So, now we are forced, and rightly so, to take the path of least resistance -- CAUSAL THEORY OF PERCEPTION. — L'éléphant

I wasn't familiar with the various theories of Perception, but the "Causal theory" seems intuitive to me. However, the "Emission Theory" seemed sensible to Plato. And Superman's X-ray Vision is a form of emission perception. So, I guess, what you Perceive is still somewhat dependent on what you Conceive. :cool:

The causal theory of perception consists roughly of the claim that necessarily, if a subject S sees an object O, then O causes S to have a visual experience. Some have held that this claim is a conceptual truth.
https://philpapers.org/browse/the-causal-theory-of-perception

Theories of Preception :
The four main bottom-up theories of form and pattern perception are direct perception, template theories, feature theories, and recognition-by-components theory. Bottom-up theories describe approaches where perception starts with the stimuli whose appearance you take in through your eye.
https://philpapers.org/browse/the-causal-theory-of-perception

Emission theory (vision) :
Emission theory or extramission theory (variants: extromission) or extromissionism is the proposal that visual perception is accomplished by eye beams ...
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Emission_theory_(visi...

True. But that doesn't mean you can't consider them objective reality. You gotta think something is real. — EugeneW

True! That's what Hoffman is talking about in his book, The Case Against Reality. He labels "what you think is real" as a mental model of reality, not reality as such (ding an sich). Those models are maps or guidebooks to Objective Reality, not the terrain itself. However, our maps are useful abstractions of the real world. If our models were not good approximations of the terrain though, we would soon get lost. Of course, you could "consider" your model to be "objective reality", but that would be self-deceptive. :smile:

Hoffman himself argues for Model Dependent Realism (MDR),concluding that “it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation.” . . .
However, he explains, “there is an objective reality. But that reality is utterly unlike our perceptions of objects in space and time.”
BothAnd Blog, post 105

We humans are permanently in subjective reality, as are all conscious life forms. Objection — Objective reality must exist independent of subjective reality. Just because we do not or cannot perceive it, does not mean it does not exist.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Does_objective_reality_exist%3F

“Let us remember that our knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions. I know that my pain exists, my “green” exists, and my “sweet” exists. I do not need any proof of their existence, because these events are a part of me; everything else is a theory.” [ My bold ]
___ Andrei Linde, theoretical physicist (cosmological inflation)

As you can see these two don't jibe with each other: on the one hand knowing is better than not knowing (2nd paragraph above) as decisions can only be made knowing what's true and what's false and on the other hand, there's this belief that we make high quality decisions when we're confused (aporia, 3rd paragraph above).
These two antipodal views both makes sense and does not is an instance of aporia (for me).
Can you help clear up the matter for me? — Agent Smith

Yes. Don't treat Truth & Falsity as "antipodal", but as a continuum between those poles.

As a recovering Perfectionist or Idealist, you need to accept that you will never know absolute Truth about anything. Nor will anyone else you encounter. That's partly due to the inherent uncertainties of the physical world, and to the intrinsic limitations of the human mind. Ironically, a common rhetorical tactic (on forums) is to present the appearance of personal Omniscience, or appeal to Authority (such as all-knowing Science), in order to manipulate confused or unsure people. Like Infinity, Comprehensive Truth is an ideal state that is never encountered in the real world.

Unkowns and mysteries are potentially dangerous, but also potentially-fruitful fields to plow . . . . carefully. Remember, Philosophy idealizes absolute Truth, but makes-do with approximate pragmatic truths, that it optimistically labels as practical "Wisdom". :smile:

Fitch’s paradox of knowability concerns any theory committed to the thesis that all truths are knowable. . . . The operative concept of “knowability” remains elusive but is meant to fall somewhere between equating truth uninformatively with what God would know and equating truth naively with what humans actually know. Equating truth with what God would know does not improve intelligibility, and equating it with what humans actually know fails to appreciate the objectivity and discoverability of truth.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitch-paradox/

Pragmatic Truth :
Unlike correspondence theories, which tend to see truth as a static relation between a truth-bearer and a truth-maker, pragmatic theories of truth tend to view truth as a function of the practices people engage in, and the commitments people make, when they solve problems, make assertions, or conduct scientific inquiry ...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-pragmatic/

SUBJECTIVE TRUTH

Does this mean that, despite denying it, vehemently, we're actually using some version of paraconsistent logic? — Agent Smith

Oh yes. Inconsistency in logic is a common glitch in human reasoning. That's why the first rule of philosophy is "don't fool yourself". One way to check your own assumptions & arguments is to be aware of common fallacies. They may masquerade as commonsense, but often others will see through your facade before you do. So exchanging views on a forum like this will expose your personal "paraconsistencies" to the skeptical eye of other truth-seekers. In most cases, they will be gentle with you, because they are aware of their own shortcomings. But those who hold their own beliefs with unconditional faith, may pounce on your apparent or real errors with pitiless fervor. So, you'll need to develop a thick skin. :smile:

Absolute True Reality — Gnomon
Assuming there is such a thing. — jgill

In Reality, there is no such thing as "true reality". But absolute true Ideality, is another question. That's what Plato called the realm of "Forms". Ideality is a standard of perfection against which we compare & evaluate our imperfect world. Like "Infinity" we can conceive of such a perfect state, but we know better than to begin the journey to that destination. :joke:


What is reality? Why we still don't understand the world's true nature :
It’s the ultimate scientific quest – to understand everything that there is. But the closer we get, the further away it seems. Can we ever get to grips with the true nature of reality?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532670-700-what-is-reality-why-we-still-dont-understand-the-worlds-true-nature/

Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of "Forms", he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call "Reality" consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Note __ A perfect circle is ideally defined by Pi D or PiR^2. But, in reality there are only polygons with a series of points & sides that approximate infinity.

As an adult, that primal joy has been replaced by annoyance, anxiety, and anger. I remain as perplexed as ever, but I now dislike it, it's not fun anymore. — Agent Smith

Your frustration may be due, in part, to unrealistic expectations. When I was young, I learned the hard way that I was a perfectionist, who couldn't deal with his own imperfections. As you grow older though, you learn to lower your expectations. Especially in Philosophy, Ideals are an impossible dream. Ambition is good, in moderate doses. :cool:


"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?" ___Robert Browning

So is a real particle... :wink: — EugeneW

Ah yes. As cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman postulated in his book : The Case Against Reality, all human mental models of Reality are essentially "illusions". By that, he simply means that our ideas are Ideal, not Real. Unfortunately, some people can't accept that their personal Reality is artificial and man-made. So, we should not take them as literally true, but as pointers to true reality. That's because each mental model of Reality is abstract & fragmentary, derived from a limited perspective and shaped by personal biases. Even the composite models of Science are incomplete. Presumably, only God, looking down on the world from outside, would have the True, Comprehensive, Objective perspective of Reality. Consequently, our abstract mental & mathematical models of Physical & Virtual particles are both "imaginary simulations" of Absolute True Reality. :joke:

The Case Against Reality :
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

Mental models are personal, internal representations of external reality that people use to interact with the world around them. They are constructed by individuals based on their unique life experiences, perceptions, and understandings of the world.
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art46/

"False" models as an integral part of science :
The models that scientists use are no different from the models you use in everyday life. They are simultaneously false and useful. Learning even a small amount about scientific models can be quite useful in detecting major limitations of scientific approaches. This knowledge enables one to pose relevant questions to those who developed the model.
https://utw10426.utweb.utexas.edu/Topics/False.models/Text.html

I didn't know Plato had rejected infinity. Why did he do that, may I ask? — Agent Smith

I don't think Plato "rejected infinity". As you noted, his concept of a realm of Forms is functionally infinite in a Potential sense. However, Aristotle, as a realist, may have rejected the notion of "actual Infinity" as impossible in the real world of constant beginnings & endings. However. mathematics is not inherently realistic, so it can accommodate Ideal concepts.

