Posted in logic, metaphysics, mind, ontology, philosophy, Relativity, religion, science, wittgenstein at 12:16 am by nogre
I didn’t think I’d be able to write this at all and I am still surprised now. It was only a few weeks ago that I had believed that it could be up to three years before anything would have been started. That said, I can’t speak much for the quality of the work. My own naiveté and lack of scholarship leads me to think that better people have long dismissed the few ideas that I have presented here. Still, in my defense, what I do present is what I sincerely believe and if there is nothing new here, then I at least have accomplished stating with whom I agree.
Writing this has made me feel more free than perhaps anything else in my life. All criticism is welcome.
Metaphysics 1
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
Posted in metaphysics, mind, philosophy, Relativity, religion, science, wittgenstein at 12:07 am by nogre
1 Ontology
1.1 The Cogito
“… I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.” – R.D.
There are three things most should agree upon1
in light of this statement:
- When something is put forward or conceived, it is not possible to deny that something is doing the putting forward or conceiving.
- When something is put forward or conceived, it is not possible to deny that putting forward or conceiving exists.
- When something is put forward or conceived, it is not possible to deny that there is something put forward or conceived.
Simply put, there are things that conceive which I will refer to as consciousness, there is the subject of the consciousness which I will refer to as matter, and there is how consciousness describes the matter, which I will refer to as description. These are the three things that exist upon reflection, always.
1.2 Substance
“If the true is what is grounded, then the ground is not true, nor yet false.” – L.W.2
To analyze consciousness, matter and description, the analysis must be done in terms at least as fundamental as consciousness, matter or description. The only things as fundamental as consciousness, matter or description are consciousness, matter and description: these three are the only things that cannot be denied.
One option remaining is to analyze consciousness, matter and description in terms of each other. However, analysis of fundamental things in terms of each other leads to unexpected results. If matter and description are studied as functions of consciousness, then consciousness becomes neither describable nor indescribable and neither material nor immaterial. If matter and consciousness are regarded as descriptions, then description is neither alive nor dead and is neither material nor immaterial. If consciousness and description are functions of matter, then matter is neither alive nor dead and is neither describable nor indescribable. Therefore it is not possible to treat one of the three as more fundamental than the others without severe consequences.
In light of the results of the above discussion, all three are to be understood equally as substance. The three substances are consciousness, matter and description.
2 Explanation
With no one fundamental substance how is explanation possible?
2.1 Relativity
Relativity means there is no preferential perspective for the description of natural phenomena: each of us has a location as good as everyone else’s when it comes to describing the physical world. Relativity is applicable to substance as well: there is no preferential ontological perspective for substance and hence any understanding of substance is a legitimate place to begin analysis of substance. Anyone may consider the arguments from Section 1 regardless of prior ontological commitments.
Though I believe substance relativity to be self evident, a few words of support may be given. Consider the case if it were not true, i.e. there were preferential ontological situations, access to certain substances, that enabled those with access to have special insight to the mysteries of the world. People without this special access would have no way to gain it unless they were somehow given access by someone who had it; it would be undiscoverable. However, since we are investigating that which is common to everyone, as stated in Section 1.1, this is not the case and hence substance is relative.
2.2 Perspective
Relativity also means that the onlooker’s perspective has to be taken into account when describing natural phenomena: motion means motion relative to the agent describing the situation. When studying substance no one is free of ontological commitments and these need to be accounted for (just as any motion of the onlooker needs to be accounted for in physics). At any given point it is possible to be looking at a situation from the perspective of consciousness, matter or description.
For example take the question, “Does the sun shine?” From the perspective of consciousness, the answer is no: the sun is not conscious and hence it doesn’t do anything. From the perspective of matter the answer is yes: the ball of matter called the sun radiates photons, and radiating photons is shining. From the perspective of description the answer is possibly sometimes: when the sun is conceived of as shining, then it is shines.3
Whichever of the three ontological commitments is being appealed to will dictate the answer or explanation received. No one is beholden to any particular substance and can change ontological commitments in an instant, as long as the requirements of Section 1.2 are met, which does mean that there may be more than one `correct’ answer for a given question. This does not mean that all the answers are equal: saying `If you say it does,’ may be technically correct from the descriptive perspective, but many times only an answer from the other perspectives is accepted (or advised).
3 Instances
In physics, motions and locations are determined by perspective; what is determined by perspective in substance?
3.1 Commitment
As mentioned in the previous section ontological commitment determines what the explanation or answer that is given to a question. Making a commitment is an activity that only a conscious thing can do. Moreover:
- If something is put forward or conceived, then something committed to putting that thing forward or conceiving it.
If this is false, then something was put forward and nothing committed to putting that thing forward; it was put forward or conceived without some conscious thing committing to having done so. If this was done without the commitment of the conscious thing, then it was not put forward: only conscious things can put things forward or conceive of things. Therefore all conscious things that put forward or conceive of things make commitments.
