Cognizing without there being any cognizer?

[Juma]

You cant touch movement either. You cant touch physical processes. Yet they are definitely not "immaterial". (Whatever that is supposed to mean)

That's right, movement cannot be touched. Touch that which moves all we might please, but movement shall we never touch. Movement is not "immaterial" (and I know both what that means and what it is supposed to mean), but movement is immaterial (yet whether it's 'immaterial' is anyone's guess.)

Do you see forces as immaterial also?

 

[fromderinside]

That's right, movement cannot be touched. Touch that which moves all we might please, but movement shall we never touch. Movement is not "immaterial" (and I know both what that means and what it is supposed to mean), but movement is immaterial (yet whether it's 'immaterial' is anyone's guess.)

Do you see forces as immaterial also?

Time to thrown in another construct. How about stuff? Forces are stuff, fields are stuff, particles are stuff. Some stuff one can touch other stuff, humans can't touch. Is stuff immaterial or material? Then there's thing.

 

[fast]

That's right, movement cannot be touched. Touch that which moves all we might please, but movement shall we never touch. Movement is not "immaterial" (and I know both what that means and what it is supposed to mean), but movement is immaterial (yet whether it's 'immaterial' is anyone's guess.)

Do you see forces as immaterial also?

Not sure. Probably.

 

[ontological_realist]

Does cognizing necessarily have to have a cognizer or at least some sort of a cognizing apparatus?

In other words is it at all possible that there be cognizing going on without anybody or any thing doing the cognizing? Rain does not need a rainer.

There does not seem to be any formal contradiction either way. Let's assume that there is a form of cognising which is not done, or supported, or caused, by something else, material or otherwise. So presumably all that the cognising process would know would be itself. So, how would that be a problem at all?

Of course, people tend to also believe things, i.e. beyond what they actually know, and we do tend to believe that, in the material world, some specific material support needs to exists for knowledge to exist too.
EB

" Let's assume that there is a form of cognising which is not done, or supported, or caused, by something else, material or otherwise. So presumably all that the cognising process would know would be itself" But that is the point that can there be such a cognizing.
When you are sitting alone and thinking, some insight may come to you which was not there in your mind before. Do you mean something like that? Can you give any actual example?

"some specific material support needs to exists for knowledge to exist too."
Perhaps it is not quite right to say that knowledge, "exists". I tend to think that knowledge is made by the cognizer and is not already present there ; and what exists there is something which that particular cognizer can cognize. Another cognizer may not find any knowledge in the same thing.

 

[fast]

Perhaps it is not quite right to say that knowledge, "exists". I tend to think that knowledge is made by the cognizer and is not already present there ; and what exists there is something which that particular cognizer can cognize. Another cognizer may not find any knowledge in the same thing.

Knowledge exists. It has properties.

If a thought pops into your head and you form a belief, then so too did knowledge if the conditions are met.

 

[Random Person]

There does not seem to be any formal contradiction either way. Let's assume that there is a form of cognising which is not done, or supported, or caused, by something else, material or otherwise. So presumably all that the cognising process would know would be itself. So, how would that be a problem at all?

Of course, people tend to also believe things, i.e. beyond what they actually know, and we do tend to believe that, in the material world, some specific material support needs to exists for knowledge to exist too.
EB

" Let's assume that there is a form of cognising which is not done, or supported, or caused, by something else, material or otherwise. So presumably all that the cognising process would know would be itself" But that is the point that can there be such a cognizing.
When you are sitting alone and thinking, some insight may come to you which was not there in your mind before. Do you mean something like that? Can you give any actual example?

"some specific material support needs to exists for knowledge to exist too."
Perhaps it is not quite right to say that knowledge, "exists". I tend to think that knowledge is made by the cognizer and is not already present there ; and what exists there is something which that particular cognizer can cognize. Another cognizer may not find any knowledge in the same thing.

It's an interesting idea. Where does the flash of insight come from? The thing being cognized or the recognition of it? Does the flash of insight exist already waiting to be unfurled by an outside stimulus?

 

[bigfield]

" Let's assume that there is a form of cognising which is not done, or supported, or caused, by something else, material or otherwise. So presumably all that the cognising process would know would be itself" But that is the point that can there be such a cognizing.
When you are sitting alone and thinking, some insight may come to you which was not there in your mind before. Do you mean something like that? Can you give any actual example?

"some specific material support needs to exists for knowledge to exist too."
Perhaps it is not quite right to say that knowledge, "exists". I tend to think that knowledge is made by the cognizer and is not already present there ; and what exists there is something which that particular cognizer can cognize. Another cognizer may not find any knowledge in the same thing.

It's an interesting idea. Where does the flash of insight come from? The thing being cognized or the recognition of it? Does the flash of insight exist already waiting to be unfurled by an outside stimulus?

A 'flash of insight', 'lightbulb moment', or simply 'having an idea' is typically your conscious mind being made aware of the result of the work that has been done by your unconscious mind.

 

[DBT]

Most of the brains available information, inputs and memory, is processed unconsciously, some of which is then represented in conscious form (microseconds). The information which is represented in conscious form, patterns of firings which somehow forms images and sensations, being related to immediate needs in terms of immediate needs, negotiating the objects and events of the world, and solutions to long term problems...the eureka moment popping into conscious form when the information relating to the problem to be solved achieves readiness potential.

 

[Juma]

Do you see forces as immaterial also?

Not sure. Probably.