Modern mathematics has been forced to become comfortable with the paradoxes of infinities. So, it has developed workarounds to deal with them. The easiest dodge is to define "infinity" as a large-but-countable number. Scientists though, typically prefer to avoid Infinities for practical reasons, such as the tendency to crash computers. But fearless Philosophers boldly go where scientists fear to tread : into Metaphysical Infinity, the realm of Possibility. :nerd:


Plato on the infinite :
The world of Forms: is a world in which everything “always is,” it “has no becoming,” and “does not change” (Timeaus, 28a). We know this world of Being by reason (i.e. through the rational part of our souls).
https://infinityonline.valzorex.com/plato.html

Actual infinity :
Aristotle postulated that an actual infinity was impossible, because if it were possible, then something would have attained infinite magnitude, and would be "bigger than the heavens." However, he said, mathematics relating to infinity was not deprived of its applicability by this impossibility, because mathematicians did not need the infinite for their theorems, just a finite, arbitrarily large magnitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity


Three main types of infinity may be distinguished: the mathematical, the physical, and the metaphysical.
https://www.britannica.com/science/infinity-mathematics

The "resemblance" is very interesting, indeed. But could it be that it's only in your mind? IMO, if anything, the swastika looks more like two stylized S's than Z's — Apollodorus

Of course, the shape similarity between a graphic symbol of the invasion of Ukraine, and a symbol of the invasion of Poland is an inference in the mind of the beholder. I can't read the minds of the painters, so I'm just guessing. But the political significance of such a symbol may be obvious to anyone familiar with the history of Fascism. Do you see the connection?

The link in your post indicates that reporters are still trying to understand why Russians are using a letter that is not in their Cyrillic alphabet. Perhaps it's meant to symbolize their "romanticized" mission of annexing a sovereign country into their reconstituted Russian empire. Since the intended meaning of the symbol has not been officially declared, I'm just offering my own personal interpretation : that it signifies Putin's dream of a "New World Order", with Russia as the dominant political & military player.. Do you imagine a different reason for the symbol.? :smile:


Why did Germany invade Poland? :
Germany invaded Poland to regain lost territory and ultimately rule their neighbor to the east.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-invades-poland

Swastika symbolism :
However, in the early 20th century, various right-wing adherents of the so-called “völkisch” movement in Germany, a movement in large part dedicated to uncovering a romanticized and largely mythical German/“Aryan” past, adopted the swastika as a symbol.
https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/swastika

Third Empire :
The Third Reich, meaning "Third Realm" or "Third Empire", alluded to the Nazis' conceit that Nazi Germany was the successor to the earlier Holy Roman Empire (800–1806) and German Empire (1871–1918).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

If you mean that a VP is a non-physical bit of mind stuff I disagree. The real and virtual particle are just as real — EugeneW

OK. I won't argue with you about your personal opinion, or that of a particle physicist. FWIW, in my opinion is there's an important difference between Objective Reality and Virtual Reality. When I look into a VR headset, I'm aware that what I'm seeing is a crude imitation of reality : an artificial model of reality. For me, that mental construct is a non-physical thought, not a physical thing. Similarly, a VP is an imaginary simulation of a real particle. :smile:

Virtual reality (VR) is a simulated experience that can be similar to or completely different from the real world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality

Simulated :
1 : to give or assume the appearance or effect of often with the intent to deceive : imitate.

Three years of graduate lab work (Cognitive Science / Psychology). Engineering projects and physics + chemistry lab work as an undergrad. Paralegal and mortgage underwriting work for decades (pre-pandemic). Left-Green political activism for decades (pre-9/11). I'd say I've been quite "mucky" in various ways ... — 180 Proof

As an untrained dilettante philosopher, I bow before your self-proclaimed Omniscience. But, I still don't appreciate your "dogmatic" (your word) True-Believer-in-Scientism shtick on this non-ideological forum. Most of us amateurs are well-informed about modern science in general, but we are not narrowly-focused specialists in any particular sub-field. So, our worldviews may be broader and more inclusive than yours. If that open-mindedness is what you call "woo", then woo-hoo give me a tattoo! :joke:

TPF Site Guidelines :
Types of posters who are welcome here:
Those with a genuine interest in/curiosity about philosophy and the ability to express this in an intelligent way, and those who are willing to give their interlocutors a fair reading and not make unwarranted assumptions about their intentions

Types of posters who are not welcome here:
Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

Try considering "infinity" in this way Gnomon. It is a principle established for the purpose of allowing us to measure anything, or everything. There can be no quantity greater than what we can count, because we allow the numbers to continue indefinitely. — Metaphysician Undercover

In that sense, "Infinity" may be used in a similar manner to "Googolplex", or my tongue-in-cheek usage of "Zillions". :joke:

A googolplex is the number 10googol, or equivalently, 10(10100) or 1010,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 .

Zillions :
an extremely large number of people or things.

I think the "Z" doesn't come from a remodeled Swastike, — ssu

Oh, I didn't mean that the crossed "Z" of a swastika (symbol of German nationalism) was literally or consciously re-shaped into a symbol of Russian nationalism. But the resemblance is interesting. :wink:

JAPANESE TEMPLE SYMBOL

NATIONAL SOCIALISM (NAZI) SYMBOL

AMERICAN FASCIST SYMBOL

TRUMP CAMPAIGN LOGO

AMAZON SHIRT SYMBOL

Do you suppose people who recommend aporia (bafflement) as a healthy state of mind were conflating it with "awe and wonder". — Agent Smith

Maybe Einstein was a closet magician, pretending to be a mere scientist. He often attributed his curiosity about Nature to its inspiring "awe & wonder". But, instead of trading on occult mystery, he revealed the smoke & mirrors that had long concealed the underlying magic of reality. :cool:


One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day."
___Albert Einstein

Nonsense. — 180 Proof

As usual, you missed the point of my description of what distinguishes Philosophy from Science. Some professional scientists with mucky hands, also do some philosophical speculation on the side. Apparently, you think that Philosophers should be required to present empirical evidence for their conjectures.

