As for understanding space/time, my Corgi still cannot comprehend simple high school algebra. We have to learn our limitations.

Ah, the "the whole of existence is reducible to the patterns of excitation of the one universal field of subjectivity" thing.

my Corgi still cannot comprehend simple high school algebra. We have to learn our limitations. — jgill

:wink: But did your corgi learn it's limitations? Did it learn that it cannot do high school algebra? That would be pretty cool.

Ah, the "the whole of existence is reducible to the patterns of excitation of the one universal field of subjectivity" thing. — Banno

The physicalist explanation would be that 'the whole of existence is due to the excitations in electromagnetic fields', which is the way atomic structures are nowadays understood.

So - what's wrong with it? Why is one universal field of subjectivity any more or less credible than atomic theory?

So - what's wrong with it? Why is one universal field of subjectivity any more or less credible than atomic theory? — Wayfarer

I don't know how to explain this, since your asking the question seems to show a misunderstanding of what a field is in physics. A field is a mathematical function assigning a value to every point in the given space.

How the fuck does subjectivity give, or be understood as, an assigned value to every point in a space? What could that mean?

There's a chasm here, that you apparently do not see.

The point being that objective idealism does not make the world dependent on the individual mind. — Wayfarer

As far as we can tell there are only Indvidual minds. When are you going to wake up to the fact that I understand Kastrup's 'arguments' perfectly well, and yet do not agree, in fact find them nonsensical. I understand his analogical idea of dissociated alters, and I think it's clutching at straws. We have zero evidence of any hidden connection between minds as far as I am aware..

When are you going to wake up to the fact that I understand Kastrup's 'arguments' perfectly well, and yet do not agree, — Janus

You can't condescend upwards.

There's a chasm here, that you apparently do not see. — Banno

Oh, the irony.

As it happens, Kastrup, whom I'm quoting, is perfectly conversant with quantum physics, indeed his first job was at CERN. There's a blog post of his on the concordance of idealism and quantum physics here.

And what values does Kastrup set for each point in the subjective field?

Becasue that is what is required of a field in order to be a field.

IF he doesn't give us a way to calculate the value of the field of subjectivity at each point in whatever space he is talking about, he is not talking physics.

Even if, and I want to make this perfectly clear, even if he is "perfectly conversant with quantum physics".

You can't condescend upwards. — Wayfarer

A meaningless comment...or is it just more appeal to supposed authority. Poor form for a would-be philosopher either way.

As it happens, Kastrup, whom I'm quoting, is perfectly conversant with quantum physics, indeed his first job was at CERN. There's a blog post of his on the concordance of idealism and quantum physics here. — Wayfarer

More argument from authority. Kastrup has a degree in computer science not in quantum physics. In any case it is implausible that quantum mechanics has any determinable implications for the metaphysical realism vs idealism debate. If all our concepts evolved from experience in the macroworld it is not surprising that what we find in the microworld might seem paradoxical.

So - what's wrong with it? Why is one universal field of subjectivity any more or less credible than atomic theory? — Wayfarer

Certainly doesn't seem any stranger than some contemporary formulations of physics.

Your general thesis doesn't seem that difficult to follow.

Humans do not have direct access to reality because our perception is filtered through our senses, our cognitive apparatus and shaped by language. Our senses provide a limited and subjective view of the world, interpreting stimuli rather than presenting reality as it truly is. Language further confines our understanding by categorising and structuring our experiences, shaping our thoughts within predefined concepts and cultural frameworks. We never perceive the world directly but only through the lens of our biological and linguistic limitations, leaving us with a constructed version of reality rather than an objective one.

Kastrup puts it much better than I could:

Under objective idealism, subjectivity is not individual or multiple, but unitary and universal: it’s the bottom level of reality, prior to spatiotemporal extension and consequent differentiation. The subjectivity in me is the same subjectivity in you. What differentiates us are merely the contents of this subjectivity as experienced by you, and by me. We differ only in experienced memories, perspectives and narratives of self, but not in the subjective field wherein all these memories, perspectives and narratives of self unfold as patterns of excitation; that is, as experiences.

As such, under objective idealism there is nothing outside subjectivity, for the whole of existence is reducible to the patterns of excitation of the one universal field of subjectivity. Therefore, all choices are determined by this one subject, as there are no agencies or forces external to it. Yet, all choices are indeed determined by the inherent, innate dispositions of the subject. In other words, all choices are determined by what subjectivity is.
— Bernardo Kastrup — Wayfarer

Not dissimilar to David Bentley Hart's account of God as the very "Ground of Being" itself—the necessary reality that makes all existence possible. Rather than a finite entity within the universe, God is the infinite, transcendent source from which all things derive their being.

God is not only the ultimate reality that the intellect and the will seek but is also the primordial reality with which all of us are always engaged in every moment of existence and consciousness, apart from which we have no experience of anything whatsoever. Or, to borrow the language of Augustine, God is not only superior summo meo—beyond my utmost heights—but also interior intimo meo—more inward to me than my inmost depths.

