Physicalism

[Kharakov]

Hey. In the following exchange, you confused Ryan by your incorrect usage of English (although I readily understood your point, some have problems understanding things when you do not use proper English).

To ryan:
As long as you doesnt shift perspective from particles to systems, you will be lost.

I am not trying to be picky, but the sentence only makes sense without "doesnt".
Does the sentence get your point across without "doesnt"?

No. That would be the exact opposite of what I try to communicate: you wont get anywhere until you shift perspective from particles to systems.

'Doesn't' should be 'don't' in the sentence.

No, Juma's point would not be made by using "don't". Juma rephrased it to mean, "Until you shift perspective from particles to systems, you will be lost.

Means approximately the same thing as "as long as you don't shift perspective from particles to systems, you will be lost" to me.

Well, according to Juma, you can't get anywhere with perceiving your hand as fingers. Maybe we can't get anywhere by looking at the whole as its parts, but that does not seem compatible with physicalism. I actually believe the opposite; I think that it is necessary to understand the parts in order to understand the whole.

Physicalism encompasses wholes and parts, AFAIK, and the various perspectives on the systems involving them. Brain, neurons, mind, body, etc. All being able to be viewed from varying perspectives, some of which don't completely correspond to reality (well, all of which don't completely correspond to reality- our point particle type existence is a bit.... wanting).

 

[ryan]

No, Juma's point would not be made by using "don't". Juma rephrased it to mean, "Until you shift perspective from particles to systems, you will be lost.

Means approximately the same thing as "as long as you don't shift perspective from particles to systems, you will be lost" to me.

okay

Well, according to Juma, you can't get anywhere with perceiving your hand as fingers. Maybe we can't get anywhere by looking at the whole as its parts, but that does not seem compatible with physicalism. I actually believe the opposite; I think that it is necessary to understand the parts in order to understand the whole.

Physicalism encompasses wholes and parts, AFAIK, and the various perspectives on the systems involving them. Brain, neurons, mind, body, etc. All being able to be viewed from varying perspectives, some of which don't completely correspond to reality (well, all of which don't completely correspond to reality- our point particle type existence is a bit.... wanting).

So is there a difference between the parts and the whole?

 

[Kharakov]

Sometimes. Depends on what perspective you're looking at things from.

 

[ryan]

Sometimes. Depends on what perspective you're looking at things from.

How would my perspective change anything about a system?

 

[Kharakov]

Sometimes. Depends on what perspective you're looking at things from.

How would my perspective change anything about a system?

That your perspective is part of? To quote that Mio commercial: "It changes everything..."

Back to seriousness. Your perspective happens to be how you look at a system- do you look at the system as the sum of its parts, as an emergent property of parts, as parts, as all 3, as combinations of various parts, as specific subdivides of the system itself, etc. etc. etc.

 

[ryan]

Sometimes. Depends on what perspective you're looking at things from.

How would my perspective change anything about a system?

That your perspective is part of? To quote that Mio commercial: "It changes everything..."

Back to seriousness. Your perspective happens to be how you look at a system- do you look at the system as the sum of its parts, as an emergent property of parts, as parts, as all 3, as combinations of various parts, as specific subdivides of the system itself, etc. etc. etc.

Okay, so is the system its parts or its whole? Or, is it either its parts or its whole?

 

[Kharakov]

Here is a system:

if x > |y|
let next x = -x^2 +y^2
else
let next x = x^2-y^2

The parts, just thrown together, without the <unwritten> bonds between them, are NOT a system.

Every single letter in the system is a "particle" of sorts, although they are also a combination of particles (photons, interactions, experiences, that tie them together as single "letters" in our thought stream).

Let's get back to the letters. The "i" by itself is only part of the word "if", the word if is simply a system that is part of the greater whole system. It can be regarded as the letters "i" and "f", as the computing language word "if", or as part of the system as a whole.

It depends entirely on WHAT you are looking at. If you see parts of the system, instead of the system, you will miss out on the system.

 

[ryan]

Here is a system:

if x > |y|
let next x = -x^2 +y^2
else
let next x = x^2-y^2

The parts, just thrown together, without the <unwritten> bonds between them, are NOT a system.

