Brain processes and individual experience

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain processes and individu

davidsmith73:I don't quite follow your argument. You are a physical process of your brain. Yes, your brain is affected by the environment (and itself affects the environment) but so what? Your brain is only located at one given place at a given time. That makes it "seperate" and individual.

This locality of matter to a "given space and time" is a notion i'm not so sure about. Can matter occupy an absolute spatial and temporal location ? Perhaps someone versed on relativity can give us an answer.

My argument is that materialism attributes an experience as having an objective existence but only an objective existence corresponding to a subset of the physical universe. But the physical universe cannot be truly broken up into separate processes. In other words, my brain is not truly separate from yours. This seems to me to produce a contradiction as to why individual experience exists at all, if we assume that experiences are objective physical processes.

 

[davidsmith73]

not detectable, but the effect is there...I'm gonna have to disagree, for good reason. But we'll keep it simple. A nerve sends info in three manners--synaptic transmission, local potentials, and action potentials. The first two are graded--that is, a small stimulus will elicit a small response. The action potential, on the other hand, is an all-or-nothing event. Any stimulus below threshold does not elicit an action potential; any stimulus above (by a lot or a little) will produce an action potential. There are no "big" or "small" action potentials.

So, while gravity may have continuous effects, declining with the square of the distance away, there is perfectly good reason to suggest that a small stimulus will have absolutely no effect on consciousness. That would give you your "truly separate processes" you desire in order to show separate consciousnesses. Since no action of your brain has enough effect (directly) on my brain to cross that threshold, it makes no difference to say "there is a connection". As I said above, there's influence, and then there's influence.

You are saying that the physical process that is an experience can have a range of possible states with a truly defined border between being that experience or not. If I'm not mistaken, such a border cannot exist according to materialism.

Lets consider the range of physical states where we are just crossing the threshold depolarisation value that will trigger an action potential which will cause a neuron to fire and consequently a certain activity pattern will "become" an experience. Does such a threshold value have an absolute demarkation ?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain processes and indi

davidsmith73:

This locality of matter to a "given space and time" is a notion i'm not so sure about. Can matter occupy an absolute spatial and temporal location ? Perhaps someone versed on relativity can give us an answer.

Are you saying you aren't sure where your brain is?

In the context of this discussion, I don't see how relativity (or quantum uncertainty for that matter) is relevant.

My argument is that materialism attributes an experience as having an objective existence but only an objective existence corresponding to a subset of the physical universe. But the physical universe cannot be truly broken up into separate processes. In other words, my brain is not truly separate from yours. This seems to me to produce a contradiction as to why individual experience exists at all, if we assume that experiences are objective physical processes.

I still don't see the problem. Let us for arguments sake say that the physical processes of other brains did affect my brain in a direct and significant way. So what? The experience that my brain is having is what I experience, no matter what external factors are affecting my brain.

 

[Dancing David]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain processes and indi

This locality of matter to a "given space and time" is a notion i'm not so sure about. Can matter occupy an absolute spatial and temporal location ? Perhaps someone versed on relativity can give us an answer.

My argument is that materialism attributes an experience as having an objective existence but only an objective existence corresponding to a subset of the physical universe. But the physical universe cannot be truly broken up into separate processes. In other words, my brain is not truly separate from yours. This seems to me to produce a contradiction as to why individual experience exists at all, if we assume that experiences are objective physical processes.

Mr. Smith,
it is interesting how you come to these conclusions, perhaps a trip to the library would help.

First off, just because things are connected does not mean that they have a discernable effect upon each other.

Locality is determined by the ability of a force or action to propagate an effect.
Force: usualy travels close to the speed of light.
Action: limited by the vectors adding up.

So turning on a light bulb will create EMR that propagates at the speed of light. But that does not mean it will light a room on the other side of the wall , does it? It might create a very slight magnetic field that propagates through the wall. As well as Feynman's electrons traveling over there.
A catapult fires off a set of encyclopdie, they land in different spots, impact various objects. Are objects not struck by the volumes actualy effected by the catapult?

Materialsim allows for discrete events happening as limited by the speed of light, you are proposing simultaenity, a big no-no-

Events do not propagate in a meaningful way across the universe, there is gravity, but not information.

You are being really vauge, polease give me an example of how you see the quazars at the edge of space time effecting your current behavior.
Does my dog, here in Illinois really have an impact on you wherever you are. The gravity is slight, his magnetic field is marginal, his nuclear power is non existant.
How does my dog effect you?

 

[uruk]

This locality of matter to a "given space and time" is a notion i'm not so sure about. Can matter occupy an absolute spatial and temporal location ? Perhaps someone versed on relativity can give us an answer.

