, one accepts that the book itself is unknowable, one also has to accept that that does not prevent one from making sensible calims of knowledge about it. So while whether I “know” of a book on a table or not, if I say things like “it is a black book” “it is 5x5 inches” “it is 2 kgs” “it has xyz joules of chemical energy stored in its bonds” … these are all statements of valid knowledge!!
“The other problem is you seem to think the universe is just another bubble in an ocean of infinite universes .……………… …………………… …………………… ……………… …………… ………. …………… ……………… ………… ……you first need to prove there is a multiverse and "more stuff out there" than our universe. That's the conclusion you have to come to, not assume as a premise.”
This is again gross misreading on your part.
Indeed universe can be defined as a collection of all physical things. But what we have come to believe is that “all physical things” and the physicality therein, is constrained within a realm…. and that there can be more realms with their own particular physicality!!
Now if you INSIST that we debate physics within definitional constraints of bronze-age philosophy then im sorry but that will find no serious takers. (apart from people who are fond of bronze-age texts like vedas, the bibles and the like)
And one DOESN’T need to start from a mutli-verse to come down to a universe… one can very go the other way round (which is what sciences have done)
XXX----XXX
“AH! The argument from modernism. That everything contemporary is better/ more tenable than the ancients”
NO SIR!! my point was that you have not kept abreast of the criticisms/refutations/improvements/abandonments/paradigm shifts etc etc that have occurred since the ancients did say some brilliant things.
“Btw, without Aristotle, there would be no natural sciences.”
Either you meant that as rhetorical exaggeration or that’s utterly incorrect.
I think your knowledge of pre-Socratic Greek philosophy is close to naught. Kindly go through any history of western philosophy (I recommend the one by Bertrand Rusell and the one by Copleston). Anyway this is not really our discussion so I’ll not break sweat over this.
Even in the context of our debate.. you shouldn’t raise such points.. I mean how’d you feel if I say that without Mendel or Crick there’d be no genetics… hence whatever they said about genetics is correct!! No idolatry Shone!!!
UPON MATERIAL CAUSES
“A triangle can exist as an ideal body even without having any material basis.”
Naïve platonic bullshit!!!
There is no triangle in the universe that is not materially caused.
What you seem to be suggesting is that there is some mystical “realm of forms” separate from your consciousness (or human consciousness in general) and separate from any physical phenomenon/physical object with the quality of trinagularity…. which is stupid!!
If you are thinking of a triangle right now… the chain of causation is a complex one composed of many causal series of different origins that converge in your consciousness at this moment. They could result from, inter alia, ….
1. Stable Energy configurations of physical phenomena replete in the environment where a triangle happens to be the structural-functional-thermodynamic equilibrium shape of it (or of any of its constituent part)
2. The specific neural circuits in your parietal/occipitial lobe that mediate the networks that do pattern recognition. Also the corresponding circuits in the visual cortex that allow you to visualize triangularity.
3. The engrams in your memory of countless triangles that you have seen in your life and the Cognitive Architecture of the concept of triangle in your head that accommodates and assimilates each new instance into the universal stereotype.
4. The Specific stimulus – which right now is the use of symbols(language) to represent triangles - that drew forth the latent capacity for experiencing triangularity which was built in your brain as a result of evolving in a natural environment that contained many prototype triabgles.
One can present potentially indefinite number of causal progressions that converge every time you think or imagine a triangle. None of them are(or can be) ghostly/godly/numinous. All a are “NECESSARILY MATERIAL OR MATERIAL CAUSES SUPERVENE ON THEM”.
I challenge you to cite me ONE example of a triangle that cannot be accounted for in material caused!!
Did you read about “supervenience” as I had requested you to?? It’d be a pity if don’t do it.
UPON MATERIAL CAUSES CONTINUED..
“A gory scene can induce horror-tokenings even though no physical contact is taking place.”
You are not so fucking inane Shone or are you? I thought you understood some bit of science.
