Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: State/Process duality and the ancient problem

Expand Messages
  • John J. Gagne
    ... Therefore, the list shows the opposite of what you wanted to show. Science did not work to support fundamental dualism in any of the first three cases. ...
    Message 1 of 45 , Dec 1, 2004
      >
      Therefore, the list shows the opposite of what you wanted to show.
      Science did not work to support fundamental dualism in any of the
      first three cases.
      >

      You assume too much. What I wanted to show is if you intend to
      *prove* some type of monism you *must* have the ability to entertain
      a dualist perspective. Nothing more, nothing less did I intend to
      show.

      JJG

      --- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, "Eray Ozkural" <erayo@c...>
      wrote:
      >
      > --- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, "John J. Gagne"
      > <fitness4eb@c...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Why would you say that?
      > >
      > > Modern computers would not be possible without the application
      of
      > QM.
      > > Communication with distant space probes would also not be
      possible
      > > without accounting for relativistic reference frames of time.
      > These
      > > two theories are the best match to date of objective physical
      > > reality. Together they are the most verified theories ever
      > > discovered/invented (depending on your perspective). While I
      can
      > > respect your opinion, I believe it's very unfair (bordering on
      > silly)
      > > to say they are not successful.
      > >
      > > Maybe you can explain your positionÂ… Maybe I misunderstand?
      >
      > The misunderstanding is in the scope of the intended reference.
      >
      > I meant that the *list* is unsuccessful, not that the individual
      > subjects relating to the members of the list are unsuccessful. I
      > thought it was clear from the context that I criticized the dual
      > concepts.
      >
      > In fact, that's a very *good* list to discuss. Because, I think,
      it
      > supports my monist point of view.
      >
      > Four dualisms to think about. I will group them according to their
      > relevance to our discussion.
      >
      > 1.a matter/energy
      > 1.b space/time
      >
      > 2.a particle/wave
      > 2.b matter/mind
      >
      > Einstein and particle physics showed that 1.a was not a
      fundamental
      > distinction of existence, only conceptual, with general relativity
      > he showed that 1.b was a dubious distinction, it's better to think
      > of a space-time geometry rather than two separate kinds of
      entities,
      > e.g. they are similar in nature.
      >
      > At school, they tell us a nice thing about physics, that we should
      > sometimes view the photon as a particle and sometimes as a wave.
      > Works nice in practice, but you may have heard that the modern
      view
      > is "wavicle". So, again we are going from dualism to monism.
      >
      > Therefore, the list shows the opposite of what you wanted to show.
      > Science did not work to support fundamental dualism in any of the
      > first three cases. And indeed, with advanced neuroscience, we may
      be
      > witnessing exactly such a collapse of concepts for the mind and
      the
      > brain.
      >
      > Slowly, as we come to learn more about the brain, we will see that
      > the brain operation (and not brain itself!) is identical to what
      we
      > usually call minds. But we will also see that this explanation
      > leaves aside many interesting questions that will require analysis
      > at different terms than neuroscience. It will be very boring, very
      > tedious, and we might not find something too fascinating either.
      >
      > You might want to talk about other dualisms which I didn't
      include.
      >
      > In fact, these dualisms could be easily explained in the context
      of
      > multism. Maybe, multism does not fail too badly. Hmm.
      >
      > Space/Time is an interesting example. Time obviously has a
      different
      > quality than spatial extension of things, to everything in the
      > universe, not just to us. That is because, we literally fall
      through
      > time, but move more freely in spatial dimensions, etc. and this
      > physical difference shows up in conceptual differences, but we can
      > still conceive of space and time in a unified fashion. Philosophy
      of
      > time/space can be quite difficult. There may be entire books on
      the
      > subject.
      >
      > Space/Time duality might actually have an ontological basis to it,
      I
      > cannot tell, but but mind/matter duality cannot be defended
      because
      > it sounds like space/time.
      >
      > First mind/matter duality would be a substance dualism. If matter
      is
      > not substance, then what do you mean? Do you mean mind isn't
      > material? What is it then?
      >
      > It is useless to seek substance dualisms. What we can do is to
      look
      > for, however, property dualisms. Everything is a physical
      property,
      > so we cannot find a dualism of the form
      > physical/non-physical
      >
      > That would be theology.
      >
      > But we can find for instance the following dualism:
      > state/process
      >
      > Maybe that serves better to show what kind of difference there is
      > between brain state and brain operation, that is the ancient
      > mind/body problem, which is a trivial problem under this view. No,
      > it is not a problem for the scientist. The problem is explaining
      > what kind of a process the mind is, and what kind of a state the
      > brain state is.
      >
      > This of course sidesteps the problem of explaining what a brain
      > state is, but I'm just trying to show how many alternative
      > explanations there are. Matter/Mind duality, especially in the
      sense
      > of substance dualism is not tenable at all. Very very few
      > philosophers regard it likely nowadays. Even those who implicitly
      > favor it will deny that they do.
      >
      > Sorry if this was a boring post. It couldn't be entertaining.
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > --
      > Eray Ozkural
    • Eray Ozkural
      My bad: boson/fermion duality. Sorry. See the post in which I explain it originally. ... (http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#chargemultiplet)
      Message 45 of 45 , Dec 8, 2004
        My bad: boson/fermion duality. Sorry. See the post in which I
        explain it originally.

        --- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Paul Bramscher <brams006@u...>
        wrote:
        > Eray Ozkural wrote:
        >
        > >
        > > I don't think you said anything about hadron/baryon duality.
        >
        > I'm unfamiliar with the physics, but when I found this site
        >
        (http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#chargemultiplet)
        > I'm led to believe that a baryon is a kind of hadron, and so the
        problem
        > is similar to ice/water. The "is a kind of..." relationship
        doesn't
        > suggest hard dualism, since one is a superset of the other.
        >
        > We can't say that TRUE is a superset of FALSE, or vice-versa.
        Decartes,
        > also, wouldn't say that mind is a kind of body -- or that body is
        a kind
        > of mind. And so, the "is a kind of..." sub/superset relationship
        isn't
        > so problematic as hard dualism.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.