I'm not too well versed on relativity, but I think the answer would be no because we are in constant motion. WE stand on the surface of the earth, which is rotating. The earth is orbiting the Sun. the sun is orbiting the galactic center, the galaxy is moving with our local cluster. Our cluster is moving with...well you get the picture. Also Space/time is constantly expanding.

So I guess absolute spatial position would be relative. Could Herr Plank and Hiesenberg help us out?

Events do not propagate in a meaningful way across the universe, there is gravity, but not information.

Just to be a devil's advocate, How about quantum intanglement?
But how could something that affects the particular state of an individual particle affect an entire system?

 

[Mercutio]

You are saying that the physical process that is an experience can have a range of possible states with a truly defined border between being that experience or not. If I'm not mistaken, such a border cannot exist according to materialism.

Unless you can support this, I gotta go with "mistaken". First, "the physical process that is an experience" is an oversimplification. Absolute sensory thresholds reflect the fact that not all physical processes are experienced, although (the assumption is that) all experiences are physical processes.

Lets consider the range of physical states where we are just crossing the threshold depolarisation value that will trigger an action potential which will cause a neuron to fire and consequently a certain activity pattern will "become" an experience. Does such a threshold value have an absolute demarkation ?

no, let's not consider the threshold range--let's consider the range that is well below threshold. It is enough that those do not have an experienced effect. They have an effect on the dendrite; the effect dies there. If I point a rifle at a target, and squeeze the trigger--but not to the point of actually firing the rifle--does my finger have an effect on the trigger? Certainly. Does it have an effect on the target? No. Even accorging to materialism.

 

[davidsmith73]

Unless you can support this, I gotta go with "mistaken". First, "the physical process that is an experience" is an oversimplification. Absolute sensory thresholds reflect the fact that not all physical processes are experienced, although (the assumption is that) all experiences are physical processes.
[/B]

Which bit am I supposed to be supporting ? That 1) the physical process that is an experience can have a range of possible states with a truly defined border between being that experience or not or 2) that such a border cannot exist according to materialism ?

As for number 1), this assertion is actually yours because I inferred it from your post. The very idea that a pattern of neural activity can either be experiential or not infers that there must be a border between two such states. We may describe such borders as existing in various terms such as spatial location or energy levels, but materialism posits that physical processes do not have such borders in objective reality. Yet we have this process we call individual experience.

no, let's not consider the threshold range--let's consider the range that is well below threshold. It is enough that those do not have an experienced effect. They have an effect on the dendrite; the effect dies there. If I point a rifle at a target, and squeeze the trigger--but not to the point of actually firing the rifle--does my finger have an effect on the trigger? Certainly. Does it have an effect on the target? No. Even accorging to materialism.

Yes, but we are addressing whether its appropriate to view the target as existing at all. You have assumed that the target is separate from your finger, the rifle and the surrounding air. But in an objective sense, there is no such true demarkation. The separateness exists only as a function of your subjective perception (according to materialism remember). So saying your finger does not have an effect on the target if the rifle is not fired is not strictly true. This is the cruical point.

Depolarizations at the dendrites that are too small to trigger action potentials will still have a physical effect on the cell. Those that are large enough will trigger the action potential. In limiting experiences to one of the two processes you have inferred that there is an objective separation between an experiential process and otherwise. But we know that such a separation does not objectively exist with regards to physical processes.

Perhaps I am completely wrong on this materialistic point. Is there a situation whereby a physical process has absolutely no physical effect on another process occuring in the same universe ? Someone mentioned Plank's constant and minimum packets of energy and all that.

 

[Dancing David]

-snip-
As for number 1), this assertion is actually yours because I inferred it from your post. The very idea that a pattern of neural activity can either be experiential or not infers that there must be a border between two such states. We may describe such borders as existing in various terms such as spatial location or energy levels, but materialism posits that physical processes do not have such borders in objective reality. Yet we have this process we call individual experience.


I think that the issue can not be reduced to a dualistic on/off situation. The neural networks in the brain are more like a nation with democratic sub units like states, counties and cities. You may like to draw a border and say that, here is the threshold for an experience, but that can be very difficult to do.

Seriously, for an event to occur there has to be agreement between many different channels that the event is occuring and this include 'negative' events as well. To percieve the color red means that there are a number of receptors that say they are sensing red, then there are a number of receptors that say they are not percieving green.

So there has to be a large number of the democracies voting yes or no for the sensation to occur, and so on up the line.

-snip-

"but materialism posits that physical processes do not have such borders in objective reality. "

I would really like to see you prove this contention!

There are many different kinds of borders,

First off the HIP does not say that all particles are every where at different times, it says that there is a level of knowledge that can not be gathered on the level of very samll particles. Just because you don't know the vector , or the position to a certainty, does not mena that particles are everywhere at the same time.