Commitments and perspective are relative to each other: perspective depends upon what commitments are held, and perspective determines what those commitments are. For example if I am committed to one person then my perspective on other people will no longer include those people for a variety of activities. If my perspective is that monogamy is unrealistic, then a commitment to one person is likewise unrealistic.
3.2 Things
The things that exist are determined by perspective too. Depending upon available information and theory, different perspectives on what sort of things make up this world can be presented. Life, death, dogs, personality, atoms, words, food, pain, etc. Whatever can be put forth as a subject of the consciousness is a thing. No thing is `wrong’ in the sense that it is the subject of a consciousness.
Things and perspective are relative to each other: perspective determines what sort of things populate the world, and the things that populate the world determine perspective. Until the discovery of the subatomic particle, many people believed that the atom was the smallest building block of the universe. The discovery of a new kind of thing forced people to change their perspective on what the universe was made of. Conversely, if I have had a few too many unexplainable experiences then my perspective might allow for things like ghosts without me ever having witnessed one.
3.3 Meaning
The meanings of our descriptions are determined by perspective. You can pick your own examples of the meaning of a sentence meaning something different depending on perspective, but Rodney Dangerfield provides classics:
A girl phoned me the other day and said… Come on over, there’s nobody home. I went over. Nobody was home.
Rodney’s perspective caused him to believe the sentence to mean something other than the literal meaning, which was exactly what the girl intended. Conversely, if a rosy picture is painted, then this description is meant to determine the perspective taken on the situation.
Meaning and perspective are relative to each other: perspective determines what descriptions mean and what our descriptions mean determine our perspectives.
Footnotes:
1The statement, “Something happened or something did not happen,” is also always true. If people object to the use of the Cogito, perhaps this sentence will provide a sufficient alternative. Other tautologies (It’s raining or it is not raining) introduce something new (rain) and hence are not as fundamental.
2Wittgenstein, L. On Certainty #205
3“Will the Giants win the Superbowl?” Consciousness and matter are silent. This question asks what you can conceive and hence is purely descriptive. Unfortunately it is looking like this is as likely as conceiving a round square. Go Eli!
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
01.22.08
Posted in metaphysics, philosophy, science at 7:53 pm by nogre
Many people have a “scientific” view of the world. This means that the world operates according to the laws of science, i.e., there are no mysterious forces that cannot be explained by some combination of physics, biology, psychology, economics etc. It is a mistaken view.
The scientific view of the world can be summarized by this formulation:
S) The world is governed by science if and only if, given a specified way things are at a specific time, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.
If you believe the scientific view then, insofar as it is about the world, the scientific view itself must be a scientific fact.
There two cases:
- The scientific view was discovered.
- The scientific view was derived from some previously proven scientific statement(s).
Considering the first case we must ask if we have discovered the scientific view. Unfortunately no one has yet found a theory of everything and therefore it hasn’t been discovered.
This leaves discovering the scientific view by taking our individual scientific theories and generalizing them to include everything. The argument is that we have many theories that predict many things and if we only had enough, everything would be determined.
However, our individual scientific theories merely predict what will happen. No individual theory makes the claim that it governs nature, only the statement of the scientific view above makes that claim. For instance take gravity: it says that matter is attracted to itself with a certain amount of force. Nothing about the theory of gravity limits nature to following the theory of gravity. It is likewise for every other theory: each makes a specific prediction but is agnostic on how to interpret this prediction. Science cannot tell us that it is fundamentally controlled by laws.
What is left, the correct interpretation of science, is that science is a method for making continually better predictions about what will happen. As soon as the jump is made to believing that nature is controlled by our predictions, then science has been left behind and the murky philosophical world has been entered. This is not to say that there are mysterious forces that cannot be explained by some combination of physics, biology, psychology, economics etc. (though there are and always will be) but that this belief is not scientific.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
01.15.08
Posted in marketing, news, NYC at 5:44 pm by nogre
Yesterday I visited the first public toilet in New York City. It is much lauded. Here is my take:
The toilet it located near the southeast corner of Madison Square Park. It has the oh-so-typical whitish glass and brushed steel look. I am not criticizing the toilet specifically, it is a clean look for a restroom to have, but I’m getting a bit tired of this design scheme in general.
I had to wait a few minutes because the toilet was in use when I arrived. You can see the red occupied light next to the door. This gave me an opportunity to overhear a discussion going on behind me. A man who described himself as the Potty Patrol was chatting to a lady waiting for the gentleman occupying the commode. He told me he was there to make sure everything was going OK.
Then the gentleman exited. The door slides to the left smoothly and slowly and closes to the right in the same way to start the cleaning process. I nearly entered before the cleaning process, but saw that the red occupied light was still lit. Cleaning took about a minute, probably shorter, but when you are waiting for a bathroom, it always seems longer.
