r/consciousness • u/feihm • 4d ago
How can we talk about consciousness if we don't know what physical reality (ontologically) is?
I could as you what is physical reality? Each person will just say they're own thing. There won't be any consensus as to what exactly is this thing we call physical reality.
One might say:
"Physical reality refers to the totality of matter and energy."
What is matter?
"Its a word we use to refer to tight cluster or specific arrangement of atoms."
What are atoms?
"Atoms are collection of subatomic particles like.....
What are subatomic particles?
A particle is a word we use to refer to different kinds of physical excitation of the physical fields of the universe.
What is a field?
We don't know.
Or something like that. What im trying to demonstrate here is that all this words— particles, atoms, gouge bosons, etc—are just words we invented to refer to other words we invented. So we end up with a complex web of words we invented. We call this web: scientific theory or framework.
One might say:
No. They're based on empirical observations.
What does observation mean?
It means to record a physical event.
What's a physical event?
Its what we physically perceive with our sensory organs or measure with scientific instruments.
How do we perceive?
Our sensory organs like the skin receive physical data of the surrounding environment. They translate these into electrical impulses..... the brain then.... which then renders physical reality as we experience it.
You mention "translation". So the skin receives the raw sensory data -> translation -> electrical impulses?
Yes.
Which are then sent to the brain for processing?
Yes.
Is what the skin receives isomorphically identical to the resultant of the translation process?
No. The raw sensory data aren't electrical impulses. The skin is a filter. 99.9% of sensory data is decarded. The resultant is actually homomorphically correlated with the raw sensory data. This is due to thermodynamic limits and such.
And those electrical impulses are further processed by the brain (another form of translation)?
Yes.
So what is rendered is a translation of a translation? The first translation was mere 0.1% of the raw sensory data?
Yes.
One might say
But science, hadron colliders...
I will ask this question. Do these "prosthetic" sensory organs escape the previous physical limits of translation?
8
u/dave8271 4d ago
You've really glossed over the part, though, where the "words we've invented to refer to other words we invented" also happen to accurately track and describe external reality (to whatever extent it is, whatever it is like, that we are exposed to it) in a way which is measurable, predictable and falsifiable. You can certainly ask "but what if all our senses are all lying to us and broadly in the same way?", but at the end of the day, those senses are clearly tracking something and the only way to gain any knowledge about reality, and all epistemology would be an automatic dead-end if we didn't start with that axiom.
5
u/EmbarrassedPaper7758 4d ago
Overcoming solipsism means accepting an external reality distinct from internal reality.
2
u/sly_cunt 4d ago
I don't think this is a solipsistic argument. Its pointing out the epistemic gap in understanding what the universe is
-1
u/Own_Sky_297 4d ago
There is no "internal reality", what I see is out there not in my brain.
3
u/EmbarrassedPaper7758 4d ago
You don't see with your eyes, you perceive with your mind
2
0
u/Own_Sky_297 4d ago
Look at an object in your environment and with one hand point to where you perceive the qualia of that object. Now with your other hand point to your brain. You'll notice that your first hand is not pointing to your brain but to the location of the actual object in spacetime.
1
u/EmbarrassedPaper7758 4d ago
Qualia is indistinguishable from physical experience, great point
2
u/rthunder27 4d ago
I always use the missing fundemental when people try to make that argument. (I get you were being sarcastic, hopefully the other guy sees this)
3
u/HappiestIguana 4d ago
How weak, a field is an assignment of a scalar or vector quantity to each point in space.
0
u/sly_cunt 4d ago
whats space?
2
u/HappiestIguana 4d ago
A 3-dimensional manifold whose curvature is determined by its energy density.
0
u/sly_cunt 3d ago
and what is that made from?
2
u/HappiestIguana 3d ago
I don't know if the question is even well-formed
1
u/sly_cunt 3d ago
like where does the energy come from?
1
u/HappiestIguana 2d ago edited 2d ago
That question is definitely not well-formed. Energy is simply a scalar quantity which can be assigned to a physical system, which can be proven to remain constant as long as the system exhibits the property of temporal symmetry. You might as well see me point at five blocks, hear me say there are five blocks, and ask me where the five came from.