Second, the speed of light is a real threshold for the transmission of force and action. While Feynman's electrons can be viewed as being everywhere in the space bounded by the speed of light, they can not break out of that bound. Most of the interactions in the universe occur at a much slower pace.

Third, and the issue that you seem to be refusing to address, is that a level of interaction may be meaningless.
1. Do quazars at the edge of space time have an effect on your behavior?
2. Does my dog have an effect on you behavior?


You seem to be trying to make some sort of metaphysical point and sticking it into materialism.

Yes materialism says that there are forces that are bounded by the speed of light, but that does not mean that if my dog eats a chili pepper, you will have indigestion.

Please point me in the direction of where materialists say that all inetractions have an impact on all other interactions.

 

[Loki]

But we know that such a separation does not objectively exist with regards to physical processes.

But it does exist - the border/separation is draw by the limits of the observing process. You know a physical interaction has triggered an "experience" because you have an experience. You can deduce that a physical interaction has not triggered an "experience" because you don't. The "border" may be different for each person, and may change over time. What's the issue here?

 

[davidsmith73]

I think that the issue can not be reduced to a dualistic on/off situation. The neural networks in the brain are more like a nation with democratic sub units like states, counties and cities. You may like to draw a border and say that, here is the threshold for an experience, but that can be very difficult to do.

I'm not saying that it could be done in any practical sense, but it must follow that if one type of physical process is experiential and another is not then there is a boundary between the two. The problem is that objective physical boundaries do not exist according to materialism. Everything is connected.

materialism posits that physical processes do not have such borders in objective reality.

I would really like to see you prove this contention!

You can prove it to yourself quite easily. I'm sure, like me, you were first taught to think about electrons as being made of some substance, like little balls that fly around the nucleus. But of course as you grow older and learn a little more about sophisticated concepts like probability densities you realise that matter is not made of any "substance" like the macroscopic world seems to be to our senses. Suddenly a whole new meaning to physical reality is presented, one in which there are no "little balls" that lie at the heart of matter, but one in which only fundamental forces acting within fields are at work. Fields do not have any real boundaries and extend to infinity.

There are many different kinds of borders,

But no objective ones. Thats my point.

First off the HIP does not say that all particles are every where at different times, it says that there is a level of knowledge that can not be gathered on the level of very samll particles. Just because you don't know the vector , or the position to a certainty, does not mena that particles are everywhere at the same time.

The question is of the objective nature of the particle. How can you sustain the notion that measuring the position and momentum of something means that there is an objective boundary between that thing and the rest of the universe ?
We are used to dissolving the illusion of boundaries between macroscopic things so why is it so hard to apply the same logic to a smaller scale ?

Third, and the issue that you seem to be refusing to address, is that a level of interaction may be meaningless.
1. Do quazars at the edge of space time have an effect on your behavior?
2. Does my dog have an effect on you behavior?

I haven't addressed this issue because its irrelavent.

You seem to be trying to make some sort of metaphysical point and sticking it into materialism.

I think the metaphysical point I'm making is implicit in materialism.

Yes materialism says that there are forces that are bounded by the speed of light, but that does not mean that if my dog eats a chili pepper, you will have indigestion.

Of course, but again, I don't think the level of "meaningful" interactions are the issue. The issue is the supposed objective nature of experiences.

Please point me in the direction of where materialists say that all inetractions have an impact on all other interactions.

Forces and fields.

 

[davidsmith73]

But it does exist - the border/separation is draw by the limits of the observing process.

Which makes the border objectively real ? According to materialism, I don't think so. If you answer yes to this question you effectively believe in psychokinesis. In other words the act of observation has an effect on objective reality.

You know a physical interaction has triggered an "experience" because you have an experience. You can deduce that a physical interaction has not triggered an "experience" because you don't. The "border" may be different for each person, and may change over time. What's the issue here?

The issue is that physical "borders" do not objectively exist according to materialism. This creates a problem when attempting to say that experiences are the same thing as objective physical processes, but only a subset of physical processes that exist in the universe. I don't really know how to put the problem across more coherently than I've already done

 

[Dancing David]

I'm not saying that it could be done in any practical sense, but it must follow that if one type of physical process is experiential and another is not then there is a boundary between the two. The problem is that objective physical boundaries do not exist according to materialism. Everything is connected.

Well I would say that this is an example of overgenralization. There are only a certain set of processes that lead to perception and they are entrained and limited. And they do invove objective events.
a. there is the stimulous to the receptor.
b. there is the tansmission by the nerve.
c. there is the process of the brain.
d. there is the perception of the event.
The physical boundary does exist, it starts with the stimulous interacting with the receptor, and through the line.


