My thoughts on the Hard problem of consciousness

[emjay]

By truth-in-context, I mean that reality is paradoxically multi-faceted, and which facet you are presented with depends on context.  Basically, using the idea of quantum superposition, I'd say that reality itself is in a state of superposition: physical/ideal/dual/other-- but that reality doesn't really "resolve" until someone attempts to interact with it.  In other words, I don't think the squirrelly-ness of QM particles is a local quirk; I think it indicates very much how reality itself works.

The Universe, I believe, will forever resist our attempts to pin it down.    But we do have one stroke of good fortune-- in a particular context, we can usually make observations and collect ideas which unlock new contexts for us to explore.

---

but unless you truly see no difference between the context that is dreaming and the context that is waking reality... then you know what I mean by it. Or arguing that they are equally valid in shaping the truth, or even causing it, since they're coherent contexts (ideas)?

Clearly, it's hard to talk about universal idealism, which is a collection of immaterial formative principles, and "ideas" which we have when experiencing the world or even when dreaming, without conflating them.  I'd agree with you and Khemikal that human ideas are things encoded and experienced in the brain-- though why we have a subjective experience of that is a mystery.

Can you give an example of a multi-faceted truth and the contexts you mean that see different facets of it (and nothing including statues )? I was just about to say, all I really need is a concrete example but then I realised I'd probably get the statue But analogy is often, in my opinion, the best form of explanation.

---

Maybe I can start describing myself as a superpositional realist or something.  I'll have to think about that.

You can, but from now on you'll always be a Boobledybooist to me I couldn't forget that name even if I tried... so why try?

[KUSA]

Please correct anything I got wrong but please specify if I'm technically wrong, like with a word I used incorrectly,


It begs the question, what is the dripping water, I would say, the dripping water is luck. Which would explain why many humans have a grand sense of self, when it comes to good and bad luck.

Incorrect use of "begging the question". Refer to the link below for the correct usage.


https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...e_Question

[bennyboy]

Can you give an example of a multi-faceted truth and the contexts you mean that see different facets of it (and nothing including statues  )? I was just about to say, all I really need is a concrete example but then I realised I'd probably get the statue   But analogy is often, in my opinion, the best form of explanation.

QM particles are an example that I've given already. I'd also say the Big Bang singularity could be an example-- at the moment of the Big Bang, there was a timeless, volumeless, shapeless. . . what? Scientists talk about all the matter in the universe crammed into a singularity, but that's just word salad. Really, there was the formative principle of the Universe, but nothing in or of the Universe, in that moment.

The travel of photons is another. From the "perspective" of a photon, no time passes, which means that a photon in that sense is a kind of bringing-together of two atoms together, no less than a shared electron would. From our perspective, a photon is a messenger from the past moving at the speed of light; not only that, it's a superposition of perhaps limitless possibilities. Consider a double slit experiment, and then ask how many atmospheres, dusts cloud, and so on that photon may have passed through, which confound its superposition on "arrival" on Earth.

Consider mind. Whatever anyone wants to say about brains or about evolution, mind-as-experienced and brain-as-observed are very clearly different. I experience redness; you, at best, can say that you know that when location "x" in my brain lights up, I'm experiencing redness. An idea is BOTH a subjective experience and a brain process, and in a sense its not completely either, much as with photons, until you decide which way you want to look at it.

[emjay]

Can you give an example of a multi-faceted truth and the contexts you mean that see different facets of it (and nothing including statues  )? I was just about to say, all I really need is a concrete example but then I realised I'd probably get the statue   But analogy is often, in my opinion, the best form of explanation.

QM particles are an example that I've given already.  I'd also say the Big Bang singularity could be an example-- at the moment of the Big Bang, there was a timeless, volumeless, shapeless. . . what?  Scientists talk about all the matter in the universe crammed into a singularity, but that's just word salad.  Really, there was the formative principle of the Universe, but nothing in or of the Universe, in that moment.