Do you consider yourself a Philosopher, perhaps an amateur like me? If so, what "mucky" physical experiments have you done? Do you tinker with real stuff in your basement? Or do you simply express personal opinions as Facts on forums? Do you simply quote the Scriptures of Science as evidence for your claims of what's Real, and what's not? :joke:


Science vs Philosophy :
The main difference between science and philosophy is that science deals with hypothesis testing based on factual data whereas philosophy deals with logical analysis based on reason.
https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-science-and-philosophy/

It's been discussed a lot but I always say, never loose sight of its connection to Aristotle, for whom the term was coined. Otherwise metaphysics becomes a catch-all term for any kind of woo. — Wayfarer

Yes. For the purposes of my Enformationism thesis, I typically define "metaphysics" in terms of the topics Aristotle discussed in the second volume of his treatise in Nature. There, he was not describing physical things, but ideas about things, or about Nature in general, including the human Mind and its Thoughts. Volume 1 was the primitive forerunner of modern Science, while volume 2 was the prescient ancestor of modern Philosophy. :smile:

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
BothAnd Blog Glossary

As for the Idea of infinity - residing in the world of Platonic Forms - I dunno what that would look like. What is the Form of infinity? — Agent Smith

I don't know that Plato had much to say about "infinity" per se.. But his Forms are essentially definitions of possible or potential things. So the Form of Infinity would be something like : 1. spacelessness, or 2. a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number. Anyway, I suppose "Infinity" would look like nothingness, but with the potential for something. :smile:

Plato on the Infinite :
Plato therefore will locate the infinite in the world of change, but since the world we experience is a dependent and deficient, ‘less real’, world, Plato can be seen to continue in the ancient Greek tradition of rejecting the actual or transcendent and fully real infinite.
https://infinityonline.valzorex.com/plato.html

Agree with your analysis, on the whole. — Wayfarer

"Whole" . . . "holistic" . . . I get it. :joke:

C S Pierce also included abductive reasoning - reasoning from effect to probable cause. But the issue is that underlying 'scientism' is 'positivism' - that being, in a loose sense, the view that science and mathematical extrapolations of empirical observations are the sole forms of valid knowledge. — Wayfarer

Sure. But Positivism was mainly concerned with weeding-out Metaphysics. And most of modern Philosophy falls in that non-physical category, by default. If it ain't physical, it's metaphysical (i.e. religious faith). Which is why many philosophers try to dissociate themselves from Scholastic Metaphysics. :cool:

Positivism : a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism.

Metaphysics :
It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject-matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”. It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion. Second, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things—the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
PS___That's why I'm still searching for another simple term, besides "metaphysics" to distinguish the scope of Philosophy from that of Physical Sciences. So far, "non-physical" is a candidate. But even that discrimination seems to elicit negative reviews from those for whom "physical" means Real, and non-physical means un-real, hence non-existent. In what sense does Mind exist, if not as an illusory figment of imagination? It seems to be a no-win contest of perspectives. :sad:

↪Gnomon
Is it your position – extrapolating from Pinker's objection to Lakoff & Johnson's thesis ("metaphor") – that mind is disembodied? — 180 Proof

No. Just that non-physical Mind & physical Body are philosophically distinct concepts. The latter is subject to empirical investigation, but the former is subject only to theoretical exploration. Philosophers only do thought experiments, which are always debatable. That may be why Mind is more interesting to them than Brains. You don't have to get your hands mucky.

The notion of a disembodied soul is a legitimate topic for philosophical discussion, but would be absurd for empirical dissection. Personally, I'm skeptical of ghosts & afterlife & reincarnation, but I'm willing to discuss such topics on an intellectual level, without eye-rolling. My interest would be why so many people with normal brains find the notion of disembodied Souls intuitively believable. :smile:

I find myself constantly in a state of aporia; I sometimes feel that I'm aporia manifested in the physical plane as a person, that's how utterly bewildering the world, the universe, is to me. — Agent Smith

Bafflement may be frustrating, but it can also be stimulating . . . . for those with a curious mind. :joke:

Reposted from the Infinity & Nonphysicalism thread

There are no actual infinities; there are no physical infinities. In other words, our minds, having developed the idea of infinity, nonphysical, itself must be, either in part or in whole, nonphysical. — Agent Smith

When you say "there are no actual infinities" I assume you mean that we space-time humans have no sensory experience of unboundedness. Everything in our evolving world is finite & temporary. That's why the notion of spacelessness & timelessness seemed absurd to early philosophers. However, as a useful mathematical concept, we no longer have a problem with the idea of Infinity, or of Zero : nothingness.

Similar absurd, but serviceable, ideas are also encountered in Quantum Theory. For example, a Virtual Particle can be substituted for a Real Particle in calculations. So, some physicists will confidently assert that a VP is just as "real" as an ordinary particle. I guess they mean that a non-physical bit of mind-stuff is mathematically interchangeable with a physical speck of matter. Yet, they may not accept some non-mathematical philosophical notions (e.g. metaphors) as equivalent, in a thought experiment, to a physical object.

"Infinity" and "Virtual Particle" are both abstract non-physical mental metaphors serving as a stand-in for Real Things. Likewise, Plato's notion of "Forms", somehow existing in an Ideal Realm, is metaphorical. It's useful as a philosophical tool for understanding the difference between Potential Perfection and Actual Imperfection. But, in what sense does an Idea exist? It's like Potential Voltage of a battery, impotent until put into circulation, i.e. a circuit from Possible to Actual. The notion of "Eternal Forms" may seem non-sensical, unless you take the concept of Potential seriously.

That's why Materialists think, "if it's not physical, it's literally inconsequential". But they seem to forget the power of Potential. An idea locked in a mind, may be useless. But once in circulation, as a Meme, an idea (whose time has come) may be more powerful than Putin's armies. Am I correct, in assuming that you had something like that in mind by labeling the "idea of infinity" as "non-physical"? "Infinity" is an unrealized Platonic Form, which serves as a repository of Potential for "Time", which has not always existed. :smile:

PS___Sorry, because of the on-going "Non-Physical" thread, I may have gone-off your un-bounded map in a different direction. :wink:

“Nothing else in the world…not all the armies…is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.” – Victor Hugo,

The Absurdity of Infinity :
don’t let anyone tell you that mathematics models the real world exactly, or is an empirical science, or, at its core, is an “applied” subject. It simply isn’t, and never will be.
https://wanderingmathematician.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/the-absurdity-of-infinity/

THE CASE AGAINST INFINITY :
mathematicians should abandon the use of infinity in making calculations in favor of a
more logically consistent alternative. . . . Fortunately, such a concept is available to us—a concept called indefiniteness.
https://philpapers.org/archive/SEWTCA

CYCLIC TIME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BEGININGLESS & ENDLESS INFINITY

There are no actual infinities; there are no physical infinities. In other words, our minds, having developed the idea of infinity, nonphysical, itself must be, either in part or in whole, nonphysical. — Agent Smith

When you say "there are no actual infinities" I assume you mean that we space-time humans have no sensory experience of unboundedness. Everything in our evolving world is finite & temporary. That's why the notion of spacelessness & timelessness seemed absurd to early philosophers. However, as a useful mathematical concept, we no longer have a problem with the idea of Infinity, or of Zero : nothingness.