You can prove it to yourself quite easily. I'm sure, like me, you were first taught to think about electrons as being made of some substance, like little balls that fly around the nucleus. But of course as you grow older and learn a little more about sophisticated concepts like probability densities you realise that matter is not made of any "substance" like the macroscopic world seems to be to our senses. Suddenly a whole new meaning to physical reality is presented, one in which there are no "little balls" that lie at the heart of matter, but one in which only fundamental forces acting within fields are at work. Fields do not have any real boundaries and extend to infinity.


That is a definite yes and no! They propagate at the speed of light so they are bounded by the speed of light and the time interval studied.
Then there is the whole issue of interaction, while a proton in my dog may repel a proton in your body, they are limited by the interaction at the speed of light and the compensating force of the accompaning electrons.

And again;
And you seems to be ignoring this point or calling it irrelevant, there may be an interaction at a distance, electro magnetic, gravitational, etc.. But does that interaction actual cause an observable change in the sysytem being studied?

Just because my dog drinks water does not mean I am not thirsty.



-snip-



The question is of the objective nature of the particle. How can you sustain the notion that measuring the position and momentum of something means that there is an objective boundary between that thing and the rest of the universe ?
We are used to dissolving the illusion of boundaries between macroscopic things so why is it so hard to apply the same logic to a smaller scale ?

Uh, dude, I think that if you just said what I think you said then all particles would exist at all times in all spaces, I am not sure that that is what you ment, is it?

A particle is still located in a fuzzy area bounded by the speed of light and the HIP. You don't need certainty for the thing to work. Just approximation.



I haven't addressed this issue because its irrelavent.

No you aren't answering the question because it points to the flaw in your logic and if you answer it, then you can convince me of what you are saying.

Does a quazar at the edge of the universe effect your behavior?

If my dog eats a chili pepper will I have indigestion?




I think the metaphysical point I'm making is implicit in materialism.

I think that you are imposing a metaphysical construct onto materialism, when I ask you questions from the materialist POV you just say they are irrelevant, they aren't.



Of course, but again, I don't think the level of "meaningful" interactions are the issue. The issue is the supposed objective nature of experiences.

There is an objective nature to experince, if you remove your eye will you still see?

-snip-

I think that if you point out an inherent flaw in materialism you might have to answer the material questions.

How does the quazar effect your behavior? You are the one saying that it should, you are the one who is maintaining that there are no boundaries in the material world. I am saying that there are boundaries. And I am asking the question because it points out that there is a boundary bewteen you and the quazar. It is not irrelavant. Convonce me that the quazar effects your behavior and then you have made your point about there not being seperation under materialism.

Peace

 

[DanishDynamite]

davidsmith73:

The issue is that physical "borders" do not objectively exist according to materialism. This creates a problem when attempting to say that experiences are the same thing as objective physical processes, but only a subset of physical processes that exist in the universe.

Physical borders do exist. It is my understanding that the weak and strong nuclear forces, for example, aren't infinite in range, even in theory. The speed of light is likewise a border.

What I don't understand is why the existence or non-existence of "borders" matters. You are only a subset of the physical processes occuring in the Universe because you are the subset which occurs in your brain. The sum total of influences of the Universe on the part of the Universe where your brain is located, is what you experience. Your experience is seperate and individual because it is determined by what is going on in that part of the Universe whose borders are your skull. I really don't know how to make this any clearer.

 

[hammegk]

What I don't understand is why the existence or non-existence of "borders" matters. You are only a subset of the physical processes occuring in the Universe because you are the subset which occurs in your brain. The sum total of influences of the Universe on the part of the Universe where your brain is located, is what you experience. Your experience is seperate and individual because it is determined by what is going on in that part of the Universe whose borders are your skull. I really don't know how to make this any clearer.

The answer is, "the above statements are true IF materialism/atheism is correct".

 

[davidsmith73]

Well I would say that this is an example of overgenralization. There are only a certain set of processes that lead to perception and they are entrained and limited. And they do invove objective events.
a. there is the stimulous to the receptor.
b. there is the tansmission by the nerve.
c. there is the process of the brain.
d. there is the perception of the event.
The physical boundary does exist, it starts with the stimulous interacting with the receptor, and through the line.

You have missed the point. The boundaries you have just pointed out exist subjectively. The issue I am raising is the objective existence of such boundaries. As I have pointed out before, all these processes, a-d, mentioned above, do not exist as truly independent objective events. Their interactions will theoretically "leak" into adjacent matter thus obscuring the precise demarkation of where process X ends and process Y begins.

.

That is a definite yes and no! They propagate at the speed of light so they are bounded by the speed of light and the time interval studied.