Weird. Since matter IS forces!

 

[fast]

Not sure. Probably.

Weird. Since matter IS forces!

I don't know enough about this to feel confident in my reply, but the thought coming to mind is that there is a subtle distinction being brushed over. Whether matter is a force and whether matter is force seem to describe the relevant distinction.

 

[Juma]

Weird. Since matter IS forces!

I don't know enough about this to feel confident in my reply, but the thought coming to mind is that there is a subtle distinction being brushed over. Whether matter is a force and whether matter is force seem to describe the relevant distinction.

Without forces there are no particles, no atoms, no molecules.

 

[fast]

I don't know enough about this to feel confident in my reply, but the thought coming to mind is that there is a subtle distinction being brushed over. Whether matter is a force and whether matter is force seem to describe the relevant distinction.

Without forces there are no particles, no atoms, no molecules.

I don't mean to invoke any arguments that are in discord to science. It's a linguistic issue. I don't think calling certain 'somethings' immaterial should be regarded as nonsensical based off the idea that there are material causes for the things some might regard as immaterial.

If we talk about a chair being material, we don't go off on a tangent about the forces at work, but as soon as the discussion turns to the immaterial, we do. There's going to material causes for both, so the tangent is unnecessary. An object that doesn't have material form isn't an object at all, but not having material form doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Take the force of gravity, for instance. It's not an object. It's immaterial. You can't tell me it's constituent material parts, like you can a chair. You can only list the material parts that make gravity possible.

 

[bilby]

Without forces there are no particles, no atoms, no molecules.

I don't mean to invoke any arguments that are in discord to science. It's a linguistic issue. I don't think calling certain 'somethings' immaterial should be regarded as nonsensical based off the idea that there are material causes for the things some might regard as immaterial.

If we talk about a chair being material, we don't go off on a tangent about the forces at work, but as soon as the discussion turns to the immaterial, we do. There's going to material causes for both, so the tangent is unnecessary. An object that doesn't have material form isn't an object at all, but not having material form doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Take the force of gravity, for instance. It's not an object. It's immaterial. You can't tell me it's constituent material parts, like you can a chair. You can only list the material parts that make gravity possible.

You can't tell me the constituent material parts of a chair, any more than you can gravity.

QFT tells us that 'particles' are simply local maxima in the values of fields of force. The Higgs field causes these field maxima to propagate at less than c in free space, so they have mass; and the interactions between these field maxima are energetic, and therefore also have mass (E=mc[su]2[/sup]). The majority of the mass we encounter is of the latter kind, but the interactions that lead to that mass rely on the smaller mass component from the Higgs field; absent the Higgs, all such 'particles' would, like photons, move at c, and interactions between them would be far less common.

A chair, like gravity, is a manifestation of force. Your point makes sense in a world of classical (Newtonian) physics; but we do not live in such a world.

 

[fromderinside]

Weird. Since matter IS forces!

I don't know enough about this to feel confident in my reply, but the thought coming to mind is that there is a subtle distinction being brushed over. Whether matter is a force and whether matter is force seem to describe the relevant distinction.

Checkout the edge studies illustrating wave and particle outcomes depending on the observer.

 

[fast]

A chair, like gravity, is a manifestation of force. Your point makes sense in a world of classical (Newtonian) physics; but we do not live in such a world.

I hate it when you make me think.

 

[Random Person]

It's an interesting idea. Where does the flash of insight come from? The thing being cognized or the recognition of it? Does the flash of insight exist already waiting to be unfurled by an outside stimulus?

A 'flash of insight', 'lightbulb moment', or simply 'having an idea' is typically your conscious mind being made aware of the result of the work that has been done by your unconscious mind.

My unconcious mind is generating flashes of insight without me? How does that work?

 

[bigfield]

A 'flash of insight', 'lightbulb moment', or simply 'having an idea' is typically your conscious mind being made aware of the result of the work that has been done by your unconscious mind.

My unconcious mind is generating flashes of insight without me? How does that work?

If by 'me' you mean your conscious mind, then the answer is straightforward: the conscious mind represents only a fraction of the thinking that goes on in a human brain. Among other tasks, the unconscious mind does a lot of work forming associations between pieces of information and performing pattern-matching, feeding the results to the conscious mind if there are any.

 

[DBT]

'Self' being cobbled together by the brain from memory function.

 

[ontological_realist]

" Let's assume that there is a form of cognising which is not done, or supported, or caused, by something else, material or otherwise. So presumably all that the cognising process would know would be itself" But that is the point that can there be such a cognizing.
When you are sitting alone and thinking, some insight may come to you which was not there in your mind before. Do you mean something like that? Can you give any actual example?

"some specific material support needs to exists for knowledge to exist too."
Perhaps it is not quite right to say that knowledge, "exists". I tend to think that knowledge is made by the cognizer and is not already present there ; and what exists there is something which that particular cognizer can cognize. Another cognizer may not find any knowledge in the same thing.

It's an interesting idea. Where does the flash of insight come from? The thing being cognized or the recognition of it? Does the flash of insight exist already waiting to be unfurled by an outside stimulus?

It comes from the cognition of it.

 

[ontological_realist]

A 'flash of insight', 'lightbulb moment', or simply 'having an idea' is typically your conscious mind being made aware of the result of the work that has been done by your unconscious mind.

My unconcious mind is generating flashes of insight without me? How does that work?

Your unconscious mind is part of you as is your conscious mind.