The multiverse is new age pseudo science on the same level as the god of the gaps to explain unexplained phenomena. — Haglund

I disagree.

"Purportedly" is a sophistry way to put it. — Haglund

I used that word specifically to express my skepticism.

Word are merely the final stage in consolidating a set of ideas that begin as felt intuitions. I can tell you that these intuitions had a profound effect on me , guiding my thinking implicitly well before I was able to make them explicit with words. — Joshs

I've had the same kind of experiences you have - experiencing things without naming them or putting them into words. I don't call those "concepts" until they are put into words. People often need words before they even become aware of the experience. They certainly need them to communicate the experience to others or even to put it into a form that you can process yourself using reason. Whatever it is you end up with when you put something into words, it is not the same as the experience. You've created something new. You've taken a experience and jammed it into the boxes that fit.

I think babies are born with some instincts and a lot of built in capacities, but they have to learn about anything specific. I think intuition is learned, not innate. Language, learning the names for things, is an important part of the process.

Interesting. Aside from art, I would consider actions to also have meaning. Take body language.

I guess you would say that body language has no meaning until it has been put into words? I will have to mull over that a bit more. — PhilosophyRunner

A lot of this thread has been about this issue, i.e. what does it mean to put something into words.

Can not actions, visuals, concepts have meaning even when not put into words? — PhilosophyRunner

In my view, experiences are just experiences until they are conceptualized, put into words. Until then, they have no meaning. As I see it, art has no meaning, although many disagree with that. This has been discussed many times in the forum.

Do you have a reference? I'd be interested in reading more.
— T Clark

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5972154/ — Joshs

Thanks. I'll take a look.

Are emotions just expressed is socially significant ways or, as Wittgenstein shows , is their very sense created via these contextual engagements? Putting into words wouldnt merely be relating symbols to already formed meanings but allowing the worlds to form the sense of a meaning. — Joshs

I'm not sure what this means, but I believe that things don't mean anything until they are put into words. That's what meaning means.

I don't agree. — Jackson

You don't agree that multiverses are proposed as physically existent entities or you don't agree with my exposition on metaphysics?

If we say there is one universe we have to explain why there is nothing which unifies that reference other than 'all that exists.' — Jackson

Are you saying that the universe/multiverse distinction is only one of language? I don't think that's what you're saying. Let's define "universe" as everything that is or previously was observable, at least in theory.

A possible world is a logical structure, so a multiverse would qualify. — Jackson

From what I've seen, multiverses are proposed as physically existent entities, not logical ones. If a parallel universe is not physically observable, one of three conditions apply 1) It is metaphysics and useful, 2) It is metaphysics and not useful, or 3) It is meaningless. In my understanding, multiverses associated with quantum mechanics are not even theoretically observable.

Here's the first article I've seen that discusses the possibility of determining whether alternate universes might exist. It still seems a reach.

In mathematics, a dynamical system might proceed to evolve along alternate paths at points of bifurcation. But what happens in math may be mere fiction in the physical world. — jgill

The idea of the multiverse is what I think possible worlds refers to. There is no universe, just multiple universes. — Jackson

In my understanding, possible worlds are different from the multiverse. Possible worlds are metaphysical entities while the multiverse is, at least purportedly, science. It is also my understanding that neither possible worlds nor a multiverse associated with quantum mechanics are even theoretically observable. A multiverse associated with cosmic inflation may be.

We dont have some general body-maintenance feedback first and then have to decide how to explain its meaning by relating it to a current situation. Emotions come already world-directed. There is never just some generic arousal that then has to be attributed. Feelings emerge from within experiences that are relevant to us in some way. We are never without a mood. — Joshs

Do you have a reference? I'd be interested in reading more. Beyond what Barrett says, in my own experience I have had to work to understand what particular emotions are. Babies have to learn everything about the world and how to put it into words. In particular, emotions have to be expressed in socially specific ways. What we call "anger" isn't just one thing, it's a whole bunch of related but significantly different things. That's something else I've experienced directly.