But all physical process are bound by the speed of light! There is still no justification for attributing an objective boundary between any two processes.

Then there is the whole issue of interaction, while a proton in my dog may repel a proton in your body, they are limited by the interaction at the speed of light and the compensating force of the accompaning electrons.

How does this address the issue of objective boundaries ?

And again;
And you seems to be ignoring this point or calling it irrelevant, there may be an interaction at a distance, electro magnetic, gravitational, etc..

indeed, I am saying there is a theorectical interaction between all matter across the universe. Is this not correct ?

But does that interaction actual cause an observable change in the sysytem being studied? Just because my dog drinks water does not mean I am not thirsty.

Completely irrelavent to my point. The materialist posits that an experience has an objective reality in the form of a physical process. However, if there indeed is no such thing as two truly independent objective events and all matter is connected, then there seems no logical reason why experience should be attributable to a subset of physical processes occuring in the universe. Indeed the materialistic interpretation gets more confused when we realise that it views the separation of physical processes as a subjective phenomena but then goes on to attribute this separation to an objective reality (experience) !

Uh, dude, I think that if you just said what I think you said then all particles would exist at all times in all spaces, I am not sure that that is what you ment, is it?

In a sense perhaps. There is already one physicist I know of who takes this notion seriously anyway.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195145925/104-9664988-2675106?v=glance

A particle is still located in a fuzzy area bounded by the speed of light and the HIP. You don't need certainty for the thing to work. Just approximation.

Does the HIP impose an objective limitation on physical processes ? I don't think materialism would say yes to that.

No you aren't answering the question because it points to the flaw in your logic and if you answer it, then you can convince me of what you are saying.

Does a quazar at the edge of the universe effect your behavior?

(I shall answer these questions from the perspective of materialism)

no. But it will effect the objective nature of the interactions that are supposed to correspond to an experience. Hence, it is difficult to justify the objective separation between processes that are experiential and those that are not.

If my dog eats a chili pepper will I have indigestion?

No. But see above reply.

I think that you are imposing a metaphysical construct onto materialism, when I ask you questions from the materialist POV you just say they are irrelevant, they aren't.

Which metaphysical construct I am imposing ?

There is an objective nature to experince, if you remove your eye will you still see?

Of course materialsim posits an objective nature to experience ! That is the implicit subject of this thread ! There are problems with this view which I have tried to put across.

How does the quazar effect your behavior? You are the one saying that it should, you are the one who is maintaining that there are no boundaries in the material world.

I am in no way saying that a quasar should effect "your behaviour" because "your behaviour" is not a statement about the objective reality of the situation. "Your behaviour" imposes a subjective boundary which is not the issue. Unless I am mistaken, the quazar will effect the objective processes in your brain to a degree that is undetectable but theoretically should happen. The quazar will not effect "your behaviour" because this is an arbitrary subjective boundary.

I am saying that there are boundaries.

Objective or subjective ? This is a very important distinction David.

 

[sorgoth]

Right. If this were true, then a significant blow or trama to the head could cause a change in the mind or consciousness and obviously that never happens. Further, if consciousness were to change, there would be a change in the brain itself. Has anything like that been observed?

Yes. Brain activity goes up when observing certain events, certain smells, ect. (If you were being sarcastic, then never mind.)


And don`t forget mind influencing drugs. How could those work if the mind wasn`t physical?

 

[davidsmith73]

And don`t forget mind influencing drugs. How could those work if the mind wasn`t physical?

If the drugs themselves are not really physical! What we call the physical world is known only through observation after all.

 

[Dancing David]

You have missed the point. The boundaries you have just pointed out exist subjectively. The issue I am raising is the objective existence of such boundaries. As I have pointed out before, all these processes, a-d, mentioned above, do not exist as truly independent objective events. Their interactions will theoretically "leak" into adjacent matter thus obscuring the precise demarkation of where process X ends and process Y begins.
Wow, I do enjoy these chats but dude, either stop arguing from the materialist perspective or just say that you don't like it. The event of the photon reacting with the receptor does not leak anywhere.
I would be very grateful if you would explain that to me because I think that it shows your lack of belief in the material system. There is no theoretical leak into the interactions with the nearby receptors. the photon has a number of possibilities.
a. it interacts with space/time but not a receptor in the eye.
b.it interacts with the receptor in the eye, this bifurcates
i. it could be that it triggers a receptor response.
ii. it could be that it does not trigger a receptor response.
c. it interacts with the eye but not a receptor, say it strikes the sclera and raises its temperature.

In the case where the photon interacts with the recptor and triggers the receptor response, how does it leak? the photon does not cause other receptors to give a response. The photon briefly interacts with one receptor, please show me where there is leakage. Thanks, it sounds really cool.
.