Every single letter in the system is a "particle" of sorts, although they are also a combination of particles (photons, interactions, experiences, that tie them together as single "letters" in our thought stream).

Let's get back to the letters. The "i" by itself is only part of the word "if", the word if is simply a system that is part of the greater whole system. It can be regarded as the letters "i" and "f", as the computing language word "if", or as part of the system as a whole.

It depends entirely on WHAT you are looking at. If you see parts of the system, instead of the system, you will miss out on the system.

If all that is in a box are two letters i and f, then what else is in the box besides the parts?

 

[Kharakov]

Umm, if you claim that all that is in the box are the letters, which means there is no space, air, etc., then nothing else is in the box. It would probably have to be shrink wrapped over the letters though. Unless you are postulating a box with only information inside of it.

Wave particle duality of some sort.


Do you understand the difference between the letters, words, the groups of symbols and words, and the whole system I referred to earlier?

 

[ryan]

Umm, if you claim that all that is in the box are the letters, which means there is no space, air, etc., then nothing else is in the box.

I agree. I asked you that because many so-called physicalists believe that there are also emergent properties in the box, but you and I can move on.

Do you understand the difference between the letters, words, the groups of symbols and words, and the whole system I referred to earlier?

I am pretty sure that I understand: the object/s don't change, but the perception of it can change?

Because I think that we both agree that the letters are unique "objects", or "systems" if we want to include the temporal dimension, now we can direct our attention to what is perceiving and not the percept.

Are our perceptions "systems" that are composed of unique "objects"?

 

[Underseer]

Here is a system:

if x > |y|
let next x = -x^2 +y^2
else
let next x = x^2-y^2

The parts, just thrown together, without the <unwritten> bonds between them, are NOT a system.

Every single letter in the system is a "particle" of sorts, although they are also a combination of particles (photons, interactions, experiences, that tie them together as single "letters" in our thought stream).

Let's get back to the letters. The "i" by itself is only part of the word "if", the word if is simply a system that is part of the greater whole system. It can be regarded as the letters "i" and "f", as the computing language word "if", or as part of the system as a whole.

It depends entirely on WHAT you are looking at. If you see parts of the system, instead of the system, you will miss out on the system.

If all that is in a box are two letters i and f, then what else is in the box besides the parts?

And here we see the origin of belief in non-physical substance: argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

[ryan]

If all that is in a box are two letters i and f, then what else is in the box besides the parts?

And here we see the origin of belief in non-physical substance: argument from ignorance fallacy.

You didn't read my post after that one did you?

 

[Kharakov]

I agree. I asked you that because many so-called physicalists believe that there are also emergent properties in the box, but you and I can move on.

Well, there are also the possible states of the particles in a box. The possible states do not exist in a thought vacuum...

Are our perceptions "systems" that are composed of unique "objects"?

I don't know. Are there infinite exact copies of me observing the same exact thing, or simply one me? Sort of hard to tell.

 

[ryan]

Well, there are also the possible states of the particles in a box. The possible states do not exist in a thought vacuum...

Are our perceptions "systems" that are composed of unique "objects"?

I don't know. Are there infinite exact copies of me observing the same exact thing, or simply one me? Sort of hard to tell.

Do you think it's possible to perceive a whole word, or do you think we perceive many parts and the whole is just an illusion?

 

[Kharakov]

Well, there are also the possible states of the particles in a box. The possible states do not exist in a thought vacuum...

Are our perceptions "systems" that are composed of unique "objects"?

I don't know. Are there infinite exact copies of me observing the same exact thing, or simply one me? Sort of hard to tell.

Do you think it's possible to perceive a whole word, or do you think we perceive many parts and the whole is just an illusion?

I think you shouldn't present false dichotomies as an "either/or" question.

Do I think it's possible to perceive a whole word? Yes.
Do I think we perceive many parts? Yes, when we focus upon the parts.
Do I think the whole is just an illusion? No.
Do I think that it seems ephemeral? Sometimes.
Do I think that sometimes what we perceive as a whole (a whole being or concept, not only a whole word) is an illusion? Sure.
Do I think that sometimes we delineate between different systems in such a way that the concept of the system as an independent whole is incorrect? Sure.