I don’t think they have to learn what they mean in a fundamental sense. What they mean is inherent in their very expression as emotions. An emotion is a kind of appraisal of one’s situation, whether one has a word label for the emotion or not. — Joshs

In "How Emotions are Made," Lisa Barrett describes how children learn concepts, names, of emotions by observing their own internal states, other people's emotional expressions, and the use of words for emotions. Each emotional concept; anger, sadness, happiness; is made up of a whole bunch of different instances that they have to learn belong together. Anger can feel and be expressed very differently depending on the situation and the person involved. This is something that has to be learned.

But both existence and non-existence are conceptual constructions. The idea of non-existence is just as dependent on the constructive activities of the mind as the idea of existence. And what exists outside that constructive activity of the mind, we will never know, because that is what gives meaning to the term ‘it exists’. Nothing has any meaning outside that matrix of meaning-construction. — Wayfarer

I agree, but this is a hard idea to keep hold of. If I stop paying attention, it slips away again.

I may have missed your point. Are you saying we cannot be angry without using words to say we are angry? — Jackson

Young children experience emotions, but they have to learn what they are, what they mean, what they are called.

Then what do you mean by experience? — Jackson

Sights, sounds, tastes, smells, feelings, emotions, memories, attention...

what is a direct unspoken experience? — Jackson

Experience comes first, then the words. Words are how we process experience. It is possible, I think, to experience the world without processing. That doesn't mean I can do it, although I may have been close a few times.

Go Dog Go is a book I highly recommend for its life study and discussion of basic philosophical truths. — Hanover

If we are going to evaluate children's books as philosophy, I put my money on "Goodnight Moon."

This is one of the best threads I've seen in a long time. Lots of well-thought-out posts. No sniping. Responsive responses. Really interesting. The question of perspectives seen from many perspectives.

If there is no privileged perspective, then the term 'perspective' stands in its meaning only against other perspectives, and loses meaning entirely in talk about "a universe without a perspective". — Constance

I think this is true.

But anyways, you seem to be answering your own objections.. Yes, a universe has no privileged perspective on its own. But my question is what is a universe without a perspective? I mean literally, what does that look like? The only thing I can posit that people might say (especially information-enthusiasts) are localized interactions somehow inhering in the universe. But I don't really know if I buy that. — schopenhauer1

A Taoist might say that the universe doesn't exist until it is put into human perspective. "Existence" means "put into a human perspective."

Physicalism is a metaphysics. — Jackson

Sure, but then all ways of knowing the world except for direct, unspoken experience are metaphysics.

I think physicalism is a metaphysical position (and is invalid as any other) if it holds that the nature of reality in itself is physical. Reality as we understand it is indeed physical, but that is an empirical or phenomenological claim, not a metaphysical one (unless you want to redefine metaphysics and ontology in terms of phenomenology). — Janus

I agree with this except for "invalid."

Metaphysics is not my thing, so apologies. That said, my understanding is that our metaphysics amounts to a collaboration between ourselves and what it is we describe as reality. We create the measuring systems, the tools, the very language of description. And as we learn or grasp more, our metaphysics shifts and evolves. So that's what I mean by co-created. Do we ever grasp the real? Isn't even the notion of real a human construct? Or am I now sounding like a stoner? Physicalism as understood by most scientists is a metaphysical position, but many, like Bernardo Kastrup, would hold that this is questionable in the light of some interpretations of QM,if nothing else, right? — Tom Storm

I agree with this, except for the stoner and QM parts.

If a metaphysics, to be considered valid or substantive, must reflect a "reality beyond human perception" and all our metaphysics are merely human creations or at best "co-creations" (whatever that could be thought to mean), then there are no valid metaphysics, or at least no metaphysics which we can demonstrate or know to be valid. — Janus

Metaphysics is a tool. If it works, it's valid.

I can't speak for Wayfarer but surely any metaphysics is always based on a human point of view. — Tom Storm

I agree. I think metaphysics is the set of tools we use to bring the world into human perspective. I'm not sure if that's exactly what you mean.

That's the point. We can imagine, is different than what is going on. You are giving privilege again to humans. Our view of a "planet" would then be approximately "the planet". How odd and Platonic of you. Our Form of planet inheres in reality. — schopenhauer1

Here's what I wrote:

I think it is probably possible to escape the human perspective. Even if we can't do that, we can imagine what it would be like to escape the human perspective. We can examine it from a metaphysical ...perspective. — T Clark

If we can escape the human perspective, it would be without words. I think this is the essence of what meditation strives for. I certainly have never experienced it, but I think it may be possible.

