Galen Strawson's argument for why physical reality is experiential

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,055
East Coast
✟830,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There is no question in my mind about when you refer to 'the universe', this refers to nothing more than a testable scientific model .. Of course its a model! .. It keeps changing (and has changed over eons) everytime humans observe something new .. that wouldn't have happened if it were just a 'thing' existing independently from our perceptions of what it actually is .. for goodness sake!
I mean it started out as a bunch of lights in the night sky .. then it was a bunch of crystal spheres, etc, etc ...

Who needs to invent yet another mumbo-jumbo religious belief such as 'pantheistic multi-person solipsism', when we have objective evidence for understanding it as being nothing more than an objectively testable model?

Are you joking? Or, am I misunderstanding what you are saying? On the one hand, you seem to be saying the universe is nothing more than a changing model based on human perception, not some thing existing independent of our perceptions. But then you say we have objective evidence for this objectively testable model, which again does exist apart from perception. So, is the universe objectively existing, or no? Or, if the universe is objective, then it exists independent of being percived by us.

I cant tell if you're joking and saying the universe is a mental projection of like minded people, or if you're seriously saying it is mumbo jumbo.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Are you joking? Or, am I misunderstanding what you are saying? On the one hand, you seem to be saying the universe is nothing more than a changing model based on human perception, not some thing existing independent of our perceptions. But then you say we have objective evidence for this objectively testable model, which again does exist apart from perception. So, is the universe objectively existing, or no? Or, if the universe is objective, then it exists independent of being perceived by us.

I cant tell if you're joking and saying the universe is a mental projection of like minded people, or if you're seriously saying it is mumbo jumbo.
I'm quite serious. The view I'm putting forward is based on an objectively testable hypothesis which produces abundant evidence in support of the notion that everything we perceive, once described using language of any human kind, becomes either a testable, or not testable model, and in the case of objectively tested results, those results are then what we base our scientific meanings of reality upon. Its not so far removed from Galen's idea, except this one is scientific .. Galen's is not .. his is philosophical.

The fact of the matter is that everything referenced in science is an objectively testable model (or has already been tested/verified) .. eg: an electron, plasma, energy, planet, moon, plasma, molecule, atom, universe, star, computer, electricity, gravity, etc, etc .. and they change (sometimes radically) with new data usually pertaining to the contexts or new observed behaviors. How can that change happen if those things supposedly 'exist' independently of anything our minds are doing, eh?

The idea that some kind of reality exists independently from the minds conceiving those models, is totally unsupported by objective testing/evidence .. and thus, is viewed as a belief in science and is never tested in any of its tests.

'Objective' isn't what you think it means (ie: 'exists independently from human minds'). Objectivity requires alike scientifically thinking minds to determine based on scientific testing ... which by definition, means that the tests performed cannot return results of something existing independently from the human (scientifically thinking) minds carrying out those tests.

Similarly 'mind independent, (or objective), reality' is an oxymoronic phrase .. for very the same reason. I have no idea why people persist in thinking this is what 'objective reality' means in science .. its a very widespread belief and I acknowledge that it certainly is almost always taken as a given .. in spite of the lack of objective evidence for it! Its completely bizarre and completely inconsistent with how science works!
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,055
East Coast
✟830,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Its not so far removed from Galen's idea, except this one is scientific .. Galen's is not .. his is philosophical.

I agree, Galen's pansychism is not a scientific idea, but philosophical. But, I would also say that those who deny his pansychism are also putting forward a philosophical idea, and not a scientific one. For, how can one show that ultimately reality is non-experiential? It's simply a metaphysical assumption (based in reason, but not verifiability) just as is Galen's.

The fact of the matter is that everything referenced in science is an objectively testable model (or has already been tested/verified) .. eg: an electron, plasma, energy, planet, moon, plasma, molecule, atom, universe, star, computer, electricity, gravity, etc, etc .. and they change (sometimes radically) with new data usually pertaining to the contexts or new observed behaviors. How can that change happen if those things supposedly 'exist' independently of anything our minds are doing, eh?

I'm wholly in agreement with you in that what are referenced in science are testable models, models that can change with new data. I am still confused by your use of "objective." Maybe I should ask, what do you think is the relationship between the models and what the models are about? I think we agree that the model is not the reality. Nonetheless, the models are about reality, right? And, reality is the "object." So, "objective" references the reality, whatever that may be, not the models. Is that right? I am inclined to think you will disagree.

The idea that some kind of reality exists independently from the minds conceiving those models, is totally unsupported by objective testing/evidence .. and thus, is viewed as a belief in science and is never tested in any of its tests.

