26. How do you know your perceptions are real?

[Tater]

I'd first argue whether the soul exists at all apart from being a concept.


Well, I was only following your logic

But if there is no soul, why isn't perception a part of the physical world?


This was how science treated energy before Einstein's eq: E=mc^2. He gave it a mass. Then, QFT suggested that atoms consist of excited states of fields. This is what you see all around you.

Generally, physics teachers exercise a "best practice" of teaching that energy is a measurement or abstract representation of physical behavior. For example, they may insist on using a term such as "flow of energy", or they may emphasize that the concept should be used for practical purposes. E=mc^2 doesn't change the point being made. As a less esoteric example: the calorie is considered a form of energy, but that does not mean that the foods we eat consist of any particular object called "calories." If calories did exist in any particular food item, then calories would be absent in food items with entirely different recipes.

To the bold, I would argue that the "soul" includes perception, so according to the logic, perception isn't real either. However, to be fair, it's worth thinking about the distinction between psychological perception and the physiological processes of perception and how one regards the "self". Daniel Dennett wrote an interesting short story to explore the differences, distinctions, and similarities: https://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/Dennett-WhereAmI.pdf

 

[Tater]

[MENTION=35676]Lib[/MENTION], so basically the salient point you're making is that even though energy doesn't exist as any particular thing, it exists in everything. Therefore, consciousness consists of energy?

 

[Lib]

Generally, physics teachers exercise a "best practice" of teaching that energy is a measurement or abstract representation of physical behavior. For example, they may insist on using a term such as "flow of energy", or they may emphasize that the concept should be used for practical purposes. E=mc^2 doesn't change the point being made.

You think so? I quote an article that explains it better than I could:
Everything equals E=mc2: how Einstein changed our understanding of energy | Science | The Guardian

For in 1904, everyone in science believed that the universe was divided into two great realms. On the one hand there was the realm of energy, where winds blew, coal burned and lightning crackled. On the other hand, there was the realm of mass, where trees and mountains and paperweights, and perhaps even irritating patent supervisors, existed.
-----------------------
The operations of Einstein's E=mc2 pervade our universe. The sun itself can be seen as a giant pumping station, floating in space. Every second, millions of tonnes of hydrogen within it vanish from existence. In its place, great amounts of energy emerge: enough to heat our planet, and glow on through the solar system. Our very existence stems from the equation, for it also operates in "reverse". Not only does it say that mass can explode apart into energy, but energy can be squeezed tight to end up as ordinary mass.

This means that if two beams of pure light are shined right at each other, solid particles can pop into existence where they collide. Ordinary torch beams won't be strong enough to do this. But when the universe was very young, it was filled only with light, carrying tremendous amounts of energy.

Where those light beams collided, they hit hard enough that the transformation the equation described did take place. Bits of light "disappeared", and solid mass appeared in its place. That led to atoms, stars, planets and, ultimately, even to one patient, whimsical patent clerk , wondering how mass and energy work.

Another one for QFT:
David Tong -- What is Quantum Field Theory?

We learn in school that the basic building blocks of matter are particles. In fact, we often continue to teach this in universities where we explain that quarks and electrons form the lego-bricks from which all matter is made.

But this statement hides a deeper truth. According to our best laws of physics, the fundamental building blocks of Nature are not discrete particles at all. Instead they are continuous fluid-like substances, spread throughout all of space. We call these objects fields.

The most familiar examples of fields are the electric and magnetic field. The ripples in these fields give rise to what we call light or, more generally, electromagnetic waves. The field emerging from a magnet is shown on the right.

As a less esoteric example: the calorie is considered a form of energy, but that does not mean that the foods we eat consist of any particular object called "calories." If calories did exist in any particular food item, then calories would be absent in food items with entirely different recipes.

Calories are basically the energy content of molecules in food - the total energy that is released when the enzymes break specific chemical bonds. In your body, this energy is used to rearrange, create or break chemical or weak bonds, so it's always in a 'material' form. The particles that take place in this type of energy transfer are electrons.