When you “see” a gory scene…
>>the act of “seeing” and “understanding” is that act of receiving “patterns of electromagnetic energy” from the TV>>>
>>>transducing that electromagnetic energy patterns into neuro-electrical signals in the basal ganglia of your retina>>>
>>>followed by neural amplification, modulation and multiplxed relay (by the Thalamus)of those neural signals into different parts of your brain>>>
>>>one branch of those signals, which encode for the information present in the TV scene, pass through the Lymbic system, the Hypothalamus and the Amygdala(among other parts) of your brain>>
>>>The Limbic system then translates the signals and mixes them with other signals from distributed memory networks in your brain (and from pre-frontal cortex) to determine the emotion/affective response to the stimulus>>>
>>>>Via the Hypothalamus … The Pineal and Pituitary glands conevert the electric signals to chemical/neurochemical/endocrine signals (hormones/enzymes/transmitters) and send them immediately to all vasculated parts of your body
>>> You sympathetic nervous system then experiences one of many many possible configurations of arousal
>>>Once again there are inummerable feedback loops in the control architecture of your body that reconvert physical/chemical sugnals to electric/neuroelectric signals and establish complete circuit with the nervous system/spinal cord/brain. There is thus a continuous relay b/w all parts of your body even cross different modalities.
>>> This whole complex of experience, which has a cognitive aspect, an affective aspect and an action tendency aspect… and many feedback loops b.w them… is what is the emotion you experience.
There are NO NON-MATERIAL causes anywhere. Energy and matter is all that it takes. Please don’t ask me such dumb questions… it really takes the wind out of this debate. I expect you to know such basic stuff.
“What was the physical substrate that brought about this action? If you pry the brain apart, you won't find any physical correlates.”
SCREW YOU!! THIS IS WRONG!! Don’t bullshit me about Neuroscience and Psychology Shone.. I’ve been studying it at Masters level for a year and a half now!!
There are physical correlates in the brain for EVERYTHING your body/mind does. Each action, intention, command to move etc etc is routed through your brain (and in some cases only the spine and in very rare cases in local neural circuits).
Don’t resort to false claims now!! I am debating fair-mindedly …you please do the same.
“Likewise, gravity is immaterial; it is a property of matter but there are no particles in the immaterial gravitational field. Only the curvature of space-time can be detected. And yet, it moves stuff!”
You are really beginning to lose the plot now.
I hope you know that “materialism” includes matter and energy both!!
Gravity is energy… and hence material. (in fact all four fundamental forces- EM, SN,WN and Gravity are material)
Plus… (although irrelevant for the point hand) Quantum Field theory and Standard model of physics have also hypothesized about gravity as a particle – the Graviton.
“Qualia are immaterial”
Qualia are (as other things) only phenomenologically immaterial. Not ontologically. Even the illusion of phenomenological immateriality is subveninent to material causes.
(did you read about “subvenience” as I had requested you to?? please do it, it’ll be a shame (and quite frankly pissing off) to keep making the same point again and again)
Once again, every cause is either directly material (ontologically material) or is supervened upon by directly material causes(even in cases of illusions of phenomenological immateriality)!! There is no sensible description of the universe where anything is caused by anything other than matter or energy or both.
Even up there in the example about emotional response to a gory scene… I laid out a few of the potentially unlimited material causes that converge, in a multiplexed causal architecture, to produce that experience of fear. Now if you don’t find ONE CAUSE in the immediate context to explain it… that’s because there isn’t!! An experienced emotional state of a sentient creature is a hugely hugely complex phenomena that has complex causation behind it.
“o reduce the rendering of a Mozart symphony to material causes and airwave compressions is missing the point grossly. It says nothing about what the piece is, how it came about and what is the experience that comes by listening to it. The cause of the Mozart classic, hence, is not vibrating strings and air compressions but music, that's immaterial.”
Dumb romanticization of phenomena that ought to be dispassionately analysed! You should quit reading philosophy/science and take up poetry if that passage is any indication of your outlook.
I can deconstruct each and every thing about the musical experience of Mozart in material terms… as I did with the experience of fear in the example above. No one is talking of reducing it to mere airwaves… airwaves are gonna be just one proximate aspect of a phenomena that will have its “causal web” spread across vast space-time-consciousness.
It will be prohibitively long.. but don’t for one second doubt I cant do it.. if you want I can call you and do it over the phone instead of writing a whole essay on Mozart.
“one of those fads introduced by the scientific revolutionaries. subjecting science to engineering so as to conquer *feminine* nature by *masculine* science. All the symptoms you show derive from that medieval belief.”
Irrelevant to the point at hand. Don’t digress Shone.
You talk post-modernist bullshit that was manufactured post second world war mostly in Paris by coteries of scotch-drinking pipe-smoking cults of literary critics who fancied themselves as social scientists. In epistemological currency, a whole generation of grandiloquent armchair sociologising is not worth one useful scientific experiment
Lets not get into areas exogenous to the debate.
I’ll let it be(even though its false) what you said in your last comment(the bit about Aristotle), as it will do us good to focus the debate a little bit more.
Lets stick to the important points here onwards.
Post a Comment