So, this observation has been around for awhile. We can think of Kant's distinction between the noumena (i.e. the thing in itself) and phenomenon (i.e. the thing as perceived by us). We have access to the phenomenon, but not the noumena. Nonetheless, the one depends on the other. Kant never denied the reality of the noumena, but only that we cannot know it except as perceived. What I hear you saying is the noumena doesn't even exist. In this sense, what you're saying sounds like idealism in the Berkeleyan sense, i.e. all that exists are minds.

Similarly 'mind independent, (or objective), reality' is an oxymoronic phrase .. for very the same reason. I have no idea why people persist in thinking this is what 'objective reality' means in science .. its a very widespread belief and I acknowledge that it certainly is almost always taken as a given .. in spite of the lack of objective evidence for it! Its completely bizarre and completely inconsistent with how science works!

Given your position, it seems the distinction between objective and subjective collapses. Maybe one way to avoid that is to say, that which is objective is that which achieves widespread intersubjective agreement, via verifiability through testing, observation (whatever that means), etc.

By the way, please don't take my comments as derogatory or dismissive in any way. I am truly curious and in some way want to agree with you, but I want to make sure I understand. Also, given the role of the mind as you see it, are you sympathetic to pansychism? Why or why not?
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
... I'm wholly in agreement with you in that what are referenced in science are testable models, models that can change with new data. I am still confused by your use of "objective." Maybe I should ask, what do you think is the relationship between the models and what the models are about? I think we agree that the model is not the reality. Nonetheless, the models are about reality, right? And, reality is the "object." So, "objective" references the reality, whatever that may be, not the models. Is that right? I am inclined to think you will disagree.
What we mean by 'reality' is a model.

I'm going to interpret your core inquiry as being more about what is objective vs what is subjective:
I think its fair to say this all starts with normal minds observing both regularities and irregularities in what we perceive. That's pretty much an observed fact and what motivates the terms 'objective' and 'subjective'. The normal way our minds make sense of this fact, is we associate that which is 'objective' with what exists independently from us, and that which is 'subjective', depends on our minds.

The problem, of course, is that the line between objective and subjective here is, itself, a model, which is easily found to break down if you simply push it far enough .. for example: is the idea that there are independent electrons in each atom an objective truth, or a subjective way of thinking? (Aside: more advanced data driven explanations about atoms simply requires abandonment of the notion of the existence of individual electrons).
So, I agree, this is the central issue .. any attempt to put a concept of mind independent 'objects' into our mind-dependent models, faces the problem of breaking down when you try to decide which parts are mind independent, and which parts aren't. The very concept of mind dependence vs. mind independence is itself, a mind dependent concept, and this is easy to demonstrate.

Another common approach is to take a definition, like one I found on a Google search for 'objective reality': 'The objective reality is the collection of things we are sure exist independently of us'.

Whilst dictionary definitions are always a useful starting point, unfortunately definitions always have to be very vague and very inclusive of many different things. That's how they are designed, because they are not equipped with context, whereas meaning is always contextual. Instead of blindly adhering to dictionary definitions, we need to do the work of deciding what we mean when we use a word, and watch for internal inconsistencies .. and they abound in dictionary definitions .. there's usually always circularities there too .. examples include, when you look for definitions of 'reality', you find things like 'reality is everything that exists', and then you look up 'exist' and get 'have objective reality', and so forth. The fact is, definitions can never tell you what things are, and they can also never tell you what you mean when you use a word. They only tell you what many people tend to mean in various situations, but there is a real danger of creating a kind of illusion of understanding when real understanding requires a whole lot more work than looking up a definition.

What's more, it should be very obvious the internal inconsistency of saying 'things we are sure exist independently of us'. Who is sure? How do we tell we are sure? .. and how is that independent of us? I have to wonder if people even look at what they are saying sometimes. But yes, the common poor definitions we find involving 'reality' are ripe with such clear inconsistencies, there is a complete lack of introspection on the topic.

There exists a fundamental logical inconsistency in the very idea that you can call 'mind independence' an aspect of a model that requires your mind to understand. Whenever you put that in as a feature of a model, all I have to do is ask 'can different minds mean something different about whatever it is that you are putting in your model that you are calling mind independent?' If you say 'no', I'll show your claim fails tests. If you say 'yes', then I'll ask, 'if different minds can include that feature differently, could a mind choose not to include it at all, and how is your model any testably different?'