To the bold, I would argue that the "soul" includes perception, so according to the logic, perception isn't real either. However, to be fair, it's worth thinking about the distinction between psychological perception and the physiological processes of perception and how one regards the "self". Daniel Dennett wrote an interesting short story to explore the differences, distinctions, and similarities: https://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/Dennett-WhereAmI.pdf

Let me first read the whole story. It's rather long.

 

[Lib]

[MENTION=35676]Lib[/MENTION], so basically the salient point you're making is that even though energy doesn't exist as any particular thing, it exists in everything. Therefore, consciousness consists of energy?

I am trying to say that energy and matter are one and the same, energy exists and it's very real. Therefore, consciousness and unconsciousness are also real. But as I said they are limited because of the capacity of our sensory and processing system, so not everything that we perceive to be true is the whole truth, it's only a fraction of it.

 

[Tater]

You think so? I quote an article that explains it better than I could:
Everything equals E=mc2: how Einstein changed our understanding of energy | Science | The Guardian


Another one for QFT:
David Tong -- What is Quantum Field Theory?



Calories are basically the energy content of molecules in food - the total energy that is released when the enzymes break specific chemical bonds. In your body, this energy is used to rearrange, create or break chemical or weak bonds, so it's always in a 'material' form. The particles that take place in this type of energy transfer are electrons.


Let me first read the whole story. It's rather long.

If field theory is true, then the universe lacks discrete fundamental, discrete building blocks. If the universe lacks discrete fundamental building blocks, isn't it infinite? Furthermore, doesn't this imply that anything in existence lacks an end or a beginning? So, if consciousness literally exists in the universe, doesn't it lack any discrete definition?

Also, if the universe is composed of fields in place of particles, doesn't this explanation for the universe's fundamental content still beg the question of whether consciousness is an illusion?

Let me first read the whole story. It's rather long.

k.

 

[Lib]

To the bold, I would argue that the "soul" includes perception, so according to the logic, perception isn't real either. However, to be fair, it's worth thinking about the distinction between psychological perception and the physiological processes of perception and how one regards the "self". Daniel Dennett wrote an interesting short story to explore the differences, distinctions, and similarities: https://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/Dennett-WhereAmI.pdf

That was a nice read. Thank you.

But I don't see how 'psychological' should be different from physiological. It's only because you assume by default that there is a soul, some part that is not related to the brain physically. But you can lose part or all of your memories after brain injury, so there is a physical element involved. It seems to me that many people call soul what others, including me, call intuition, instincts the latter commonly known as emotions, in other words, the conscious perception of unconsciousness. The brain is nothing more than an advanced computer made of soft tissue. Would you say that a computer has a soul?

 

[Lib]

If field theory is true, then the universe lacks discrete fundamental, discrete building blocks. If the universe lacks discrete fundamental building blocks, isn't it infinite? Furthermore, doesn't this imply that anything in existence lacks an end or a beginning? So, if consciousness literally exists in the universe, doesn't it lack any discrete definition?

There are no discrete particles, in the way we imagine a discrete particle from the marco world that we live in. But there are discrete amounts of energy, called quanta.

I'd rather use continuous instead of infinite but, yes, in my view some things are only more discrete than others because everything is interconnected and, therefore, continuous in a way. So consciousness is supposed to be a continuation of other processes and itself is a cause for yet other events. It's just another embodiment of energy.

Also, if the universe is composed of fields in place of particles, doesn't this explanation for the universe's fundamental content still beg the question of whether consciousness is an illusion?

It's not an explicit proof that consciousness is not an illusion, was just giving you examples of what is the physical world according to modern physics.

 

[I Tonya]

I gotta say I throughly enjoyed this conversation. Such beautful points and logically satisfying.

How could something non-physical be dependent on the physical world?

Ah, a question I ask myself a lot in my darkest moments. Since I exist as a person from a sperm entering an egg, then my unconscious or soul exists only thru my physical creation... Making something non-physical dependent on the physical world.