But all physical process are bound by the speed of light! There is still no justification for attributing an objective boundary between any two processes.

There certainly is, just because gravity is a pervasive force doesn't mean that there is a meaningful change when a reaction occurs in one beaker across the room from another beaker. Say i have some cations in solution in two seperate beakers. And I add some dogions to one of the beakers. While the dogs(anions) and cats react with each other to produce a more neutral state in the first beaker. How do they effect the second beaker? You saif earlier that they do, but how does that effect take place? Does it have a meaning, or is it just some abstract thingy ma bob?




How does this address the issue of objective boundaries ?

They exist, take planets there is a point in space where we can say that the atoms associated with Jupiter end, they do not flow over into the atoms of the asteroids. Some may be knocked out of Jupiters atmosphere but they are not like just hoppin over to the asteroids all the time. there has to be an influence that moves them.


indeed, I am saying there is a theorectical interaction between all matter across the universe. Is this not correct ?

Uh, dude you brought it up, why don't you explain it. As far as I understand it, no not all the particles in the universe are interacting with all the other particles in the universe. They can interact through forces and fiels which are commonly theorised to be further particles.
There is a gravitational interaction bounded by the speed of light, just as there is magnetic repulsion and elctro static forces.




Completely irrelavent to my point. The materialist posits that an experience has an objective reality in the form of a physical process. However, if there indeed is no such thing as two truly independent objective events and all matter is connected, then there seems no logical reason why experience should be attributable to a subset of physical processes occuring in the universe.


Could you show me where this majority of scientists say that physical boundaries don't exist. You are doing some sort of mish mash here, is this in the textbooks in the enginering labs? This is just

argument by assertion

and it earns you a Dull Dian point. This is your assertion it is not a materialist assertion.

Indeed the materialistic interpretation gets more confused when we realise that it views the separation of physical processes as a subjective phenomena but then goes on to attribute this separation to an objective reality (experience) !

Nyet, that is just your idealist assertion about materialism, is is unfounded, undemostrated and unproved. I await the place where you show this to be a materialsit assumption. It is your assertion! Another Dull Dian point.





In a sense perhaps. There is already one physicist I know of who takes this notion seriously anyway.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195145925/104-9664988-2675106?v=glance

I shall read and see, one you say?



Does the HIP impose an objective limitation on physical processes ? I don't think materialism would say yes to that.
Then you either don't talk to materialists or don't understand them. HIP sets a limit to the location of subatomic particle.

You don't think that materialism would say that? Then you aren't a materialist or you don't know what HIP really is as a construct. The fact that there is a negative reciprocal bewteen the certainty of vector and position does not give the particle free rein to roam the universe. It bounds the location of the particle.



(I shall answer these questions from the perspective of materialism)

no. But it will effect the objective nature of the interactions that are supposed to correspond to an experience. Hence, it is difficult to justify the objective separation between processes that are experiential and those that are not.
Only if you assert it, only the organic processes that lead to perception lead to an experience.
So are you saying that the photons that hit somebody else eye cause you to see?



snip

Of course materialsim posits an objective nature to experience ! That is the implicit subject of this thread ! There are problems with this view which I have tried to put across.
So far I would like to say that they are a misrepresentation of materialism. respectfully tendered.




I am in no way saying that a quasar should effect "your behaviour" because "your behaviour" is not a statement about the objective reality of the situation. "Your behaviour" imposes a subjective boundary which is not the issue. Unless I am mistaken, the quazar will effect the objective processes in your brain to a degree that is undetectable but theoretically should happen. The quazar will not effect "your behaviour" because this is an arbitrary subjective boundary.

No it will not effect my behavior because the weak gravitational, magnetic fields will not alter my brain chemistry.



Objective or subjective ? This is a very important distinction David.

I understand it is important but I claim that there is no magic subjective and that boundaries exist for physical processes, feel free to change your tactic.

Respectfuly, materialism does belive in the boundaries.

I again ask you, how does the idealist create boundaries when all is one mind?

My dog says you are cool by the way, but the fact that he jumped in a swamp last week is not going to effect you, except through our communication.

Peace and Respect

 

[davidsmith73]

You have missed the point. The boundaries you have just pointed out exist subjectively. The issue I am raising is the objective existence of such boundaries. As I have pointed out before, all these processes, a-d, mentioned above, do not exist as truly independent objective events. Their interactions will theoretically "leak" into adjacent matter thus obscuring the precise demarkation of where process X ends and process Y begins.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, I do enjoy these chats but dude, either stop arguing from the materialist perspective or just say that you don't like it. The event of the photon reacting with the receptor does not leak anywhere.
I would be very grateful if you would explain that to me because I think that it shows your lack of belief in the material system. There is no theoretical leak into the interactions with the nearby receptors. the photon has a number of possibilities.
a. it interacts with space/time but not a receptor in the eye.
b.it interacts with the receptor in the eye, this bifurcates
i. it could be that it triggers a receptor response.
ii. it could be that it does not trigger a receptor response.
c. it interacts with the eye but not a receptor, say it strikes the sclera and raises its temperature.