Similar absurd, but serviceable, ideas are also encountered in Quantum Theory. For example, a Virtual Particle can be substituted for a Real Particle in calculations. So, some physicists will confidently assert that a VP is just as "real" as an ordinary particle. I guess they mean that a non-physical bit of mind-stuff is mathematically interchangeable with a physical speck of matter. Yet, they may not accept some non-mathematical philosophical notions (e.g. metaphors) as equivalent, in a thought experiment, to a physical object.

"Infinity" and "Virtual Particle" are both abstract non-physical mental metaphors serving as a stand-in for Real Things. Likewise, Plato's notion of "Forms", somehow existing in an Ideal Realm, is metaphorical. It's useful as a philosophical tool for understanding the difference between Potential Perfection and Actual Imperfection. But, in what sense does an Idea exist? It's like Potential Voltage of a battery, impotent until put into circulation, i.e. a circuit from Possible to Actual. The notion of "Eternal Forms" may seem non-sensical, unless you take the concept of Potential seriously.

That's why Materialists think, "if it's not physical, it's literally inconsequential". But they seem to forget the power of Potential. An idea locked in a mind, may be useless. But once in circulation, as a Meme, an idea (whose time has come) may be more powerful than Putin's armies. Am I correct, in assuming that you had something like that in mind by labeling the "idea of infinity" as "non-physical"? "Infinity" is an unrealized Platonic Form, which serves as a repository of Potential for "Time", which has not always existed. :smile:

PS___Sorry, because of the on-going "Non-Physical" thread, I may have gone-off your un-bounded map in a different direction. :wink:

“Nothing else in the world…not all the armies…is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.” – Victor Hugo,

The Absurdity of Infinity :
don’t let anyone tell you that mathematics models the real world exactly, or is an empirical science, or, at its core, is an “applied” subject. It simply isn’t, and never will be.
https://wanderingmathematician.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/the-absurdity-of-infinity/

THE CASE AGAINST INFINITY :
mathematicians should abandon the use of infinity in making calculations in favor of a
more logically consistent alternative. . . . Fortunately, such a concept is available to us—a concept called indefiniteness.
https://philpapers.org/archive/SEWTCA

Virtual photons can transfer momentum and energy. Independently (not on mass shell). — EugeneW

I found that statement puzzling. But, I'm not qualified to comment on such technicalities that are way over my head. So, I Googled the first phrase above, and got this article on various "virtual" questions. It shows a Feynman diagram of a "a virtual photon, which transfers momentum from one to the other." Yet that "tidy" explanation is followed by a "but" clause.

The impression I got was that Actual particles act like bullets (to transmit momentum), but Virtual particles seem to transfer momentum in some other manner. The physical bullet metaphor is intuitive, but the non-physical non-bullet analogy is a mystery to me. It implies that a VP is like a bullet, except when it's not. You seem to be more knowledgeable on VP topics. Can you elucidate? :smile:

Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles :
This is a seemingly tidy explanation. Forces don't happen because of any sort of action at a distance, they happen because of virtual particles that spew out of things and hit other things, knocking them around. But this is misleading. Virtual particles are really not just like classical bullets.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

Energy, Momentum and Mass-Shell :
Let us state here clearly, to avoid confusion, that when we speak of the mass of a particle we always mean the mass measured when the particle is at rest, not the apparent mass when it moves at high energy.
http://www.hep.fsu.edu/~wahl/artic/physics/VeltmanPartphys/9789812563026_0005.pdf
Q--- Does a Virtual Particle have rest mass?

Obviously China now sees how effective (or ineffective) the sanctions of the West are and will take that into consideration. And China is the obvious candidate to hold peace talks with Ukraine and Russia, as now Russia is quite dependent of China thanks to the sanctions. So for China, this all is good. Only if Russia collapses it's bad. — ssu

Speaking of speculation, I'm currently reading the Kindle book by novelist Ken Follett : NEVER. It was published in 2021, so its geopolitics is quite up-to-date for a work of fiction. Instead of The West versus Russia, it's The West (US primarily) versus China. Yet the level heads of both of the major powers are trying to defuse an insurrection in North Korea, which threatens to use its nukes. forcing a confrontation of the big boys. Hence the title. So China necessarily plays the role of peacemaker.

Follett portrays the internal political struggles between Old Guard of saber-rattling us-vs-them conservatives (there's even a Trump-type presidential candidate), and the younger, more cosmopolitan & less aggressive people on both sides. The ineffectiveness of economic sanctions as a deterrent on bomb-toting bullies & desperate dictators is illustrated. But the major powers can't afford to play Russian roulette. So, there may be no viable alternative (literally and figuratively) to laying chips on Las Vegas roulette.

Apparently, the younger people of Russia are also less romantically nationalistic than Putin -- except for the neo-non-nazis (like the Olympic gymnast) who display a symbolic letter "Z", apparently as a remodeled Swastika. We can only hope that the younger more moderate people on both sides of the renewed Iron Curtain, will learn from history, that Putin's re-enactment of Hitler's invasion of Poland, will not turn-out as expected by the invaders. This unruly world resists being ordered even at the point of a missile. :smile:


The “Z” is regarded as particularly incendiary given it has been seen daubed on Russian tanks and vehicles in Ukraine and has come to symbolise support for president Vladimir Putin and the invasion.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/mar/07/shocking-behaviour-russian-gymnast-shows-z-symbol-on-podium-next-to-ukrainian-winner

How the letter Z became a symbol for pro-war Russians "
https://fortune.com/2022/03/07/russia-z-tank-marking-how-letter-became-symbol-pro-ukraine-war-invasion/

I know you believe that you wrote a reasoned unbiased unemotional post, but you didn’t come close to one. — Joe Mello

You may have missed the point of my later posts on this thread. Normally, I tend to ignore threads with extremist terminology, such as "unequivocal triumph". But GT mentioned "denizens of this forum" in a unflattering reference to those who do not accept his Scientism-based bible-thumping as philosophical arguments. So I tried one last time to convince him that this is not a Science forum, and that modern Philosophers are mainly focused on topics that don't lend themselves to empirical evidence. I never denigrated the work of empirical scientists. And all of my proffered "evidence" came from credentialed practitioners of various fields of science. So my comments were not in any sense anti-science, but merely pro-philosophy.. Apparently, he equates Philosophy with obsolete Religion conquered by triumphant Science..

He continued to insist "show me the evidence", yet ignored my many links to quotes by professional scientists supporting my modest comments. He didn't seem to be interested in the opinions of individual scientists. Instead, his absolute authority is capital "S" science -- as-if modern science is a monolithic institution like the Catholic Church, with canonical scriptures. Ironically, when I asked him for "book, chapter & verse" to support his "unequivocal" equivocations, he made no attempt to provide references. He seemed to equate his understanding of Science as the unquestionable gospel Truth. I still don't know where to find that Scriptural Science, where the secrets of the universe are revealed.