So these two flaws in imagining that a mind independent component can be put into a testable model boil down to, what aspects you think are mind dependent vs mind independent, will always require enforcing an artificial line in the sand between what parts are mind independent, and that line will fall apart when dug into, (like the line in the sand we call 'the surface of the Earth') .. And moreover, if you require complete mind independence for any aspect of your model, that aspect can simply be left out and the model isn't any different for testing purposes. One can always choose to believe an aspect of a model that is not testable and is not even logically consistent, because belief follows different rules from logic and science.

public hermit said:
So, this observation has been around for awhile. We can think of Kant's distinction between the noumena (i.e. the thing in itself) and phenomenon (i.e. the thing as perceived by us). We have access to the phenomenon, but not the noumena. Nonetheless, the one depends on the other. Kant never denied the reality of the noumena, but only that we cannot know it except as perceived. What I hear you saying is the noumena doesn't even exist. In this sense, what you're saying sounds like idealism in the Berkeleyan sense, i.e. all that exists are minds.
No .. that wouldn't be science .. that would be a philosophically based belief. Science can't rule out things which it cannot test. I'm simply shifting the emphasis of this entire conversation back to its basis in objectively tested results. This requires leaving the question of 'reality not existing independently from us', entirely open, (as an unknown), because there's nothing to say beyond people's belief based opinions.
This is also what separates Solipsism from the notion I'm putting forward.

public hermit said:
Given your position, it seems the distinction between objective and subjective collapses. Maybe one way to avoid that is to say, that which is objective is that which achieves widespread intersubjective agreement, via verifiability through testing, observation (whatever that means), etc.
Yep .. pretty much .. bit the agreement is amongst scientific thinkers .. and I'd rename that science's 'Objective Reality'. Beliefs, faiths, delusional thinking etc, are still capable of giving a model of reality their particular meanings .. but those meanings of 'reality' are not science's meanings because they aren't testable via the scientific method. They are still mind dependent realities though .. (and not independent of those minds).

public hermit said:
By the way, please don't take my comments as derogatory or dismissive in any way. I am truly curious and in some way want to agree with you, but I want to make sure I understand. Also, given the role of the mind as you see it, are you sympathetic to pansychism? Why or why not?
I suspect Strawson's philosophical ideas are closer to the philosophy of science .. but his (or someone else's) using them to rule out out other untestable notions, places them squarely in the philosophy bucket .. and is not scientific thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
The way I see it, Strawson's idea also delves into anthropomorphisms and the concept of a hypothetical observer (but goes way beyond that). We often use anthropomorphic language in science to help us get a sense of understanding by, in effect, placing ourselves into the context of the physical system, almost like empathizing with the system under study. This is fine as long as we don't take the language too seriously, when we say things like an electron 'exerts a force' on something, or some system is 'trying to reach the lowest energy level', etc.

We also put hypothetical observers into systems to describe what is happening, being careful not to affect the system in any way that is not already being affected that way. These are all helpful devices as we try to model and simplify in order to understand, and we simply have to recognize we are not describing the system 'as it is' (if such a thing even exists), but rather, we are attempting to use language to achieve understanding.

As an example, let's say if you imagine someone describing an imaginary or hypothetical situation, something that could happen, but never actually did happen .. such as: 'imagine a red Mustang driving west on Main street, passing an old man on the corner'). You might well say that you 'understand what I'm talking about'. So what, then, is the 'object of your understanding'? Surely not the red Mustang or the old man .. because they don't actually exist!?!

Yet you do understand what I'm saying, because those words mean something similar to each of us. To the extent that we have similar experiences with those 'things', we share an understanding, and to the extent that our experiences have been different, we do not share the same understanding.

So there is experience involved, and there are words involved, and if we choose to imagine that 'redness' exists, and that 'Mustangs' and 'old men' exist, (and by our normal meaning of the term 'exist', they do), then we can say there are also these 'things' involved. But how all those involved elements combine to achieve what we call 'understanding' of what I just said, is a complex combination of all those experiences and attributes, and what we mean by 'actual things', but nowhere in any of that complexity do we find the absence of the mind.

To anyone who might describe some hypothetical situation, (like kicking a rock), as evidence that these things must be mind independent, I'd respond with:
'Isn't something hypothetical the most obvious possible example of mind dependence'?
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,055
East Coast
✟830,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So, I agree, this is the central issue .. any attempt to put a concept of mind independent 'objects' into our mind-dependent models, faces the problem of breaking down when you try to decide which parts are mind independent, and which parts aren't. The very concept of mind dependence vs. mind independence is itself, a mind dependent concept, and this is easy to demonstrate.