You can definitely scientifically study behaviour resulting from consciousness. You can also scientifically study the neural correlates of consciousness. You can study the physical manifestation of consciousness.

However consciousness is often used to mean an inner state of awareness, which is not directly measurable. This contrasts with distance, for example, that is used to mean a purely physical quantity.

Now I lean towards the theory that consciousness emerges from the physical. I have yet to find a convincing non naturalist position. Which leaves me in a pickle.

Can the meaning of consciousness be wholly described in terms of the physical? If that can be achieved, I may become less pickled. — PhilosophyRunner

I agree with all of this. See my response to Angelo Cannata above.

Computers are the artefacts of human minds, built and programmed by humans. So unless the mind is physical - which is the point at issue! - then you can't claim that they can be explained in solely physical terms. — Wayfarer

I didn't say this proves that the mind is entirely physical. I was trying to do as I thought you asked - provide an analogy of a situation where a very complex system of physical components could integrate itself into a single entity which behaves in a manner which can't be understood by understanding the characteristics and behavior of the components. Other examples; the market, society, the weather, ecology.

This is exactly the problem: if you try to forget your own consciousness, what you are trying to understand is not consciousness anymore, — Angelo Cannata

Sure it is. Perhaps there is some truth in what you say for knowledge of my own consciousness, but consciousness is a mental property like any other. It's something people share. People other than me experience it too. The only way I can know that is by observing their behavior.

I think it is possible to experience what we call consciousness directly without language or concepts, but then, that's not consciousness anymore. The minute you call consciousness by it's name, it's not the experience you are describing, it's a concept. That consciousness can't be understood, it can only be experienced. The tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. But it is possible to understand consciousness the concept. Consciousness is as much, and as little, a thing as a loaf of bread.

Try it then. Try to remove the human temporal perspective, so that there's no "now". You'd have the entire temporal expanse of the universe at once. There'd be no separation of any object from any other object, because everything would exist everywhere all at once. If you wanted to imagine just a short portion of time, what would separate that portion from the rest other than your chosen perspective? — Metaphysician Undercover

I have tried it. I think what you're describing is the essence of the experience meditation is looking for. Yes, I can imagine it. I can grasp it intellectually. No, I cannot experience it directly.

So any ‘concept’ in a spoken-only language would be undefined, and its meaning determined by use. It is only in written language that the ‘definition’ or ‘meaning’ of a concept becomes important at all. — Possibility

Do you have a reference for your speculation? I'm skeptical. A little evidence would help.

It is in evidence of their early use that we see the development. There are ideographic systems of languages, such as Chinese or Japanese, and Egyptian hieroglyphs that developed from a stationary, visual and official means of communication, and there are alphabetical and phonetic systems that developed more from the oral or performative communications of nomadic peoples. — Possibility

You are talking about written language. There are, or at least were, societies without written language. It is my understanding those societies still had fully developed spoken languages. I don't think anyone knows when and how language first developed or whether earlier humans used language.

Matter and energy interacting out there in the universe, is a human perspective. It's how we describe things. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree.

You cannot escape the human perspective. — Metaphysician Undercover

I know what you mean, but I think I disagree. I think it is probably possible to escape the human perspective. Even if we can't do that, we can imagine what it would be like to escape the human perspective. We can examine it from a metaphysical ...perspective.

There's one of my stock quotes that addresses this from a physics perspective. — Wayfarer

This is an example of a physicist confusing science with metaphysics. Human perspective is a metaphysical entity. It doesn't affect how matter and energy interact out here in the universe.

I dont think there is being without perspective. — Joshs

I agree with this.

Every facet of the universe produces its own changing reality via its relations with its environment. So you have a universe continually developing , but not in some perspective free sense, because a perspective isn’t simply an observation for a point of view, it’s a contribution to the production of a universe. If every facet of being produces what only exists from its vantage, the it makes no sense to speak of the absence of perspective. — Joshs

But not this. It seems like you are calling every interaction an observation which provides a perspective. That dilutes the meaning of "observation" and "perspective" till there's nothing left.

If you take away perspective you also take away the very facts that make up a universe. — Joshs

I think this is true, although I would say "things" rather than "facts."