In the case where the photon interacts with the recptor and triggers the receptor response, how does it leak? the photon does not cause other receptors to give a response. The photon briefly interacts with one receptor, please show me where there is leakage. Thanks, it sounds really cool.

Perhaps I should have digressed. The photon, or whatever, will interact with the various processes you described above. That is the "leakage" I was meaning. The fact that an interaction takes place, which causes another interaction to take place, and so on and so forth, means that interactions never cease. So, when conceiving of a particle or wave reacting with another, where does process X end and process Y begin in an objective sense ? This is the question that materialism is posed with. I think that materialism cannot logically demarkate an objective boundary between any two physical processes. You don't need to make any observations to demonstrate this to yourself. Any boundary that is demarkated (as you have done above) is subjective and therefore, according to materialism, does not exist.

But all physical process are bound by the speed of light! There is still no justification for attributing an objective boundary between any two processes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There certainly is, just because gravity is a pervasive force doesn't mean that there is a meaningful change when a reaction occurs in one beaker across the room from another beaker.

A "meaningful" change is subjective! A change per se, which must happen according to materialism, is objective. The extent or meaning of change matters not in materialist objective reality.

How does this address the issue of objective boundaries ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
They exist, take planets there is a point in space where we can say that the atoms associated with Jupiter end, they do not flow over into the atoms of the asteroids.

I absolutely disagree. Materialism posits that there is no such thing as atoms that objectively belong to Jupiter or asteroids. That is a subjective boundary you have drawn which does not exist in objective reality according to materialism.

Some may be knocked out of Jupiters atmosphere but they are not like just hoppin over to the asteroids all the time. there has to be an influence that moves them.

Of course. I am not contending that. I am contending that we have no logical reason to suppose that there are truly separate physical entities in the materialist view of objective reality. We may point to various parts of the universe but are they really of themselves or parts of the whole ?

indeed, I am saying there is a theorectical interaction between all matter across the universe. Is this not correct ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, dude you brought it up, why don't you explain it.

I thought I had already

As far as I understand it, no not all the particles in the universe are interacting with all the other particles in the universe. They can interact through forces and fiels which are commonly theorised to be further particles.
There is a gravitational interaction bounded by the speed of light, just as there is magnetic repulsion and elctro static forces.

My point is, can we draw objective boundaries between these particles or waves and the rest of the universe ? I don't think materialism can logically do this. Since these particles or waves are constantly interacting with the rest of the universe we cannot draw a line and say "here!" thats where particle X objectively ends and the rest of the universe begins.

Completely irrelavent to my point. The materialist posits that an experience has an objective reality in the form of a physical process. However, if there indeed is no such thing as two truly independent objective events and all matter is connected, then there seems no logical reason why experience should be attributable to a subset of physical processes occuring in the universe.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you show me where this majority of scientists say that physical boundaries don't exist. You are doing some sort of mish mash here, is this in the textbooks in the enginering labs? This is just argument by assertion and it earns you a Dull Dian point. This is your assertion it is not a materialist assertion.

No I can't point you to a texbook that will explicitly say that. It is implicit in the materialistic framework. All matter is connected. The rest follows from that. I really don't think you need any complex maths to figure it out. I mean you just have to think about the nature of any individual physical process and realise that all processes lead on to others. Motion never ceases in the physical world.

Does the HIP impose an objective limitation on physical processes ? I don't think materialism would say yes to that.
Then you either don't talk to materialists or don't understand them. HIP sets a limit to the location of subatomic particle.

You don't think that materialism would say that? Then you aren't a materialist or you don't know what HIP really is as a construct. The fact that there is a negative reciprocal bewteen the certainty of vector and position does not give the particle free rein to roam the universe. It bounds the location of the particle.

I shall read more on this.

I understand it is important but I claim that there is no magic subjective and that boundaries exist for physical processes, feel free to change your tactic.

I cannot see how this could be. Could you explain how ? I materialism is truly a monistic philosophy then objective boundaries would imply a dual (or multiple) nature of reality.

I again ask you, how does the idealist create boundaries when all is one mind?

The boundaries do not exist in a monistic idealism for the same reasons as monistic materialsim. I don't know how the appearance of boundaries would be created under idealism.