Others had commented on his apparent evangelical mission to propagate his canonical Truth, and to root-out unbelievers. So, I began to reflect his bullying tactics back at him. And he didn't like it at all, e.g. being treated as a naive idiot, ignorant of holy Science. Yet, he made no attempt to justify his own bragging boast of "Unequivocal Triumph" of Science over Philosophy. So, if you detected any "biased, emotional" inflections in my post, they were merely mirror images of GT's tactics, not my own. Since he is obviously attempting to convert The Philosophy Forum, into The Triumphant Science Forum, he should expect some vigorous resistance -- as Putin is getting to his invasion. Are you ready to take-up the cross of Scientism, and convert the heathens --- while remaining reasonable & unbiased & unemotional, of course? :cool:

Definition of Scientism
1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist. 2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism

What Does 'Truth' Mean To A Scientist? :
There are no absolute truths in science; there are only approximate truths. Whether a statement, theory, or framework is true or not depends on quantitative factors and how closely you examine or measure the results.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/13/ask-ethan-what-does-truth-mean-to-a-scientist/?sh=4391c5378206

Does Science Over-reach? :
We've all heard the phrase, "You can't argue with science." But should we take the accomplishments of science as evidence for scientism—the view that science is the best and only way to acquire genuine knowledge? Does faith in science require that we disregard all non-scientific viewpoints?
___Massimo Pugliucci, philosopher
https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/does-science-over-reach

Philosophy and Science: What Can I Know? :
Philosophy is a thorny subject. Many philosophical statements cannot be formally proven, resulting in clever but endless debates. Scientists usually shy away from such ambiguity and retreat into their safe world of perceived clarity. Nevertheless, the philosophical study of nature is the wellspring of science. Simply asking “What is a law of nature?” poses a philosophical challenge.. . . .
Paradoxically, every question answered raises more and harder questions and theories appear to be losing meaning. If asked, some scientists will admit to these shortcomings: uncertainty and ignorance are inherent and ubiquitous in science. The final blow to a clear foundation of knowledge comes from the discoveries that incompleteness and randomness lurk at the heart of mathematics.
___James B. Glattfelder, physicist turned quant, turned complexity scientist, with a pinch of data science and a philosophical bent,
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-03633-1_9

Well, they have unreal properties. Or rather, non-intuitive properties. — EugeneW

Yes. But that paradoxical description reminds me of the bible verse : "by their fruits ye shall know them". In the case of sub-atomic particles -- especially Virtual particles -- we only know them by their properties. So, if their properties are "unreal" or "non-intuitive", why call them "real". That seems to undermine our commonsense understanding of Reality. I suspect that they are treated as-if real, because the logical alternative label would be "Ideal". And that name could imply a ghostly figment of imagination. Hence not kosher for a scientific concept.

However, I prefer to think of Ideal Concepts in terms of Information Theory. Not just Shannon's reductive definition of empty carriers of abstract data, but the more general notion of "Information" as meaning in a mind. From that perspective, a Virtual Particle would be the mathematical definition of a possible thing in terms of Potential physical properties. But "possibility" is not a physical state, it's a mental inference. And I'm trying to make sense of that not-quite physical state as a philosophical concept.

It seems that a Virtual Particle exists only in a statistical sense, as a fractional or uncertain reality : e.g. 50% probability of being detected under specified conditions. In more vernacular terms, VP exists as a prediction of a future state. In it's current un-real state, it is not measurable. So, I conclude that VP exists only as an idea in the mind of a mathematician. And it's that Ideal state that I'm trying to label as "non-physical reality". The idea of VP certainly exists in our world, but it has no physical properties. What would you call that non-physical Mental kind of existence? :smile:

What is Information? :
Information is stimuli that has meaning in some context for its receiver.
https://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com › definition › infor...

Probability is a mathematical language used to discuss uncertain events and probability plays a key role in statistics.
https://www.stat.uci.edu/what-is-statistics/

Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern mathematicians find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Mathematical platonism is any metaphysical account of mathematics that implies mathematical entities exist, that they are abstract, and that they are independent of all our rational activities.
https://iep.utm.edu/mathplat/

Fuck off. Come back when you want to produce an argument. — Garrett Travers

The use of vulgar four-letter words is considered gauche on this genteel forum. Besides, it sounds like the exasperation of defeat. But a philosophical forum is a zero-sum game, not a win-lose conflict. We are just trying to get closer to the whole truth, not motivated to score points for "our side". We're all on the same team here. No us-vs-them arguments, just all-of-us-truth-seekers dialogues.

Unfortunately, you seem to view (idealized) "Science" as the last bastion of absolute Truth. Coming from an evangelical background, I understand the confidence that comes from the certainty of having the word-of-God in a single book. But after my loss of faith in revealed Truth, I had a few polite exchanges of views, that eventually broke-down into defensive postures, when I refused to play the game on their one-sided terms. They insisted that the only admissible "evidence" was biblical. So, some acted like stymied bullies, and began to sulk. They took their infallible books and went home.

FWIW, you may find that "triumphant" trumpeting on a philosophy forum is going to be alienating for those who doubt partisan truth-claims. In any case, Neuroscience deals in "observables", while Psychology and Philosophy are forced to grapple with "un-observables". At the moment, neither profession is in a position to feel "triumphant" on the "hard-problem" of Consciousness (to know within, hence unobservable). :smile:

Scientific Truth :
The previous discussion concentrated on only one of the controversies that surround scientific realism, the debate about whether talk of unobservables should have the same status as talk of observables. Contemporary exchanges, however, are often directed at a broader issue: the possibility of judging whether any claim at all is true. Some of these exchanges involve issues that are as old as philosophy—very general questions about the nature and possibility of truth.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-science/Scientific-truth

Skepticism vs Truth :
The view that truth in religion is ultimately based on faith rather than on reasoning or evidence—a doctrine known as fideism
https://www.britannica.com/topic/skepticism

Philosophical skepticism :
Unmitigated skeptics believe that objective truths are unknowable and that man should live in an isolated environment in order to win mental peace. . . . Mitigated skeptics hold that knowledge does not require certainty
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Philosophical_skepticism

Virtual particles are as real as real particles. — EugeneW

If so, why give one of them an un-real name? I'm aware that mathematical theorists treat "Virtual" Particles as-if they are real. But the differentiating name they pinned on them belies their reality from a common sense perspective. This is just one of many paradoxes emanating from the Pandora's Box of quantum science. They make our world seem to be an mirage of many delusions, as contrasted with the mundane Actual Reality of classical science. Biologists & Chemists are still mostly working in the old-fashioned Real world. But Physicists seem to be exploring a sci-fi fantasy realm of parallel Realities.

Ironically, Aristotle made the same real/unreal distinction 2500 years ago, when he defined the meanings of "Actual" and "Potential". So, which is it : is the "Real" world Potential or Actual or both? As a non-mathematical layman, I have been forced to punt on that either/or question, and to view paradoxical reality in terms of the BothAnd Principle. Reality is a system of systems, but only the more familiar material aspects seem really Real, and the immaterial, non-physical parts seem weird, or surreal, or imaginary. :gasp:

Virtual :
1. almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to strict definition.
2. not physically existing as such . . .