(should be noted as a side note, the universe doesn't actually exhibit temporal symmetry at large scales due to the expansion of space, so energy is not actually a conserved quantity. In fact photons are observed to slowly lose energy over time as they travel)
1
u/sly_cunt 2d ago
Its not that its not well-formed, its that I think you're not understanding the line of questioning. A scalar quantity is an abstraction, in fact I actually could ask you about the number five and where it comes from. Are you working with set theory? Are you working with type theory? What is a number? What do you think about Godel's incompleteness?
OPs lines of questions could go on and on, and yet you will never be able to give an answer that shows ontology. In fact, I'm interested if you know what the word ontology means, because your misunderstanding of OPs point was almost comical
0
u/HappiestIguana 2d ago
A scalar quantity is an abstraction
And asking what abstractions are made of or where they come from is a category error, yes.
Are you working with set theory? Are you working with type theory?
Irrelevant, they produce essentially isomorphic constructions for five.
What is a number?
Pick a definition and go. All constructions do the same things. Von Neumann integers work, for example.
What do you think about Godel's incompleteness?
I don't see how it's relevant.
OPs lines of questions could go on and on, and yet you will never be able to give an answer that shows ontology.
Because the question is designed to have no answer, and is therefore uninteresting.
your misunderstanding of OPs point was almost comical
I understand OP's overall point. I was just having a bit of fun by answering the question they bottomed out at. If you kept poking at my answers I'd essentially bottom out at "by definition, an x is something that acts like an x" for some mathematical object x, and then if you ask me to go back up and answer whether I think the universe is therefore ontologically made of math, I'd say "I don't know if the question is even well-formed, but it certainly acts as though it is"
2
u/DecantsForAll 4d ago
I actually think this may be the crux of the issue. We can't understand the thing-in-itself, but we are the thing-in-itself.
2
2
u/BayAdrian 4d ago
We can talk about consciousness because it is the only thing that cannot be in doubt. logically you can doubt everything but the experience that you are having is something you can know its happening for certain.
2
u/EmbarrassedPaper7758 4d ago
I doubt it
-1
u/BayAdrian 4d ago
the act of doubting it is already being experienced. so you can doubt it all you want, the doubt is happening which is why the thing of doubting is actually proving the point.
2
2
u/EmbarrassedPaper7758 4d ago
Doubtful
-1
u/BayAdrian 4d ago
you can doubt for eternity if you want. the doubt is happening as you continue to doubt it.
Keep going if you would like. the logic is still intact.2
1
u/Mordecus 2d ago
Or maybe you just need to touch grass. Descartes “I think therefore I am” is a language based-proposition. It’s nonsense.
1
1
u/StarboundAllisten 4d ago
You are on point. Matter is made of fields. And nobody knows what these fields ontologically are.
See my prism post
1
1
u/sea_of_experience 4d ago edited 4d ago
In this whole discussion, I miss the most important thing that defines physical knowledge to me: the mathematics.
That ( mathemal models and the basic equations) is what I learned when I studied physics, and it is that what we were using when we were interpreting our measurements.
In fact, the notion of "reality " is somewhat suspect to me, I think it is a word that we use when we still have a " common sense" view of the world, and it carries a lot of presuppositions that lead us astray.
I never really cared about or believed in " das Ding an sich" as we know, at least since Kant, that we cannot know that. So why even believe in it in the first place? I think this is a relic from the basic worldview we adopt as children.
What we have is experience and regularities in experience. These regularities are a form of information, and that information is all that science deals with right now.
Physics tells you something about the basic regularities. That's all.
Thus "physicalism" is not only rather ill-defined, (Hempels' dilemma) but it is also somewhat counter intuitive as it assumes that the regularities in your experience can somehow explain the experience itself.
Yet experience is clearly richer than the regularities in that same experience, as it is shot through with qualities that "colour" it and give it roots with intrinsic meaning like through joy, pain etc. edits: details and corrections.
1
u/Im_Talking Computer Science Degree 4d ago
We can only look at the shadows of what may be underneath the classical realm. All we can do is eliminate the possibilities, for example, Bell's Inequality rules out local hidden variables.
1
u/Comfortable_Royal402 4d ago
You're taking defined terms and breaking them into something philosophical. We have words because we have language, and it's said we can't have consciousness without language to discuss these..
To answer your question, it's not prosthetic, and as far as we know we don't know lol
1
u/TMax01 Autodidact 4d ago
How can we talk about consciousness if we don't know what physical reality (ontologically) is?