If you agree this is the central issue, then your conception is not that far off from Strawson. Let's assume there are two basic positions as concerns pansychism: 1) psychism (as Strawson calls it), which means mind is a fundamental feature of physical reality, and reality is independent of us. There may be other features, but mind is in there at a fundamental level. Or, 2) pansychism, which means all physical reality is fundamentally mind, and reality is independent of us. Unless I'm mistaken, (2) is Strawson's position. Those who are opposed to those conceptions are going to say that fundamental reality is not only independent of us, but also not-mind. These would be your everyday materialists. Whatever it is, it is not mind.

Your position seems to be: reality is practically mind (i.e. it all depends on mind as far as we can tell), and talk of reality being somehow independent of us is, for all practical purposes, also mind. As Wittgenstein put it at the end of the Tractatus, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." You stop making any claims at that point. Nonetheless, I would say, what you are willing to assert up to that point is only mind. Practically speaking, it is pansychism. The only real difference between your position and Strawson's is that he will unabashedly assert reality is independent of us.

I'm simply shifting the emphasis of this entire conversation back to its basis in objectively tested results. This requires leaving the question of 'reality not existing independently from us', entirely open,

Right. Do we avoid making metaphysical claims, if in practice we hold to those same claims we did not assert? If I say, "Reality is mind and I can say nothing about what may or may not be independent of mind" am I asserting anything other than, "Reality is mind"? The second part of the conjunction doesn't say anything. It's the same as saying, "Reality is mind and I have nothing so say about what I cannot speak of." I've said nothing more than simply, "Reality is mind." We don't save ourselves from metaphysical commitments by not asserting them. Or better, when it come to metaphysics, when we eliminate something (de dicto or de re) it reveals what we are committed to.

Yep .. pretty much .. bit the agreement is amongst scientific thinkers .. and I'd rename that science's 'Objective Reality'. Beliefs, faiths, delusional thinking etc, are still capable of giving a model of reality their particular meanings .. but those meanings of 'reality' are not science's meanings because they aren't testable via the scientific method. They are still mind dependent realities though .. (and not independent of those minds).

So there is a distinction when it comes to objective/subjective. It is the distinction between that which can and that which cannot be tested via the scientific method.

The way I see it, Strawson's idea also delves into anthropomorphisms and the concept of a hypothetical observer (but goes way beyond that). We often use anthropomorphic language in science to help us get a sense of understanding by, in effect, placing ourselves into the context of the physical system, almost like empathizing with the system under study. This is fine as long as we don't take the language too seriously, when we say things like an electron 'exerts a force' on something, or some system is 'trying to reach the lowest energy level', etc.

I think this is a pretty common objection, and it makes sense. Humans will anthropomorphize over anything, haha. I'm going to go out on a limb and say Strawson has considered that. I think part of what Strawson wants to do is resolve the mind/matter discussion by inverting idealism, so that instead of mind eliminating the physical, mind is physical. And, I think he believes he has enough room to play with in regards to current understandings of physics, that he can get away with it. The fact that you resist making any claims about ultimate reality, or independent reality, based on scientific testability and such, kind of shows why he can get away with it. Really all people can say about pansychism is 1) you can't prove it, and 2) it sounds crazy. ^_^ And both of those are true, I would say.

To anyone who might describe some hypothetical situation, (like kicking a rock), as evidence that these things must be mind independent, I'd respond with:
'Isn't something hypothetical the most obvious possible example of mind dependence'?

Yes, I definitely agree. The hypothetical is mind. What tells us there is something else is when the hypothetical doesn't match up with our experience. That's why we have a tendency to think everything is not mind dependent. There is a difference, and we all somehow know it, between what wholly depends on our mind, and what doesn't match our beliefs, desires, understandings, etc. Having been wrong more than once, we begin to see reality is not us. It is true that there is never an absence of mind, but there is an absence of our mind matching reality. That's the absence that clues us in on a reality not dependent on us.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
... The only real difference between your position and Strawson's is that he will unabashedly assert reality is independent of us.
.. and as he does that, he does departs from the scientific method, has zero objective evidence to base that distinction upon, and completely trashes the entire basis of science in a stance made on a total belief.
public hermit said:
Right. Do we avoid making metaphysical claims, if in practice we hold to those same claims we did not assert? If I say, "Reality is mind and I can say nothing about what may or may not be independent of mind" am I asserting anything other than, "Reality is mind"? The second part of the conjunction doesn't say anything. It's the same as saying, "Reality is mind and I have nothing so say about what I cannot speak of." I've said nothing more than simply, "Reality is mind." We don't save ourselves from metaphysical commitments by not asserting them. Or better, when it come to metaphysics, when we eliminate something (de dicto or de re) it reveals what we are committed to.
All very interesting stuff .. but science's base philosophy doesn't make any claim 'Reality is mind'. That's philosophy. Science wants to test the meaning of the word 'reality' and then use those results to give the word meaning. There are no claims made other than what is observable/testable ..ie: that whenever we use the word 'reality', we can test to find out what that means and backtrack to how that meaning was assigned .. there are limited methods but they all require a mind to make the assignment of the end result of those methods and use that to update its meaning. That's how and why science's definitions are always changing (eg: Pluto was a 'planet', then it wasn't .. it was a 'dwarf planet', and I think its again making a comeback as being a 'planet' again .. How can all that happen if it was always a celestial object independent of our meaning of 'planet'?)

