Cognizing without there being any cognizer?

[ontological_realist]

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.

So where does that leave materialism or physicalism?

 

[DBT]

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.

It's the brain that generates both unconscious activity and conscious activity (conscious mind, self identity).

'You' are a part of your brain's conscious activity. A part which is not constantly activated, attention may be focused on a task, reading, watching a movie, thinking. It is not 'you' who does these things, but the brain itself.

The brain puts you to sleep at night, wakes you up in the morning, puts you aside during moments of the day when you are not required.....you are the avatar of the brain and not the driver.

 

[bilby]

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.

So where does that leave materialism or physicalism?

Physicalism is unchanged.

Materialism is likewise unchanged, if we allow that it applies only above the scale of quantum field theory - a loose materialism that holds that matter is fundamental to all things bar matter itself. If we take a stricter view of the definition of materialism, and say that materialism requires that matter is the most fundamental of all things, then materialism joins the long list of philosophical ideas proven by science to be incompatible with reality.

All matter is forces; but not all forces are matter.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Well, you say now that this is the point but I was responding to the OP and there you talked of "possibility" rather than "actuality". So my response is that it's logically possible though maybe is not actually the case.

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?

I wasn't trying to sneak in some fantasy about the human mind. I was talking in the abstract and that's because I accept for now that I don't know anything about the material world, let alone whether knowledge is possible without its involvement.

"some specific material support needs to exists for knowledge to exist too."
Perhaps it is not quite right to say that knowledge, "exists".

Why not?

Maybe you are using "exist" in the sort of metaphysically ontological sense that things are said to exist when they do independently of other things. To me, "exist" just means that something is there at the time that it is said to exist, whether I know it or not, and whether the fact that it is there is in some way dependent on something existing prior to it or doing this or that prior to it. So, if I know something at some point, necessarily knowledge exists at this point in time. Maybe my knowledge at this point is in some way dependent on my body or on God, or whatever, but it exists nonetheless.

I tend to think that knowledge is made by the cognizer and is not already present there ;

If something is made then it exists, that how I think of the notion of "existence".

and what exists there is something which that particular cognizer can cognize. Another cognizer may not find any knowledge in the same thing.

Yes, possibly.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not sure. Probably.

Weird. Since matter IS forces!

Well, that would be news to me if it was true.

We don't even know whether forces are fundamental elements of the real world or mere epiphenomena. That particle physics postulate the existence of fundamental forces doesn't mean that's true and I don't think many scientist nowadays would commit themselves to saying they know it's true. I also don't think anyone could prove that it's true. Unless of course one adopts such a standard of proof that we could say today that some statement is true even though we accept that we are not certain that it won't be proved wrong in some distant future, or even just tomorrow, or maybe yesterday and news hasn't got to us yet.

The force be with you!
EB

 

[Juma]

Weird. Since matter IS forces!

Well, that would be news to me if it was true.

We don't even know whether forces are fundamental elements of the real world or mere epiphenomena. That particle physics postulate the existence of fundamental forces doesn't mean that's true and I don't think many scientist nowadays would commit themselves to saying they know it's true. I also don't think anyone could prove that it's true. Unless of course one adopts such a standard of proof that we could say today that some statement is true even though we accept that we are not certain that it won't be proved wrong in some distant future, or even just tomorrow, or maybe yesterday and news hasn't got to us yet.

The force be with you!
EB

What the fuck are you talking about? "Mere epiphenonena"?
And no, thanks, i dont want to read your pathetic defense for that view.

 

[ontological_realist]

So where does that leave materialism or physicalism?

Physicalism is unchanged.

Materialism is likewise unchanged, if we allow that it applies only above the scale of quantum field theory - a loose materialism that holds that matter is fundamental to all things bar matter itself. If we take a stricter view of the definition of materialism, and say that materialism requires that matter is the most fundamental of all things, then materialism joins the long list of philosophical ideas proven by science to be incompatible with reality.

All matter is forces; but not all forces are matter.

What is your definition of:

1.Physical

2. Matter

 

[ontological_realist]

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.

Good answer! I agree.

 

[bilby]

Physicalism is unchanged.

Materialism is likewise unchanged, if we allow that it applies only above the scale of quantum field theory - a loose materialism that holds that matter is fundamental to all things bar matter itself. If we take a stricter view of the definition of materialism, and say that materialism requires that matter is the most fundamental of all things, then materialism joins the long list of philosophical ideas proven by science to be incompatible with reality.

All matter is forces; but not all forces are matter.

What is your definition of:

1.Physical

That which can be described by Physics

2. Matter

That which has mass (or equivalently, that which propagates in a vacuum at less than c)

 

[jab]

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.

isn't the word "cognition"?

 

[Random Person]

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.

Good answer! I agree.

My question is when "I" have a flash of insight or whatever you want to call it and it is a product of my unconscious mind then who is at the helm? Am "I" two people? One that is conscious and that I am aware of and one that I am not aware of but feeds me insights?

 

[bilby]

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.

isn't the word "cognition"?

I don't cogn so.

- - - Updated - - -

Good answer! I agree.

My question is when "I" have a flash of insight or whatever you want to call it and it is a product of my unconscious mind then who is at the helm? Am "I" two people? One that is conscious and that I am aware of and one that I am not aware of but feeds me insights?

You are one person who is only partially self-aware.

(As are we all).

 

[DBT]

Good answer! I agree.

My question is when "I" have a flash of insight or whatever you want to call it and it is a product of my unconscious mind then who is at the helm? Am "I" two people? One that is conscious and that I am aware of and one that I am not aware of but feeds me insights?

There is nobody at the helm. The brain is the sole agent of cognition. The best you can say is Executive Function, which is like the CEO of neural networks.

 

[Perspicuo]

"Cognizing without there being any cognizer?"

A horseless carriage. Unusual for 1895, but a fact. Or a bird in the sky with no strings attached. You may complain about the force of universal gravitation all you want, yet "bird" is an actual thing.

Cogniton with no homunculus is simply automation. Stimulus-response control with no magical genie involved. Humans are exactly that, with productivity suite already installed (ADN, or "nature" as it used to be called) and programming being a lifelong process (or "nurture" as it used to be called).