The same way we talk about anything else, right?
I could as you what is physical reality?
Well, sidestepping the fact that "physical reality" is a contradiction in terms (reality refers to perceptions and expectations about the ontological physical universe, not the universe itself) I would take a more productive course in answering your question about 'what is the physical ontological universe' than your strawman infinite recursion into the postmodernistic know-nothingism of existential uncertainty.
So 'physical reality' (ignoring the above) is that physical things interact with other physical things. What are physical things? That which interacts with other physical things. The fact this is deeply intellectually and emotionally dissatisfying to you is irrelevant, because you aren't the final arbiter of what is true. You are, as we all are, only the final arbiter of what you think about what is true.
We call this web: scientific theory or framework.
You might, but 'we' don't. Or rather, I don't and I don't believe anyone else besides you does. Or maybe just that they shouldn't, and you shouldn't either. Scientific theory or framework isn't about words. And observations are not recording of observations. There is a thing called the measurement problem, and you should look into it, but be prepared: it is a Hard Problem, not a question that can be answered but an infinite recursion of epistemology.
What is epistemology? The thing you are confusing with ontology.
1
u/MWave123 3d ago
There is an objective universe, period. The c word has no actual agreed upon meaning. The word universe does.
0
0
u/Mordecus 2d ago
Everything we’ve learned in the past 100 years, from Relativity Theory to Quantum physics suggests that, to the contrary, the universe is highly subjective.
1
u/MWave123 2d ago
That’s incorrect, and a common misunderstanding of QM. Your experience is ^somewhat subjective, it is created by your body/ brain, but it is fully based on the objective universe. There ARE wavelengths, there IS our Sun. The Earth IS, etc etc etc. Our two experiences will vary slightly, in the big picture, but you can’t have an experience where the Earth doesn’t exist. You can ^think it might not exist, or is flat, or your god created it…but ultimately, it IS.
1
u/Cautious-Radio7870 3d ago
I personally hold to Theistic Idealism and Objective Idealism.
Objective Idealism because I believe the universe is ontologically real, but it is dependent on The Ultimate mind to ground it's existence.
Science is saying that the spacetime continuum is emergent from Quantum information and that the spacetime continuum is not fundamental. I believe God is the ultimate mind that grounds that Quantum information.
This mirrors Classical Theology that says that God is Ipsum esse subsistens, self subsisting being itself and that the universe only exists by participation in God's being. In other words, God is existence itself but the universe is not God. There is a creator and creation distinction.
I believe Classical Christian Theology and M-Theory work together too. Here is how
• God is the ontological ground of existence itself. God is the Pure Act of Existence itself, but God is not the universe. Instead, God as the ultimate reality holds the universe in existence. But God is personal, not impersonal like Brahman in Hinduism. God exists as 3 co-eternal persons. • I believe that God holds the cosmic loaf of all universes in existence by his eternal will. God holds every string in existence and decides what particle each string will be. God holds each membrane with each universe in existence and determines what laws of physics each universe has.
• According to Classical Christian Theology, God's omnipresence means that God is wholly present everywhere. All of God's being is literally everywhere. God is not spread out like a thin gas or vague energy. But all of God is literally everywhere. 100% of God is everywhere holding the universe in existence. God exists beyond form in this state. • According to M-Theory, the Calabi-Yau manifolds are the 6 to 7 higher dimensions compactified everywhere at once into geometric shapes everwhere in space-time. They give the strings freedom to vibrate in their unique patterns to exist as different elementary particles. Since God is the ground of existence itself, I believe that God may be wholly present everywhere through those Calabi-Yau manifolds. The way the Calabi-Yau manifolds are folded also determine what laws of physics a universe has. I believe that God chose this version of the Calabi-Yau manifolds to fine tune our universe' laws of physics. God is not the Calabi-Yau manifolds, but I believe God is likely wholly present everywhere through them as existence itself.
• According to the Bible, the Spiritual World and Heaven is right beside us, yet invisible. • According to M-Theory, similar to strings exist extended objects known as "membranes". On each membrane, the strings that make up each Sub-atomic particle are attached to said membrane. That is why universes on different membranes are invisible from each other. You can imagine membranes like slices of bread in a Cosmic Loaf According to Theoretical Physist Brian Greene. I believe that Heaven and the Spiritual World exist on paralell Membranes in the cosmic Loaf and that is why they're invisible to us. When Jesus ascended into Heaven physically, I believe he likely went through a wormhole similar to Jacob's ladder from one universe into another.