public hermit said:
So there is a distinction when it comes to objective/subjective. It is the distinction between that which can and that which cannot be tested via the scientific method.
What I'm saying is that the distinction is arbitrary .. not absolute. We come up with what is an object and what is a subject, and that changes depending on the thinker who conceives of both of them. 'Objective Reality' is just a label I use as a recognition that science's method is all about objective testing (which I think would, perhaps, be more or less a agreed by the majority of scientifically minded thinkers?). But I agree it causes all sorts of confusion because most folk aren't engaging their minds in scientific thinking when they hear it .. they're probably diving into a dictionary definitions .. which are left deliberately ambiguous .. but my context for giving that term its meaning is a scientific context and definitely not something 'existing independently' of those scientifically thinking minds.

public hermit said:
I think this is a pretty common objection, and it makes sense. Humans will anthropomorphize over anything, haha. I'm going to go out on a limb and say Strawson has considered that. I think part of what Strawson wants to do is resolve the mind/matter discussion by inverting idealism, so that instead of mind eliminating the physical, mind is physical. And, I think he believes he has enough room to play with in regards to current understandings of physics, that he can get away with it. The fact that you resist making any claims about ultimate reality, or independent reality, based on scientific testability and such, kind of shows why he can get away with it. Really all people can say about pansychism is 1) you can't prove it, and 2) it sounds crazy. ^_^ And both of those are true, I would say.
He can probably get away with it because, firstly, many folk think science is based on Realism. This however leads to the glaring inconsistency that there isn't a single scrap of objective evidence, or even an objective test, which unequivocally leads to a conclusion of 'things existing' mind independently.

Secondly, the phrase 'mind is physical' uses the word 'is' as its sole basis for asserting its claim. 'Is' and 'exists' are one in the same. It is therefore an unevidenced, circular assertion based on the undeclared assumption of the existence of truth (as all philosophies seem to do with gay abandon). Where did the meaning of 'is', or 'exists', come from? Why should those words somehow escape the clutches of the human (even English speaking) mind? The answer is: they don't. The meaning of those words are our meanings .. the historical record provides plenty of evidence that they weren't just handed to us on a platter we sorta tripped over whilst crusing through outer space, y'know ...(?)

public hermit said:
Yes, I definitely agree. The hypothetical is mind. What tells us there is something else is when the hypothetical doesn't match up with our experience. That's why we have a tendency to think everything is not mind dependent. There is a difference, and we all somehow know it, between what wholly depends on our mind, and what doesn't match our beliefs, desires, understandings, etc. Having been wrong more than once, we begin to see reality is not us.
Different minds think differently and come up with different meanings on the same topic. This is no problem for the idea of mind dependent reality (in fact it is a feature of it). It is a problem when it comes to the idea of a mind independent reality because why would such disagreements ever happen if a rock really was a mind independent reality? Someone might have it being a 'stone' or 'boulder', or 'conglomerate', or 'sandstone', or 'gravel' or even 'a piece of some giant's navel lint'! What would a mind independent reality thinker do when it comes to those varied meanings? Ignore them? (The answer to that is invariably: 'yes' .. but that just skews things in the direction of the belief in the 'mind independence of reality' by ignoring the results ..)

public hermit said:
It is true that there is never an absence of mind, but there is an absence of our mind matching reality. That's the absence that clues us in on a reality not dependent on us.
There are consistencies and inconsistencies (I pointed out some inconsistencies in my immediately prior comment). The consistencies amongst like thinkers are what we rely on to give 'objective' its meaning. There is never any test that is done which would lead us to conclude that such consistencies are anything other than being accounted for by the simple observation that we all share a generally in-common (shared) type of perceiving mind (including some variations noted above) - a human mind.
There is never any test done independently of anything which already has that mind's 'fingerprints' all over it .. That is at least until someone can demonstrate that admitted possiblity, that is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Been thinking some more on Strawson's experiential reality.
I think its kind of analagous with the idea that the universe 'runs' according to laws which are fundamentally mathematical in nature, except Strawson has substituted 'mathematical' there with 'experiential'.