The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss
David Bentley Hart

Your general thesis doesn't seem that difficult to follow. — Tom Storm

No, very easy to follow...just very difficult to agree with.

When are you going to wake up to the fact that I understand Kastrup's 'arguments' perfectly well, and yet do not agree, in fact find them nonsensical — Janus

Kastrup has PhD's in computer science and philosophy.

Where Kastrup entered the conversation again, was in the other thread, as the commentary you provided on Wittgenstein was from Kastrup's website, The Essentia Foundation. It contained this paragraph:

Moreover, not only is Wittgenstein self-conscious about the contingency of our sense-making; he is also self-conscious about a problematical idealism that it seems to entail, where by ‘idealism’ is meant the view that what we make sense of is dependent on how we make sense of it[Editor’s note: this is not the objective idealism promoted by Essentia Foundation, which does entail the existence of states of affairs that are not contingent on human cognition].

That was what prompted me to google 'Objective idealism', and the quote I gave here, was from an essay by Kastrup on that subject. It was provided to distinguish objective idealism from the trivalising way in which it is generally depicted as implying 'the world is the product of an individual's mind' or is 'all in the mind'.

what values does Kastrup set for each point in the subjective field? — Banno

Bernardo Kastrup's 'field of subjectivity' is a way of describing mind or consciousess as a universal that manifests through manifold particular forms. In plain language, he's saying that what we think of as individual minds—your or my consciousness, that of living beings generally—are not completely separate but rather are localized within a broader, all-encompassing field of awareness. But that should be a separate discussion. I brought up Kastrup because of a comment made in another thread.

In any case it is implausible that quantum mechanics has any determinable implications for the metaphysical realism vs idealism debate. — Janus

:rofl: The 'nature of the wave function' is the single most outstanding philosophical problem thrown up by quantum physics. To this day, Nobel-prize winning theorists still do not agree on what it is, and that disagreement is completely metaphysical as a matter of definition (i.e. cannot be resolved by observation, but related to the meaning of what has been observed.)

Thank you Tom.

The 'nature of the wave function' is the single most outstanding philosophical problem thrown up by quantum physics. To this day, Nobel-prize winning theorists still do not agree on what it is, that that disagreement is completely metaphysical. — Wayfarer

Quantum physics is a physical, not a metaphysical science...it is the paradigmatic physical science. What is observed is the behavior of putative microphysical entities. The disagreement about how to understand some of that behavior is not surprising, given that we have no reason to assume that the microphysical can be conceptualized using ideas that evolved in the macroworld.

Bernardo Kastrup's 'field of subjectivity' is a way of describing mind or consciousess as a universal manifests through manifold particular forms. In plain language, he's saying that what we think of as individual minds—your or my consciousness, that of living beings generally—are not completely separate but rather are localized within a broader, all-encompassing field of awareness. — Wayfarer

Which is not physics. That's becasue in physics a field is a space with a value at every point. If he does not present a way to understand what that value might be, he is talking through his hat.

And if he is not doing physics, then we ought not see his expertise in physics as supporting his argument.

:rofl: The 'nature of the wave function' is the single most outstanding philosophical problem thrown up by quantum physics. To this day, Nobel-prize winning theorists still do not agree on what it is, that that disagreement is completely metaphysical. — Wayfarer

The bit where you think you have the answer, but don't.

under objective idealism there is nothing outside subjectivity, for the whole of existence is reducible to the patterns of excitation of the one universal field of subjectivity. — Bernardo Kastrup

@Wayfarer

This could be so, and is similar to Whitehead.

Again, consider Einstein's Block Universe as a broadcast of the experiential…

The bit where you think you have the answer, but don't. — Banno

No worse than thinking there's no question.

No worse than thinking there's no question. — Wayfarer

There's a difference between recognising a question and accepting an answer. Sure there's a question here - a profound one. But you jump to a conclusion that does not work.

Handwaving waffle about physical fields of subjective experience does not help. It's too easy to show it to be garbage.

As I said - it's simply an analogy. The atoms of physicalism are nowadays understood as 'excitations of fields'. The fact that the mind might be understood in terms of an excitation of a field is analogous. That is all.

This could be so, and is similar to Whitehead. — PoeticUniverse

Quite right .

t's simply an analogy. — Wayfarer

Then it doesn't help. Those "excitations of fields" have a value. What is the value of the subjective field three centimetres in front of of you nose?

...the whole of existence is reducible to the patterns of excitation of the one universal field of subjectivity. — Bernardo Kastrup

That's not presenting an analog. Calling it an analogy is what folk do when their explanation doesn't work. so that they can follow up with "you just don't understand... you can't see the analogy"

Like you did earlier.