Yet humans at least act as though we have a privileged perspective to being close to what is “really going on”, more than other animals at least. — schopenhauer1

We, they, call that privileged perspective "objective reality," which it's not.

Now take away humans, take away animals. We get a view from nowhere. Here is true metaphysics. What then exists in the view from nowhere? — schopenhauer1

I'm with Apokrisis here:

...no view anywhere. Case solved. — apokrisis

It makes sense to say that, without an observer, there is no perspective and thus no existence. This is really at the heart of some eastern philosophies. For example, Taoism. Lao Tzu wrote:

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

The act of seeing, naming, conceptualizing is what brings things into being - into a human perspective. Before that happens, they are unspeakable, unspoken. In a sense they don't exist. The Tao is the unbroken oneness that can't be described. That's what you get when there is no observer.

seems to me that setting that up as a conflict between Darwin and Aristotle is misleading.
— T Clark
which as I mentioned before is spot on. — Banno

Thanks for the clarification.

These are products of human intelligence. Whether they can be understood in physicalist terms, then, begs the question.

The basic problem with that memory paper is mereological - the relationship of parts and wholes. As it says, memories are encoded across hundreds of different neural areas. Yet they retain their identity as a single unitary memory. And this is something that happens at other levels of experience - even though our cellular metabolism is fantastically complex, comprising billions of cells, experience itself is unitary. — Wayfarer

I guess I misunderstood your question. I gave an example of a very complex system that emerged from many interacting subsystems with massive interconnection and where no non-physical explanation is needed. I think that is analogous to the mind arising from the nervous system.

That is a major difficulty for reductionist, 'bottom-up' accounts life and mind. — Wayfarer

My choices aren't between reductionist and non-physicalist explanations. I don't buy either.

Early language was ideographic: consisting of logical signs for qualitative ideas; any emotional aspect or affect was considered evident in the human element of an exchange. Meaning is usage, and value is subjective.

Conceptual language developed later, enabling users to define their intended meaning to an extent without relying on the human element. Affect was increasingly incorporated into the language itself, often as a tool for manipulation, and ‘official’ or dictionary definitions became necessary to determine meaning from usage that often includes cultural perceptions of value or potential. Language took on a ‘life’ of its own, evolved in interaction with humanity, its meaning increasingly indeterminate and subjective. — Possibility

How do we know about early language and how it developed. It was my understanding that all languages which have been encountered, no matter how primitive the society, have fully developed grammars and vocabularies.

Is not our behaviours an outcome of consciousness, but not consciousness itself? — PhilosophyRunner

Let's forget about my experience of my own consciousness for a minute. The only way I can know about another person's internal experience, consciousness, is by observing their behavior, including the things they say, their facial expressions, etc. Actually, in these days of cognitive science, I might also be able to learn things based on observing neurological activity with brain scanning equipment. This is something we do all the time in our lives, but it applies to scientific study also.

However there is a missing step, an assumption, between them and consciousness itself. Maybe we will wave that assumption always as required, because otherwise we are stuck in out analysis. But it is an assumption nevertheless, is it not? — PhilosophyRunner

Sure. I make an assumption that the behavior I observe in another indicates that that person is experiencing consciousness in a manner similar to how I do. Is that what you mean? Again, this is something we do all the time in our daily lives.

What analogy from the physical sciences might provide a model? — Wayfarer

I recognize this is a cliche, but I think tools to mechanical devices to electrical devices to electronic devices to electronic devices using transistors to computers to networks to the internet to Facebook to Skynet is probably a good analogy. I'm not saying the levels of complexity between this and the brain are equivalent. I don't know how they compare.

I didn’t read any of the titles that Banno listed earlier and now they appear to be ghosted so I can’t make any judgment about fairness. — praxis

Here's a link to the list:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/680631

On in particular got my hackles up - "The eternal soul (Vitalism): was Darwin wrong?" It is not primarily a religious thread and I found it really useful.

Generally, it seems to me that “believers” have ample opportunity to express their “beliefs” on this forum. — praxis

I think this is true and I'd like to see it stay that way. My primary complaint is about this thread. There are other members who express even stronger feelings about religious posts than Banno does, but the moderators have been reasonably open.