 

[Dancing David]

Perhaps I should have digressed. The photon, or whatever, will interact with the various processes you described above. That is the "leakage" I was meaning. The fact that an interaction takes place, which causes another interaction to take place, and so on and so forth, means that interactions never cease. So, when conceiving of a particle or wave reacting with another, where does process X end and process Y begin in an objective sense ? This is the question that materialism is posed with. I think that materialism cannot logically demarkate an objective boundary between any two physical processes. You don't need to make any observations to demonstrate this to yourself. Any boundary that is demarkated (as you have done above) is subjective and therefore, according to materialism, does not exist.


Well said, I don't really want o get into the epistomolgy of the word meaning ful.

But take the example of the photon being generated in a start traversing space and then interacting with the receptor in the eye and helping create the perception of a color.

It ends with the brain generating the perception of the color. Or in the material sense the photon's interaction ends when it interacts with the photochemicals in the receptor. While the receptor creates a potential which then triggers a neuron, those are caused events. At the level of physics the photon creates a potential , which then causes the receptor to cause a neuron to fire. but the photon's energy has already craeted a change in the photochemical, it is the diffenence in the chemical that creates the potential, not the photons.

The nail, the horse, the battle, the war, the country. they are all seperate although they effect each other.



A "meaningful" change is subjective! A change per se, which must happen according to materialism, is objective. The extent or meaning of change matters not in materialist objective reality.


It is objective only in that it can be observed, that is one of the axioms of science/materialism, the effects must be observed. So while there may be undetected effects, they are not part of science until they can be observed. And that it just an axiom, I can not defend or offend it's objectivity.
The meaning of the change in a materialist objective reality is that it can be observed.
A change that can occur in materialism must have an observable trait or secondary trait that can be observed. That is the subjective definition of the 'objective' in the scientific sense.
There is no objective/subjective barrier in science there are theories and observations. The rest is speculation and at best can rise to being an inferred observation of theory.


I absolutely disagree. Materialism posits that there is no such thing as atoms that objectively belong to Jupiter or asteroids. That is a subjective boundary you have drawn which does not exist in objective reality according to materialism.


Materialism as a philosophy does not, but materialism as a tool certainly does, it gets into the probablist nature of reality. At the center of Jupiters core are atoms that are not going anywhere unless some event rips Jupiter apart, these particles have a 99.9999999999% chance of being a particle we define as Jupiter's at a future time. There are those that are higher in the atmosphere and they have a smaller cahnce of staying in Jupiter's atmosphere, and up and up, until we reach an area that iIwould call the boundary, where particles have an aqual chance of staying with Jupiter or leaving.
the particles of asteroids have a very high probability of being associated with an asteroid.
So while the boundary is one that i chose, I can set in higher or lower, but the chances that a particle at Jupiters core will migrate to an asteroid are very low.
And again the boundary is an ex-planation of behavior, of course it in not a thing in and of itself. It is a theory which can be verified.




Of course. I am not contending that. I am contending that we have no logical reason to suppose that there are truly separate physical entities in the materialist view of objective reality. We may point to various parts of the universe but are they really of themselves or parts of the whole ?
Materialism operates on many levels so it depends on the scale and the question, and again materialism is an explanation for the way that the 'physical' world behaves, and observation will show that the boundaries do exist. Philsophicaly materialism is a tool for analyzing the behavior of the 'physical' world.




I thought I had already



My point is, can we draw objective boundaries between these particles or waves and the rest of the universe ? I don't think materialism can logically do this. Since these particles or waves are constantly interacting with the rest of the universe we cannot draw a line and say "here!" thats where particle X objectively ends and the rest of the universe begins.
Philosphicaly you can say that, scientificaly you can say, this particle has a probability of being in this space, at some point the probability approaches zero, and the boundary is defined by the particle itself.





No I can't point you to a texbook that will explicitly say that. It is implicit in the materialistic framework. All matter is connected. The rest follows from that. I really don't think you need any complex maths to figure it out. I mean you just have to think about the nature of any individual physical process and realise that all processes lead on to others. Motion never ceases in the physical world.

But that does not mean that all events have an observable impact on all other events.




I shall read more on this.





I cannot see how this could be. Could you explain how ? I materialism is truly a monistic philosophy then objective boundaries would imply a dual (or multiple) nature of reality.


Monism, schmonism, physical reality is not monistic, it is pluralistic, so materialism would be pluralistic shmuralistic.



The boundaries do not exist in a monistic idealism for the same reasons as monistic materialsim. I don't know how the appearance of boundaries would be created under idealism.

Sorry , montheism ain't my bag, the last i heard the said the universe has like 10 to the seventieth particles in it. that could not encompass monism of particles, except for bosons at low temperatures.

Peace