What is the value of the subjective field three centimetres in front of of you nose? — Banno

The question is not apt, because the subject is ‘that to whom experience occurs’. The subject never appears as ‘that’. Another person may appear objective to you, but the fact that you refer to them with proper pronouns (he or she) recognises that they too are subjects of experience.

I can see I’ve opened a can of worms by bringing in Kastrup. I might start another thread on him. But I’m logging out for the evening, have a nice one.

The question is not apt because the notion of a field of subjective experience fails to match with what is meant by "field" in physics. It has no values.


Cheers. Have a good evening.

Couldn’t resist - the values are qualitative. Hence, qualia. And goodnight.

:razz:

Not helping.

Of course we're going to notice the difference, it changes the pitch. It's like Alvin and The Chipmunks. They take a recording and speed it up. It's noticeably not normal. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do you know slowed or fastened reproduction of the music is not normal? I was pointing out, it is a priori concept of temporality in our minds which can tell they are not normal, rather than the music itself.
Hence human mind has innate temporal knowledge of time? Would you agree?

There is no ontology of time, simply because time as an independent entity simply does not exist.
Time is a concept derived from the change, the flux, the process and becoming of nature.
In a universe where there was no activity, no flux, the concept of time or the word time would simply become meaningless. Much the same could be said of the concept of empty space (no such thing).

When are you going to wake up to the fact that I understand Kastrup's 'arguments' perfectly well, and yet do not agree, in fact find them nonsensical. — Janus

You ought to consider that if an author's arguments appear nonsensical to you, you in fact, do not understand the author. This is because to understand requires acknowledging what the author intends, and no author intends to argue nonsense. So if you find an author's arguments to be nonsensical it implies that you do not understand the author.

A field is a mathematical function assigning a value to every point in the given space. — Banno

That's becasue in physics a field is a space with a value at every point. — Banno

The question is not apt because the notion of a field of subjective experience fails to match with what is meant by "field" in physics. It has no values. — Banno

You are clearly not distinguishing between "field" in mathematics, and "field" in physics. In physics, "the field" is the thing represented by the mathematical field. Here, you are insisting that the mathematical function called "field", is the field in physics. That is incorrect.

This is explained quite well by physicist Richard Feynman for example, when he explains how an electrical charge moves through the electromagnetic "field" which surrounds a copper wire, rather than moving through the copper wire itself. This is the principle which drives the induction motor for example.

Now, the field is active, and this activity is represented by the changing values of the mathematical representation. What "a field" actually is, is not well understood by physicists. The field is active, and the activity of the field is understood, and represented as if it is a wave activity. That wave representation allows for predictive capacity. However, since the medium of these waves (the aether) has not been identified, the supposed "field" itself, within which the apparent waves are active, remains elusive to the human intellect.

Since "a field" in physics refers to a thing (not a mathematical construct but what is represented by that construct), and the existence of this thing has not been supported by principles which are logically coherent, its essence (what it is) remains a matter of speculation. This allows many different metaphysical theories, (such as the one Wayfarer proposes) to propagate.

How do you know slowed or fastened reproduction of the music is not normal? I was pointing out, it is a priori concept of temporality in our minds which can tell they are not normal, rather than the music itself.
Hence human mind has innate temporal knowledge of time? Would you agree? — Corvus

No, I do not agree with this. If the music is sped up or slowed down only a miniscule amount, I cannot tell the difference without comparison to a designated "normal". If given two different samples, of the same piece, one altered slightly, I would not be able to tell which one, I would be guessing.

In fact, fifty or sixty years ago it was common practise for recording artists to alter the speed a little bit, in some songs they released. As a listener you would never know that a song was altered, until you tried to play along, and found out that you had to change the tuning of your instrument.

So I do not believe it is an innate ability to recognize that the speed of a recording has been altered. I believe that to recognize that the speed has been altered requires comparison with some designated "normal". So this ability is a feature of learning how to compare a sample with a "normal". This itself, the ability to compare a sample with a normal, may be an innate knowledge, but it is a general capacity, and doesn't amount to the specific "temporal knowledge" which you are talking about.

No, I do not agree with this. If the music is sped up or slowed down only a miniscule amount, I cannot tell the difference without comparison to a designated "normal". If given two different samples, of the same piece, one altered slightly, I would not be able to tell which one, I would be guessing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I wonder if you are familiar with Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven song. If you are, then the above recordings will demonstrate that they sound totally different from the top (30% slowed down) and bottom (normal) guitar solo in the song. And one can tell which one is the normal speed. and which one is slowed down in speed.

If you still cannot tell the difference, either you have never listened to Led Zepps in your life, or you are a tone deaf. :D

but it is a general capacity, — Metaphysician Undercover

A general capacity for what? It sounds vague and unclear.

If you still cannot tell the difference, either you have never listened to Led Zepps in your life, or you are a tone deaf. — Corvus

You are comparing it to the norm.

A general capacity for what? It sounds vague and unclear. — Corvus

The general capacity to compare something to a norm. You don't seem to be paying attention to my post.