The travel of photons is another.  From the "perspective" of a photon, no time passes, which means that a photon in that sense is a kind of bringing-together of two atoms together, no less than a shared electron would.  From our perspective, a photon is a messenger from the past moving at the speed of light; not only that, it's a superposition of perhaps limitless possibilities.  Consider a double slit experiment, and then ask how many atmospheres, dusts cloud, and so on that photon may have passed through, which confound its superposition on "arrival" on Earth.

I do like these examples... they make intuitive sense to me... so... I hope you're right

I was thinking about something (possibly) similar the other day. I was trying to explore the implications of a hypothetical universe with only two particles in it... the point being to reduce it to its simplest form for the sake of argument. If these two particles are flying through infinite space at the same speed and in the same direction, then from the 'perspective' of either of them there would be no movement (in my simple understanding of physics)... no change. But if they moved in slightly different directions or at different speeds, then relatively, they would 'see' movement and change, regarding each other... and both 'perceptions' would probably be different in regard to subjective speed and direction.

The questions it raises about infinite space are puzzling... in the sense that would infinite space still be able to have, in some strange sense, different points of reference, even if there was no reference... points from which to hypothetically measure the passing particles? See, I can't even frame the question... I don't 'get' infinity , so moving on from that for the moment...

If the universe had a boundary, as in a change of state... something different (nothing included as 'something' that can be different from say, space) from whatever the particles were flying through, then relative to the boundary the particles would see change... imagine it was a sphere containing space and these two particles... then basically by a kind of triangulation between every point of the inner surface of the sphere and the two particles, everything changes from moment to moment... unless... the sphere is also flying through space in the same direction and speed as the two particles. In which case, back to no change again. So if the sphere... the boundary... was just another substance... a wall separating the space inside from the space outside then it would be just an effective barrier to the two particles but not the true end of the universe. If on the other hand it wasn't a wall and was just from the inner boundary to infinity 'nothing', then it's back to those reference questions about infinity again.

Anyway, one particularly interesting question, is quantum stuff; if in this hypothetical universe, a quantum particle materialises out of nowhere, then, like the boundary, suddenly the two parallel-flying particles have another reference point and can thus do their triangulation thing and see relative movement and change. Lather, rinse, repeat for other quantum particles as and when they pop up and disappear - and even just between concurrently existing quantum particles - and the number of relative movements and changes increases exponentially. It was just something I was thinking about... it's strange how a simple thought experiment results in so many questions but that's the (wonderful) way of philosophy

Consider mind.  Whatever anyone wants to say about brains or about evolution, mind-as-experienced and brain-as-observed are very clearly different.  I experience redness; you, at best, can say that you know that when location "x" in my brain lights up, I'm experiencing redness.  An idea is BOTH a subjective experience and a brain process, and in a sense its not completely either, much as with photons, until you decide which way you want to look at it.

Well, regarding mind, it was along with the above thought experiment that I noticed - when thinking Descartes-style - that the most immediate and very first things (I think) I'm aware of in consciousness, before anything else, are different states, and time (ie things appearing or disappearing relative to something that remains the same). And those states are not unlike the picture I've painted of those particles and what they would 'notice' if they were conscious and perceiving either movement of other particles or the appearance or disappearance of quantum particles... even if there were massive gaps of aeons between 'perceptions'... ie states of relative change... which, like sleep, were not perceived and thus did not affect the appearance of continuity. Anyway, it was just curious thing and a fun thought experiment with possible Boobledybooian implications (Don't worry, I will shut up about it... eventually )

[bennyboy]

If "Boobledybooism" sticks, I'm gonna have to kill you. You know, that, right?

[emjay]

If "Boobledybooism" sticks, I'm gonna have to kill you.  You know, that, right?  

It's got that alliterative appeal as well... lotta b's... bennyboy the Boobledyboo

And you know how language evolves... complicated words tend to shorten so bennyboy the boobyboo

So yeah, probably best to just kill me now... cos... it's gonna stick

[bennyboy]

My clever plot to get someone here to say "booby" has finally revealed itself. Victory is mine!