Sir Roger Penrose details three different kinds of reality :
The three levels are Proto Energy which is energy as pure vibration, Proto TimeSpace where space and time become a single point looping with no direction, and Proto Matter where matter is infinite potentialities.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/kbnkqx/explore-the-subatomic-world-of-energy-fields-in-virtual-reality

The Paradox of Reality :
It was interesting to read great scientific minds like Prof Roger Penrose grapple with the apparent paradox of reality. . . . . Objective, impersonal reality, untainted by private sensation, must ever remain an inference and construct, however successfully these may seem to approximate to that reality. . . . We mortals are heir to illusion...but at least we may strive to avoid delusion.
https://ronaldtkwong.com/news/TheParadoxofReality.html

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Note -- Apparently, our world is neither Actual nor Potential, but both simultaneously. However, the Actual stuff of reality is physical, while the Potential essence of reality of non-physical (mathematical, ideal, meta-physical, etc.). So, Physical Reality is merely the sensory part of the whole world, and Virtual Reality is the imaginary or ideal aspect of the world system.

energy with zero momentum — EugeneW

Yes, but energy-without-momentum is what we know as Potential energy, as contrasted with the Kinetic (or Actual) energy of moving matter. For example a typical car battery has 12 volts of Potential, but when no current is flowing there is no Actual physical work being done. That reminds me of the storage box used by the Ghost Hunters to trap poltergeists so they can do no harm. :joke:

Can you have energy but no momentum?
Yes, something can have energy without having momentum. Momentum is defined as the mass of an object times its velocity. Even in a rest state, when momentum is zero, Body still has potential energy, U=mgh (where, m= mass of body). Hence, it is possible to have energy without having momentum.
https://www.quora.com/Can-something-have-energy-without-having-momentum

You could say that the point signifies something. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. An immaterial grid-point in empty space is like the symbol "X" (unknown) which serves as a stand-in for a real number, that is un-realized until calculated. I assume that, for a physicist, defining a Virtual Particle as a mathematical point, is essentially an ellipsis, a blank to be filled-in at a later date. So it points toward something imaginary, that could be realized, but not yet physically real.

Using Terrence Deacon's Incomplete Nature terminology, a non-dimensional point on a Quantum Field grid is "Absential". But would I be understood, if instead of labeling a non-physical concept as "Meta-Physical", I called it "Absential"? For example, "the general, non-specific philosophical notion of 'Being' is Absential" ; a potential existence at a point in space to be specified later". Perhaps, "non-being" would be, not only non-physical, but also non-potential, or impossible.

I'm sorry, but I'm confusing myself with the limitations of common language, which is necessarily Materialistic, and forces abstract concepts, like "LOGOS" and "Logic", to be expressed in physical metaphors or analogies. That's why the term "Meta-Physical" seems to me more concise & intuitive : implying something non-physical, yet meaningful. It's too bad, such a useful comparative term has acquired a negative association with flesh-less Spirits & Ghosts, instead of with matter-less Ideas & Abstractions. :smile:

Ellipsis :
1. the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues
2. a set of dots indicating an omission..

Absential :
1. the state of a thing not yet realized
2. un-realized potential

Material Numbers
If a thing has many uses within the real world, is that proof of its reality? — ucarr

I suppose you're indirectly asking if Reality is necessarily Material or Physical. The Non-Physical Reality thread is seeking a similar clarification of Realness. :nerd:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12585/non-physical-reality

I would say a zdp is both real and ideal, but not physically real. As for vps, they are excitations of the underlying quantum fields, so perhaps zdps are as well.
It's all Greek to me. I just try to do the math. — jgill

That's coming close to what I was getting at. The linked quote below indicates that a Virtual Particle is treated as-if it's "Real", but it doesn't add your qualification : "but not physically real". So my question, is "in what sense is a non-physical object Real?. Is that faux reality an equivocation?

Since Quantum Fields consist of dimensionless-points-in-space, they are "real" only in the sense that they have the Potential to produce physical particles. So, it seems that a mathematically-defined Field is deemed capable of creating mathematical (virtual ; un-real?) particles from nothing-but-numbers. Yet, Aristotle contrasted "Potential" with "Actual". So, you could say that the statistical-possibility-for-future-existence "exists" only as the hypothetical power to create Actual (now) particles from mathematical Probability (predictability). Ouch! I grok what you mean by "it's Greek to me".

I understand "as-if" to mean "hypothetically" or "metaphorically". As you noted, and as the VP definition below indicates, such conceptual objects are "not physically real". But isn't it misleading to label such abstract notions as "real". When I use the philosophical terms "Ideal" or "Meta-Physical" for such common conceptual abstractions as "Zero" & "infinity", I get protests for employing a religious term, even though I'm not using it in a strictly philosophical context. [edited to strike out "not"]

Therefore, I've been searching for a viable alternative term to mean "non-physical reality". "Virtual" and "Essential" do indeed refer to abstractions, such as " "excellence, potency, efficacy". Even "Mathematical" or "Statistical" refer to non-physical or not-yet-actual abstractions. But they have traditional non-philosophical scientific currency. So, I guess the "real" question could be expressed as, for example : A> "Is Mathematics Real, or is it Metaphysical, in the sense defined below?" or B> "does a Virtual Particle have physical form?" How can we distinguish between Physical Reality and Virtual Reality? Is it OK for philosophers to postulate in terms of "non-physical Ideality", or "beyond-physical-reality"? :brow:


Is a Virtual Particle Real ? :
Compared to actual particles — It is not. "Real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. . . . .
Since it is possible to perform quantum field theory calculations completely absent virtual particles being referenced in the math used, as seen in lattice field theory, then it is believed virtual particles are simply a mathematical tool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

What keeps space empty? :
Perfectly "empty" space will always have vacuum energy, the Higgs field, and spacetime curvature.
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2012/12/20/what-keeps-space-empty/
Q : do those mathematical entities actually occupy space?

Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

As-If Fallacy :
Offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future, if (the hypothetical part) circumstances or conditions were different. The fallacy also entails treating future hypothetical situations as if they are fact.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Hypothesis-Contrary-to-Fact

Virtual :
The meaning "being something in essence or effect, though not actually or in fact"
https://www.etymonline.com/word/virtual

Metaphysical : adjective. without material form or substance.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/metaphysical

What's philosophical is the idea of a dimensionless point producing an offspring. — jgill

In the context of this thread, is a zero-dimension point considered to be Real or Ideal, Physical or non-Physical? As a philosophical or mathematical thought-experiment, the notion of "nothing producing something" might be a valid ideal concept. But as a scientific observation it might be as unrealistic as a vacuum fluctuation popping a particle of matter into existence.

As I understand it, a Virtual Particle is equivalent to a dimensionless point. It works mathematically, but does it exist in reality? And that raises the old conundrum : "is mathematics real or invented?" My question is serious, because the answer could shed some light on the OP topic. :smile:

Is math invented or discovered? :
Mathematics is an intricate fusion of inventions and discoveries. Concepts are generally invented, and even though all the correct relations among them existed before their discovery, humans still chose which ones to study. ___Mario Livio, theoretical astrophysicist
https://www.sfu.ca/~rpyke/cafe/livio.pdf
Q : are "correct relations" equivalent to logical relationships?