This whole conscious thing, it really hurts my head and I wonder why I can't be like the rest of the animals that don't process psychology. I feel like if I have a soul or my unconscious it makes no sense and counteracts my purpose in life. Why does it react to my environment? Shouldn't only be concerned with unconscious things? Why do I feel deeply bothered by things more than an animal would feel normally? Why do I know I exist, when I'm not suppose to? Its like I'm split between physical consciousness (understanding basics of life) and mental unconsciousness (deep and unconventional feelings that sometimes convey in gut feeling). Some say instinct but it it more 'aware' and reactive to my external environment than a genetic code, highly influencing my thoughts. If it exists at all, I've told myself it can't yet I still know and feel its there. I don't believe my unconscious operates in this reality, but in another dimension where it moves at fast-pace "outside of time" (given time slows down the faster you move). This is why my gut feeling is faster at picking up on things or dangers than my natural state of mind.

I am not fond of my brainstorming nor confident in. Tho I really appreciate you two really going into depth about what you really think, helps me with clarity. I would say pretty hardcore tbh.

 

[Tater]

That was a nice read. Thank you.

But I don't see how 'psychological' should be different from physiological. It's only because you assume by default that there is a soul, some part that is not related to the brain physically. But you can lose part or all of your memories after brain injury, so there is a physical element involved. It seems to me that many people call soul what others, including me, call intuition, instincts the latter commonly known as emotions, in other words, the conscious perception of unconsciousness. The brain is nothing more than an advanced computer made of soft tissue. Would you say that a computer has a soul?

There are no discrete particles, in the way we imagine a discrete particle from the marco world that we live in. But there are discrete amounts of energy, called quanta.

I'd rather use continuous instead of infinite but, yes, in my view some things are only more discrete than others because everything is interconnected and, therefore, continuous in a way. So consciousness is supposed to be a continuation of other processes and itself is a cause for yet other events. It's just another embodiment of energy.


It's not an explicit proof that consciousness is not an illusion, was just giving you examples of what is the physical world according to modern physics.

To the bolded: Depends on what you mean by soul. If the soul is eternal and unchanging, then no. However, man-made computers could theoretically produce the same kinds of effects as the brain does, so in that sense, yes.

Ok, so, to recap:

Argument 1 is monistic, materialistic, empirical, and claims that consciousness it doesn't exist. The argument adheres to monism and materialism in that it asserts that the universe consists only of one kind of content: particles. Provided that consciousness has no particles, it doesn't exist. One criticism I would bring against this argument is that while it has logical validity, it lacks a certain soundness from a rationalist point of view. We could go as far as to say that it implies bad faith. How could I be producing the argument at all if I'm not conscious and consciousness is necessary to generate arguments? It's like trying to sell an illusion through an illusion.

Argument 2 is monistic, materialistic, and empirical but concludes that consciousness exists. The argument adheres to monism and empirical data in that it asserts that the universe consists only of one kind of content: quanta. Provided that consciousness consists of quanta, it does exist. One criticism I would bring against this argument is that while it has logical validity, it also lacks a certain soundness from an empirical point of view in that we presumably cannot look from the outside of subjectivity in to verify that consciousness is what we think it is. However, like argument 1, it does address the empirical world by drawing its logical conclusions from the object ( in this case, fields). Additionally, it provides a more satisfying explanation than argument 1 for all things considered because it approaches the issue of consciousness with a measure of good faith. Interestingly, it gives us a new kind of monism that, rather than claiming the world is either atomistic or immaterial (like some rational idealists have argued), it relies on updated information from the most adequate known scientific theory about the universe's fundamental content. Even though Leibniz didn't view the world in the same way as either of us, he'd probably like your argument more.

Incidentally, I wonder if both arguments have similar implications, subjectively and practically speaking. Through argument 2, viewing the world as though it consists of the very content your mind does gives you the sense that you interface directly with objects. Ie. the ego starts to dissipate and probably inches the person closer to "ataraxia" or "nirvana." Likewise, argument 1 dovetails with this kind of experience by downplaying the discreteness (or existence) of the subjective world. However, it fails to hit the same notes because it comes from a place of negation through modus tollens. Additionally, rather than just disproving the ego, it disproves perception and consciousness in general. I think Hume said something about how introspection naturally leads to direct experience, which touches on the points I'm trying to make about both arguments. Chuang Tzu, in no uncertain terms, pointed out how the subject merged with the object through the "Tao."

Anyway, just thoughts. Thank you for informing me about field theory.