I didn’t have a quarter, so I put in two dimes and a nickel. I noticed that one of the dimes didn’t make the right sound upon entering the machine. Nothing happened. I went over and told the Potty Patrolman that everything was not OK. The machine ate my dime. I looked in the coin return and could see that there was a quarter caught in it. I put in another dime and this time the door opened with its satisfying measured motion.
Upon entering everything is wet. Very wet. Thankfully there were hooks on the wall for me to place my backpack: you wouldn’t want to put anything on that soaking floor, even if it supposedly soaking with ‘cleaning fluid.’ There are indicator lights and large buttons on the wall by the door and near the stainless steel toilet of the kind I’ve seen on prison shows to keep you from killing yourself in.
By the door at medium height there are three buttons, one light and a speaker/microphone: Emergency Phone (red), Assistance Phone (yellow), Touch To Open Door (big and green), and When Light is On, 3 Min. to Open Door (orange). There is a fifteen minute time limit before all hell breaks loose and NYPD SWAT breaks down the door. I think you should be able to add time from inside.
By the ground there is a trash flap and another emergency touch to call button, still red but this time big.
The sink is likewise stainless and is labeled Soap Water and Dryer. You place your hands under each of the signs to get not soap but soapy water, water and hot air. The mirror is not glass but more stainless steel.
Though I did not need to use toilet paper, I still wanted to see what the procedure was insofar as it could not be exposed during the cleaning process. There is a button next to the toilet which dispenses soft double ply toilet paper. That is a nice feature, though I suspect if there are toilets placed in less corporate areas, we’ll be seeing single ply. (I did not investigate the toilet seat covers, which, if you look at the video look wet and practically unusable. Also it provides an open box that could potentially be used for creative New Yorkers to fill with things other than seat covers.)
When I left, I started to walk off pleased with the toilet. The P-Patrolman called after me. He insisted on refunding me my lost dime. This was a nice gesture, but considering a service is only as good as its weakest feature, this substandard money box is a significant problem. If I really had to go and only had 25 cents, it would have been a serious issue: the entire toilet would have failed because I couldn’t get through the door.
All in all the toilet is a nice and necessary addition to the landscape. New York can always use another clean bathroom. The BILLION dollars in advertising revenue that these toilets will bring the city will hopefully be put to good use. The current poster sized advertisement is not obnoxious enough to blight the general area (though I am sure they are going to the wrap the whole thing in advertising as soon as they think they can get away with it).
Some more pics:
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
01.09.08
Posted in mind, philosophy, science at 8:46 pm by nogre
I watched Dan Dennett’s Ted Talk “Can We Know Our Own Minds” yesterday and it reminded me of a problem I had with the study of consciousness. I am convinced a solution cannot be written down or said.
- Assume someone knows what consciousness/mind/divine spark/what-you-will is.
- If someone knows something, then it is part of their consciousness.
- If someone knows what consciousness is, then the consciousness has a part that contains consciousness.
- Therefore someone has a consciousness that contains consciousness.
Up until this point I am willing to grant that all this is possible. Our consciousness may be able to contain itself within itself. But could we write it down?
- If someone’s consciousness contains consciousness, then their contained consciousness contains consciousness itself and so on ad infinitum; this person’s consciousness has a self referential infinite regression.
We can’t write down or say something that contains a self referential infinite regress (without some form of hand-waving) and hence we will never have a solution.
I’d really like someone to come up with a solution to this problem. Or not. It is perfectly acceptable to me (if not better) that we will always have more to learn about ourselves. The issue then becomes to properly understand exactly what we are studying and accomplishing in philosophy of mind/consciousness/etc. or in neuroscience.
——-
in b4:
- The use of ‘know’ above is illegitimate: we can know what a car is without knowing all the parts and so the above argument is wrong for assuming that knowing implies complete understanding of all parts.
- In the case of consciousness if we do not know how all the parts work, i.e. there is a black box somewhere that we do not understand, then we can’t say we understand consciousness. The mystery of the whole thing is that we always seem to make progress but the end is never in sight.
- It makes no sense to say that when we know something that it is therefore ‘part’ of our consciousness. I may know the average sale price in Amazon.com but that doesn’t mean it is a proper part of my consciousness.
- The only alternative to saying ‘something is part of your consciousness if you know it’ is to say that things aren’t part of you consciousness when you know them. If you can explain how you know things while keeping those things separate from the consciousness, then more power to you. I don’t buy it.
- Perhaps we can’t know our own consciousness but we could know someone else’s, avoiding the regress.
- If the person whose consciousness you know knew your consciousness, then this would return to the regress. If you disallow a person to learn anyone’s consciousness of anyone who previously learned their consciousness (or anyone in the chain of people who learned their consciousness), besides being ad hoc, it’s ridiculous that you learning something about someone else would prevent that person from learning something.
- Hand-waving is a legitimate kind of communication.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