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics? :
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested. ___Gordon Kane, theoretical physicist
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

Philosophy that dismisses science is not philosophy, it is casuistry. — Garrett Travers

Your unconditional faith in an infallible entity (science + sophistry = sciphistry) is touching. But it turns a philosophical forum into a mudslinging contest. Not surprisingly, your churlish clods memetically miss their mark. (that's a philosophical speculation, not a scientific fact)

You've made your point though : Sciphistry can lick Philosophy in a childish power struggle. So, if there's any dominance-dissing in this thread, its the subordination of Philosophy under the jackboot heel of Sciphistry (allegations without evidence). This thread is a silly cyberspace analogue to the Ukraine invasion. (again, a top-of-the-head conjecture, not a validated truth-claim)

It's been fun trading insults with you, But I prefer to waste my time actually engaging in intellectual philosophical dialogue, instead of below-the-belt who-hit-who harangues. Have a nice day. :joke:

I have never encountered so many narcissists. — Garrett Travers

There you go again, slandering your fellow "denizens". Is that your idea of a philosophical argument? :joke:

Yes, of course, it is a Category Error because this is a philosophy forum. As if philosophical training isn't science intensive and focused. Unreal. — Garrett Travers

So, you place Scientists & Philosophers into the same professional category? Do you make no distinction? Do you hold philosophers to the same standards of evidence as scientists? Is Psychology a scientific endeavor, even though it produces no empirical results of its own? Do you think we are supposed to be doing Science on this forum? Do you have formal training as a Scientist or Philosopher? :nerd:

Science vs Philosophy :
The main difference between science and philosophy is that science deals with hypothesis testing based on factual data whereas philosophy deals with logical analysis based on reason.
https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-science-and-philosophy/

Complete nonsense. Albert Einstein was an open point of skepticism within the scientific strata until.... guess when.... Empirical assessment validated his claims. — Garrett Travers

As usual, you missed the point. Did Einstein "validate" his own "claims". How do you define the job of a philosopher? Are we doing science on this forum? Like Einstein, I am skeptical of those who make knowledge claims of Incontrovertible Truth. Unlike wise old Albert, I am not skeptical of Quantum Entanglement . . . are you? :wink:

Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist :
https://www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein-Philosopher-Scientist-Philosophers-Paperback/dp/0875482864

In a modern sense, a philosopher is an intellectual who contributes to one or more branches of philosophy, such as aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, philosophy of science, logic, metaphysics, social theory, philosophy of religion, and political philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher

A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.
https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-scientist/

skepticism, also spelled scepticism, in Western philosophy, the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/skepticism

Disregarding Known Science — Garrett Travers

Quoting GT : "Evidence please". You make such broad general allegations as-if Science is a canonical Bible, but you don't cite book, chapter & verse. Can you be more specific about a particular "unequivocal" Fact of Science that I've "disregarded". What evidence has been "Suppressed". Do you think the general consensus of science is Final canonical Truth. Where is it written . . . . . . ? :cool:

Trump's Uncorroborated Allegations :
President Trump's baseless and desperate claims . . . .
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55016029

Does science tell the truth? :
The conclusion is that there are not absolute final truths, only functional truths that are agreed upon by consensus.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/science-what-is-truth/

I haven't had much luck getting my point across on this issue, so I plan to start a new thread soon to discuss a broader application of my understanding in this area, but focused on the scientific hierarchy. — T Clark

You mentioned "different levels of organization", and listed some different words that we apply to phenomena on those different levels : level A -- "neurons and synapses" (Quanta) or level B -- "thoughts, feelings, and perceptions" (Qualia). When I Googled "different levels of organization", the articles didn't mention level B phenomena specifically.

Are you talking about increasing physical complexity of evolved organisms over time (level A)? Or are you referring to the emergence of novel system behaviors as individual parts merge into a unified System (level B)? Level A is clearly concerned with physical properties that are detected by the 5 senses. But Level B qualities (feelings) are imperceptible to human senses, except what I call the "sixth sense" of Reason (not to be confused with proprioception).

I'm guessing that your "scientific hierarchy" is limited to Level A organization, which are clearly physical. But philosophy & psychology add another level to their hierarchy, which is emergent from or superposed upon a physical substrate, but lacks the usual material properties. By that I mean, "thoughts, feelings, and perceptions" are invisible, intangible, and odorless. Hence, they are not material substances, but mental qualities that we attribute to certain human, or human-like, behaviors. :nerd:

PS___In vernacular speech we often use "properties" and "qualities" interchangeably. But psychologists & philosophers have to make a clear distinction, to avoid category errors.


What are the 7 levels of organization in the human body? :
The major levels of organization in the body, from the simplest to the most complex are: atoms, molecules, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, and the human organism.

Typical levels of organization that one finds in the literature include the atomic, molecular, cellular, tissue, organ, organismal, group, population, community, ecosystem, landscape, and biosphere levels

What is the difference between reason and sense? :
is that reason is to exercise the rational faculty; to deduce inferences from premises; to perform the process of deduction or of induction; to ratiocinate; to reach conclusions by a systematic comparison of facts while sense is to use biological senses: to either smell, watch, taste, hear or feel.
https://wikidiff.com/reason/sense

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between possibility and actuality. .

THE THINKER

One topic that denizens of TPF seem to be under the impression that empirical research has left the door open for the discussion of philosophers to "speculate" about. — Garrett Travers

As one of the dissenting "denizens" of The Philosophy Forum, I'll reiterate my contention that empirical scientists and theoretical philosophers are interested in different kinds of "evidence". Some early philosophers, such as Aristotle, included both observational evidence, and speculative reasoning under the heading of Natural Science. Yet, he astutely separated his generalizations from the specific observations .

After the contentious divorce of Philosophy from Theology, the partition of Physics (science) from Meta-physics (philosophy) was made official. Hence, the focus of Natural Science was limited to A> objective evidence that can be replicated by any well-informed person. But that strict requirement eliminated from consideration any B> subjective evidence that is restricted to individual minds. And it's your narrow focus on type A evidence, that allows you to boast about the "unequivocal triumph of neuroscience". Admittedly, abstract rational Philosophy is still tarred with the same brush as spiritual revealed religion. There is some conceptual overlap, but they are not the same paradigm.

However, only a few modern philosophers are also practicing scientists. So their reasoned opinions, including those of Daniel Dennett, are easily dismissed as mere illusions or "speculations". Some mind-miners may do psychological or sociological studies to obtain statistical evidence of Ethical beliefs & behaviors. But few scientists would call their interpretations of such bell curves "empirical". And the philosophers don't consider their circumstantial evidence to be in competition with an empirical smoking gun. Instead, the role of Philosophy is not to reveal the structure of Reality, but to dissect our subjective beliefs-about and mental-models-of Reality. Mind-excavating Philosophers ask the hard questions -- e.g. about unknown-unknowns -- then speculate on possible answers, but ultimately leave the pragmatic spade-work to lab-laborers.