See, the axioms of math are well designed to map into physics, or perhaps we should say both the axioms of math and the postulates of physics are designed to map into making sense of experience .. (where our 'experience' is our own fundamental).

We're rarely ever surprised that mathematics works in physics, but I think we're always surprised by how well either of them work in the 'physical' universe. They work so well that a lot of people start to imagine they are the 'actual laws' that make things happen, but that doesn't work either, because then they'd have to be exact and our experience tells us they are not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,055
East Coast
✟830,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Been thinking some more on Strawson's experiential reality.
I think its kind of analagous with the idea that the universe 'runs' according to laws which are fundamentally mathematical in nature, except Strawson has substituted 'mathematical' there with 'experiential'.

I think this is a generous proposal on your part. If it were true, it would make Strawson's position seem less like he is saying that the physical actually is mental. But, again, I'd bet he is aware of the very things you point out concerning the mathmatical aspect of physics, and thus the possibility of assuming the physical *is* mathmatical.

Strawson is clear in the OP that his starting question is "If, according to physics, concrete stuff = energy, what is the nature of this energy?" One would think, as you say, he would answer it is fundamentally mathmatical. That would be low hanging fruit, so to speak. Physics deals in math, therefore...

Instead, he answers that we have two options, either it is experiential or non-experiential. So, as with you, he doesn't seem to assume the math gets us there. He really believes the fundamental nature is mind.
 
Upvote 0

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
4,509
921
America
Visit site
✟265,293.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Saying "we have two options, either it is experiential or non-experiential" has me thinking if you can imagine there still being argument about whether the smallest things are particles or waves. What is nature shows it can be more than one thing, and it is how you look at it. It is fully natural, it is designed. No one is wrong saying either thing. So what is experiential can still be mathematical, being one is as real as being the other.

There are things that have always been around that come into our awareness, and our model of nature and the universe can change with that. But with any new thing learned, we do not go back to a previous model from it. We learn more and more what nature and the universe is not, to come to a closer understanding. Sure, some things will be shown to be wrong still, but what is shown to be wrong stays wrong, and we have closer understanding from a current model of what nature and the universe are, while things are there to still learn about.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,055
East Coast
✟830,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No one is wrong saying either thing. So what is experiential can still be mathematical, being one is as real as being the other.

I agree. The mathematical aspect of our understanding of nature doesn't tell us one way or the other. The long held assumption is that the ultimate stuff of nature (energy?) is not experiential. Strawson thinks that long held assumption is wrong. Honestly, I don't know what it would take to show which is accurate. The possibility that the ultimate stuff of nature is not just stuff, but in some sense "conscious," is such a hard thing to accept partly because the difference between a thinking thing and a non-thinking thing seems pretty clear to us.

And, again, I think part of why Strawson holds the position he does is not so much because of its obviousness (which is a feature his position does not have), but the "cash value" of the position. In holding to pansychism he eliminates the dichotomy between mind and matter, conflating the two. Now, if pansychism is true, there is no proverbial mind/matter problem.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
The possibility that the ultimate stuff of nature is not just stuff, but in some sense "conscious," is such a hard thing to accept partly because the difference between a thinking thing and a non-thinking thing seems pretty clear to us.
.. yet what is it that generates this clarity? Its our own mind doing what it normally does (.. the claim of which, can be shown to generate abundant objectively tested evidence sourced from the meanings we assign to the words we use when communicating).

This is kind of like the spot on the cheek of one's own face .. the individual can't see it, (perhaps except where one uses a mirror), but everyone else can.
We have a massive blind spot when it comes to recognising (or perceiving) the role our minds are continually playing in everything we perceive! Why is that?

Strawson certainly can't see it either. The 'experiential-ness' of the nature he perceives, is his own mind doing the experiencing. He is still stuck with the idea that there is an 'external' physical reality. All he's done is transfer his own mind's capability of experience and conferred it onto his believed-in 'external' physical reality.

public hermit said:
And, again, I think part of why Strawson holds the position he does is not so much because of its obviousness (which is a feature his position does not have), but the "cash value" of the position. In holding to pansychism he eliminates the dichotomy between mind and matter, conflating the two. Now, if pansychism is true, there is no proverbial mind/matter problem.
.. and what is it that decides what is 'true' or not? Again, it is his mind. 'Truth' is assignable .. for example, in science, 'truth' is no more than the last best tested theory. In deistic religions its what God says. In everyday life, its what I believe to be true. In all three of those cases, the mind is playing a very active role and Strawson hasn't excluded the role his own mind has played in distinguishing between his own mind's experiences and what a rock is actually 'doing'.