 

[ryan]

Well, there are also the possible states of the particles in a box. The possible states do not exist in a thought vacuum...

Are our perceptions "systems" that are composed of unique "objects"?

I don't know. Are there infinite exact copies of me observing the same exact thing, or simply one me? Sort of hard to tell.

Do you think it's possible to perceive a whole word, or do you think we perceive many parts and the whole is just an illusion?

I think you shouldn't present false dichotomies as an "either/or" question.

Do I think it's possible to perceive a whole word? Yes.
Do I think we perceive many parts? Yes, when we focus upon the parts.
Do I think the whole is just an illusion? No.
Do I think that it seems ephemeral? Sometimes.
Do I think that sometimes what we perceive as a whole (a whole being or concept, not only a whole word) is an illusion? Sure.
Do I think that sometimes we delineate between different systems in such a way that the concept of the system as an independent whole is incorrect? Sure.

I actually did not realize that I asked a loaded question until now. If I make the same mistake again, just say "neither".

It seems as though the perception of the whole would have to be instantaneously perceived for a whole to be truly considered a whole. In the case of an instantaneous perception over an instantaneous length of time, the process would reduce to a still frame of parts that are not connected because they are separated causally by the lag of space-time. This is perplexing because it seems to imply that only one part/particle is perceiving the whole.

 

[Kharakov]

I actually did not realize that I asked a loaded question until now. If I make the same mistake again, just say "neither".

Cool. I sometimes ask a loaded question without realizing it too.

It seems as though the perception of the whole would have to be instantaneously perceived for a whole to be truly considered a whole. In the case of an instantaneous perception over an instantaneous length of time, the process would reduce to a still frame of parts that are not connected because they are separated causally by the lag of space-time.

I don't think a field generated by many particles, or small field contributors, has to be perceived as anything other than a whole field, even if all of the particles contribute from different locations in spacetime.

This is perplexing because it seems to imply that only one part/particle is perceiving the whole.

The field of me perceives whatever parts/parts of fields/whole fields that it is focused upon at once. Fields are a simple way for me to think of the "whole" that arises out of the parts.

Gravity field- whole of spacetime arising out of the parts.

EM fields, local complex fields within spacetime that interact with one another, while interacting with the great field, gravity.

Then various other types of fields that potential interact, but are not detectable as physical fields, as they operate on different levels.

Spirits, souls, fields, etc... what do you want to call them? Time to walk to the park to do some pull ups.

 

[ryan]

This is perplexing because it seems to imply that only one part/particle is perceiving the whole.

The field of me perceives whatever parts/parts of fields/whole fields that it is focused upon at once. Fields are a simple way for me to think of the "whole" that arises out of the parts.

Gravity field- whole of spacetime arising out of the parts.

EM fields, local complex fields within spacetime that interact with one another, while interacting with the great field, gravity.

Then various other types of fields that potential interact, but are not detectable as physical fields, as they operate on different levels.

Spirits, souls, fields, etc... what do you want to call them? Time to walk to the park to do some pull ups.

But even the gravitational and electromagnetic fields are limited by c.

 

[Kharakov]

Propagation is limited by c. This doesn't mean a field doesn't influence all of the particles within it at once. Especially if the particles can sense the field as a whole- which is an interesting concept.

 

[Juma]

Well, there are also the possible states of the particles in a box. The possible states do not exist in a thought vacuum...

Are our perceptions "systems" that are composed of unique "objects"?

I don't know. Are there infinite exact copies of me observing the same exact thing, or simply one me? Sort of hard to tell.

Do you think it's possible to perceive a whole word, or do you think we perceive many parts and the whole is just an illusion?

1) Edited

2) the illusion of "whole" is similar to the illusion of a instant "now". It is true that we can represent complex things with a "single" concept but that doesnt meant that single particles represent them. Just that the process that makes up your thoughts behaves that way: everything you think, every line of thought, takes time to form. It may be milliseconds or even less but still, it isnt instantanious.