One example of that division of labor is Albert Einstein : he split no atoms, and looked through no telescopes, He merely used subjective imagination & mathematical logic to construct hypothetical experiments for others to carry out. He was, what we now call, a "Theoretical Scientist", not an Empirical Researcher. Likewise, those engaged in String Theory research, have no hard evidence of their own to crow about. Yet, they like to think of themselves as "real" scientists. However, you might reasonably describe their efforts as "mere speculation", unsupported by "unequivocal" evidence.

Consequently, my "impression" of the OP is that it is based on a typical Category Error, to hold the arguments on this Philosophy Forum to the same standards-of-proof as topics discussed on a Neuroscience Forum (see below). FWIW, I don't deny that it's possible for AI to eventually become Self-Aware. But I'm not aware of any current empirical evidence of computed Consciousness. Nevertheless, I take Neural & Computational research into account, as I pursue my own interests in the philosophical implications of Human Consciousness.

Moreover, I would caution anyone cognizant of the history of science from making "unequivocal" assertions. When scientists resort to exasperated use of such absolute categorical declarations, it's usually in cases of harsh political backlash, as in Global Warming. But, this is not a political forum, so the hyperbole is unnecessary. You won't convince anyone here by shouting "you're a pseudo-scientist, if you don't agree with my unequivocal worldview". :cool:


Philosophical Science :
Aristotle's contribution to science is perhaps best demonstrated by his classic description of the growth of a chick inside an egg.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/general-science-history/aristotle-man-who-relied-observed-facts

Neuroscience Readies for a Showdown Over Consciousness Ideas
“I don’t know of any philosophical reason why [it] should be inherently unsolvable” — but “humans seem nowhere close to solving it.” ___computer scientist Scott Aaronson
https://www.quantamagazine.org/neuroscience-readies-for-a-showdown-over-consciousness-ideas-20190306/

Philosophers use science in free will arguments :
Philosophy Professor Paul Davies and Associate Philosophy Professor Matt Haug both call upon scientific findings and research in their arguments, because both philosophy and science are concerned with some fundamental questions: What makes us act? Is it our intentions, or something else? What are our minds? Are they simply our brains? Or is there more beyond the physical structure?
https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2016/neuroscience-in-philosophy.php

The Neuroscience Forum :
http://www.neuroscienceforum.com/

If You Say ‘Science Is Right,’ You’re Wrong :
It can’t supply absolute truths about the world, but it brings us steadily closer
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-you-say-science-is-right-youre-wrong/

We're talking about the same thing, but using different terminology. — Gnomon
No, unless when we're talking about what kind of pie to have, we want to talk about the hypanthium, endocarp, and mesocarp of the pome. — T Clark

OK. Let's talk about an apple pie. There is an analytical vocabulary for describing the chemistry and physics of apples, sugar, spices & dough. But that reductive analysis cannot describe the taste of an apple pie. What it feels like to eat a slice of pie requires a Holistic & Synthetic vocabulary. Likewise, we can analyze physical neural nets all day, and never know the mental sensation of enjoying a sweet dessert. Same pie, different words.

That's why cookbooks may take advantage of physics & chemistry & biology (some may even mention the "hypanthium, endocarp, and mesocarp of the pome", but their focus is on the final product as experienced by the mind of the consumer. The cookbook is talking about the same pie, but using language that is more relevant to the gustatory Qualia than to the physical substance. In a similar manner, Philosophers have developed a different vocabulary (thoughts, feelings, cognition, reason) for describing the Mind, from that of scientists analyzing the Brain (see image below). :yum:

No, unless when we're talking about what kind of pie to have, we want to talk about the hypanthium, endocarp, and mesocarp of the pome. — T Clark

Sorry! I thought you might agree with my non-reductive holistic perspective on the topic, I didn't realize you were talking about fruit pies. :joke:

See my reply to EugeneW above, for clarification of my Holistic approach. Do you equate Holism with Magic? I don't. :nerd:

Saying that mental phenomena are fully explained by neurological phenomena is the old reductionist "nothing but" argument. — T Clark

Yes! I agree holistically. :wink:

The fact of Phase Change is undeniable ─ you can feel snow melt on your tongue ─ but explaining the mechanics of how it happened in terms of known physical laws proved impossible. — Gnomon
That is no proof that it's impossible. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is still in infancy shoes. — EugeneW

FWIW, I meant it's impossible for reductive science. Non-reductive Systems Theory may be on the verge of an understanding of the nanoscale intermediate steps in a phase transition. In the link below, they conclude that different levels of organization play by different rules (parameters). That is the whole point of Holism. On the quantum scale, scientists have found that a particle can, under certain conditions, relocate on the other side of a solid barrier without passing through the space between. That may be a form of phase transition, and might be related to the holism of Entanglement. Stay tuned. :smile:


Phase transitions occur when order parameters change as a function of another parameter of the system, such as temperature. An order parameter is a measure of the degree of order across the boundaries in a phase transition system.
https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~butner/systems/DynamicalSystemsIntro.html

How Ghostly Quantum Particles Fly Through Barriers :
At the subatomic level, particles can fly through seemingly impassable barriers like ghosts. Particles can pass through solid objects not because they're very small (though they are), but because the rules of physics are different at the quantum level.
https://www.livescience.com/65043-tunneling-quantum-particles.html

No, I'm talking about different levels of organization. When we talk about the nervous system, we talk about neurons and synapses. When we talk about the mind, we talk about thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. They're not the same thing whether we talk about them scientifically, philosophically, or just in an everyday manner. — T Clark

That's OK. We're talking about the same thing, but using different terminology. Empirical scientists have a matter-based vocabulary to discuss "neurons & synapses". But Psychologists and Philosophers use a different terminology to describe "thoughts, feelings, and perceptions". As far as I'm concerned, "Psychology" is merely a sciencey-sounding label for the philosophical investigation of the human Mind *1. Likewise, "Sociology" is a narrower niche for the exploration of human Culture. Both of those sub-disciplines sometimes cross the line into such traditional philosophical topics as Ethics & Beliefs. By contrast, the ancient philosophers were generalists, and did not make such reductive distinctions. Ironically, some haughty empirical scientists disparage those theoretical fields as "soft" science, because they produce no material evidence, but merely statistical correlations.

In my personal philosophical worldview, Brain & Mind are on the same evolutionary continuum, but at "different levels of organization". As noted in my reply to GT above, each transitional phase of evolution is the emergence of a more complex system from a structure of lower complexity. Ultimately, everything in the world is a specific form of fundamental Energy. But physics is now discovering that Energy is a causal form of even more essential Information : the power to enform. Shannon defined "Information" in terms of Entropy, which is merely the disorganization of Energy. I still consider Philosophy to be a general-purpose science, that can synthesize the sub-divisions of Science into a whole system of Knowledge : a worldview or cosmology. :nerd:

*1. Behaviorism was a short-lived attempt to put Psychology on an empirical basis.

How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

Is science a type of philosophy? "
Philosophy has its distinctive, traditional and more recent, sub-disciplines and themes: metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics, political philosophy, etc., and also includes philosophy of science.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-science-a-part-of-or-separate-from-philosophy