He believes in his own model .. rather than the alternative of actually going to the effort of testing it out (using the scientific method).
 
Upvote 0

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
4,509
921
America
Visit site
✟265,293.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No one is wrong saying either thing. So what is experiential can still be mathematical, being one is as real as being the other.

public hermit said:
I agree. The mathematical aspect of our understanding of nature doesn't tell us one way or the other. The long held assumption is that the ultimate stuff of nature (energy?) is not experiential. Strawson thinks that long held assumption is wrong. Honestly, I don't know what it would take to show which is accurate. The possibility that the ultimate stuff of nature is not just stuff, but in some sense "conscious," is such a hard thing to accept partly because the difference between a thinking thing and a non-thinking thing seems pretty clear to us.

And, again, I think part of why Strawson holds the position he does is not so much because of its obviousness (which is a feature his position does not have), but the "cash value" of the position. In holding to pansychism he eliminates the dichotomy between mind and matter, conflating the two. Now, if pansychism is true, there is no proverbial mind/matter problem.

And yet the general understanding among scientists is that all of what is in the universe had a beginning, and was not existing before that beginning. How did consciousness begin? I will hold that consiousness was already existing, as there is necessary existence that always exists, which would explain any of what is existing now, and so as necessary existence has no limits, this is then unlimited consciousness. With the beginning of the material universe, there is experience of all things in that already present.

Any of us who study things and observe results of experiments can affect those with our own consciousness as the universal consciousness that all things are subject to that there is shares experience of what is in the material universe with any who are in it, even with mathematical behavior in all things which can always be observed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,055
East Coast
✟830,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
And yet the general understanding among scientists is that all of what is in the universe had a beginning, and was not existing before that beginning. How did consciousness begin? I will hold that consiousness was already existing, as there is necessary existence that always exists, which would explain any of what is existing now, and so as necessary existence has no limits, this is then unlimited consciousness. With the beginning of the material universe, there is experience of all things in that already present.

Any of us who study things and observe results of experiments can affect those with our own consciousness as the universal consciousness that all things are subject to that there is shares experience of what is in the material universe with any who are in it, even with mathematical behavior in all things which can always be observed.

I definitely like what you are saying. It reminds me of both the ancient Greek and the Christian concepts of the Logos. I'm not saying that is what you have in mind, but that is what comes to mine.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
And yet the general understanding among scientists is that all of what is in the universe had a beginning, and was not existing before that beginning.
This needs some clarification so as not to be misinterpreted. All the matter in the universe had a beginning and did not exist in that form, i.e. as matter, prior to that. But all the resources necessary for matter to be produced were present as far back as our current models can take us.

How did consciousness begin? I will hold that consiousness was already existing, as there is necessary existence that always exists, which would explain any of what is existing now, and so as necessary existence has no limits, this is then unlimited consciousness. With the beginning of the material universe, there is experience of all things in that already present.
It's more parsimonious and more consistent with the evidence to suppose that, if existence predicates eternal existence (as seems reasonable), the fundamental quantum states from which the universe we know arose/emerged have always existed, and that consciousness emerged from that (with the evolution of brains).

Any of us who study things and observe results of experiments can affect those with our own consciousness as the universal consciousness that all things are subject to that there is shares experience of what is in the material universe with any who are in it, even with mathematical behavior in all things which can always be observed.
Citation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
It's more parsimonious and more consistent with the evidence to suppose that, if existence predicates eternal existence (as seems reasonable), the fundamental quantum states from which the universe we know arose/emerged have always existed, and that consciousness emerged from that (with the evolution of brains).
Except that isn't consisent with the objective evidence at hand, at all.
What is consistent with objective evidence (and more parsimonious), without any assumed beliefs needed, (ie: 'suppose that ..'), is that our minds have developed notions (or models) such as 'existence', 'eternal existence', 'arose/emerged', 'consciousness', 'quantum states', 'universe' etc, in order to make sense (or describe) what we perceive. 'Existence' is our word .. its meaning is ours to decide upon .. in science, its an end result of objective testing and not something predicated in advance of that and that is what is objectively evidenced. We then apply our present-day meaning of 'existence' when we imagine the times before humans were around, its us doing that .. and not some 'thing' floating around in space some place, waiting for us to discover, in order for us to suddenly change our thinking to imagine 'existence' as now 'existing' before we discovered it, (which is completely circular reasoning and thus nonsensical).

I agree with the model of quantum states, then universe, evolution, then consciousness (along with their usual meanings).. because of its explanatory and predictive power .. but there is no reason to exclude the meaning of 'existence' from following the same process by which those words also acquired their meanings .. which is objectively evidenced to have been assigned by humans, with no evidence supporting them as 'things' independent of the minds which conceived of their meanings.

What's more, I think what I've clarified above, is more consistent with Strawson's thinking with the exception that I think he'd probably impose his experience of existence back onto 'things' .. because he doesn't let go of his beliefs stemming from Realism style thinking(?)
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Except that isn't consisent with the objective evidence at hand, at all.
What is consistent with objective evidence (and more parsimonious), without any assumed beliefs needed, (ie: 'suppose that ..'), is that our minds have developed notions (or models) such as 'existence', 'eternal existence', 'arose/emerged', 'consciousness', 'quantum states', 'universe' etc, in order to make sense (or describe) what we perceive. 'Existence' is our word .. its meaning is ours to decide upon .. in science, its an end result of objective testing and not something predicated in advance of that and that is what is objectively evidenced. We then apply our present-day meaning of 'existence' when we imagine the times before humans were around, its us doing that .. and not some 'thing' floating around in space some place, waiting for us to discover, in order for us to suddenly change our thinking to imagine 'existence' as now 'existing' before we discovered it, (which is completely circular reasoning and thus nonsensical).

I agree with the model of quantum states, then universe, evolution, then consciousness (along with their usual meanings).. because of its explanatory and predictive power .. but there is no reason to exclude the meaning of 'existence' from following the same process by which those words also acquired their meanings .. which is objectively evidenced to have been assigned by humans, with no evidence supporting them as 'things' independent of the minds which conceived of their meanings.

What's more, I think what I've clarified above, is more consistent with Strawson's thinking with the exception that I think he'd probably impose his experience of existence back onto 'things' .. because he doesn't let go of his beliefs stemming from Realism style thinking(?)
By 'consistent with the evidence', I mean that the evidence to date suggests that what we call consciousness is only associated with biological brains, and the observable richness/sophistication of consciousness appears to correspond to the sophistication and complexity of certain areas of the brain.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Except that isn't consisent with the objective evidence at hand, at all.
By your 'argument', expressed so eloquently in many posts, there really isn't such a thing as objective evidence. Thus your case is structured in an odd way - - - - let me find the words to express it. Ah, here we are. Some genius has said it for me.
which is completely circular reasoning and thus nonsensical
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
By your 'argument', expressed so eloquently in many posts, there really isn't such a thing as objective evidence.
That's right .. its not an actual 'thing' because that's not what science deals in.
Rather, objective evidence is knowledge that remains after following a process which targets distinguishing consistencies from some background .. that process is the scientific process (or method).
Otherwise, can you demonstrate that objective evidence is some 'thing' which exists independently from that process .. (which, presumably, awaits your discovery of what the term means, perhaps as defined by some online dictionary, which you probably regard as being your own personal bible and being authored by your own personal god(s))?

SelfSim said:
Ophiolite said:
Thus your case is structured in an odd way - - - - let me find the words to express it.
which is completely circular reasoning and thus nonsensical
Very good .. you pass the first test of actually looking at what I post. The next test is of course, actually thinking about it and devising an objective test. I'll give you a hint to start you off: poor 'logic' can be shown as being such, by demonstrations of fallacious reasoning, such as circularity.
Good science however, is based on repeatably consistent, independently verifiable observations and can include apparent circularity, (like it or not).
Science can also produce counterintuitive results .. but don't let that stop you in what I'm pretty sure, is your quest for understanding, (no?)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
By 'consistent with the evidence', I mean that the evidence to date suggests that what we call consciousness is only associated with biological brains, and the observable richness/sophistication of consciousness appears to correspond to the sophistication and complexity of certain areas of the brain.
Sure .. that's certainly a significant observation and a great model for follow-up investigations .. no probs.

But I certainly don't see that as depending on some superfluous, realist, belief-based-looking assumed definition like: 'existence predicates eternal existence'.
I suppose one might try for arguing the case of math models of different kinds of infinities, which might be interesting though .. in which case, such a model is in need of a good, testable description(?)
 
Upvote 0