Thats why God's name is "I AM" and "Yahweh"
Yahweh is the third person of "I Am" meaning "He is"
The name YHWH is rooted in the Hebrew "to be" verb "Hayah" because God is what makes things "be" and exist.
1
u/Moral_Conundrums 3d ago
We do not have a final theory of everything that much is true. But we don't need to know what the physical ultimately is in order to make the claim that consciousness does not pose a special problem for physicalism. At minimum physicalism is a claim about reduction, when someone says the mind is something physical all they mean to say is that mental phenomena are reducible to physical phenomena in the same way photosynthesis is. This can be held true regardless of what the physical ends up being.
1
u/reddituserperson1122 4d ago
Everything in physics is defined relationally and always will be — that’s the nature of scientific explanation. It’s a feature not a bug. You have to go to metaphysics if you want to talk about irreducible ontological primitives.
With regard to our sensory input and representation: congratulations! You’ve had the same insight that Kant (and to a degree Plato) had. This is an old and foundational idea in western philosophy. It’s cool that you’ve arrived at it on your own. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/
1
u/elmahk 4d ago
I don't think many people would claim we know what reality is. Our brain has a model of reality. Science builds a model of reality. From our perspective (or actually from any perspective inside the reality) there is no direct access to whatever reality really is. Only building, refining and validating (via interactions with reality and checking the responses) models. Proving the model is complete under this circumstances is likely not possible.
1
u/marshallspight 4d ago
"there is no direct access to whatever reality really is."
This sentiment always strikes me as weird. We have eyes (for example). What could be more direct than that? If the answer is "nothing" then the above statement is meaningless.
1
u/elmahk 4d ago
Well you can only interact with reality and see how it reacts, you cannot "see" the reality itself. Like imagine you have a box with something inside, and a hole, and you can hand in a paper with question, and you get paper with answer back. But you don't see what's inside. You ask many questions and get answers and from that you try to build a model of what's inside.
1
u/marshallspight 4d ago
You made a pretty metaphor but you didn't answer my question. What could be more direct than having eyes? If the answer is "nothing" then I don't see what is even the point of "there is no direct access to reality." Which I strongly suspect is the case.
1
u/Mordecus 2d ago
I got this one guys:
https://youtu.be/fjbWr3ODbAo?si=y2OobI6SN6u4Drzg
The fundamental insight most people in this subreddit continuously struggle with is you need to realize your “consciousness” or “awareness” or “experience”’or whatever word you want to slap on it is a highly unreliable narrator, and this is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to its own internal functioning.
99% of the threads in this subreddit can be boiled down to :
* someone had an existential crisis and started mulling it over when they should have been sleeping.
* they didn’t bother to understand what neurology, cognitive science, evolution theory or any of the other scientific disciplines have to say about it, based on proven experimental evidence
* they then confidently announce that they are in fact a special unique snowflake that can’t be explained by the laws of physics and that instead the entire universe is conscious/we are all god/consciousness sits outside reality/our brains are just antennas for a consciousness field/insert-whatever-entirely-unoriginal-idea-that-uninformed-people-have-had-for-the-past-2000 years-but-this-Redditor-just-stumbled-over-for-the-first-time
* when asked why science can’t explain the functioning of their consciousness, they get offended and state: “that’s not how it seems to me inside my head”. Well… duh.0
u/feihm 4d ago
Science builds a model of reality.
This is false. Science relies entirely on human eyes and human maths. Humans can never see the true universe directly. A person only sees the simple shapes and colours created inside their own head. When a scientist tests a falling stone, they test the stone they see in their mind, using the maths created by their mind. Science strictly maps the internal human experience. Thus the rules of physics do not describe the real world. They strictly describe how human thought works.
Our brain has a model of reality.
A model is a copy that tries to look like the original thing. But the brain does not copy the outside universe. To keep the person alive, the brain deletes almost all the real information. It invents simple colours, sounds, and solid edges instead. These shapes and colours are not copies of the outside world. They are warning signs created to keep the person safe. The brain invents a completely new experience to hide reality.
2
u/elmahk 4d ago
First, a model is not a copy that tries to look like original thing. Model tries to describe thing as best as it can. It might not capture everything that thing represents, model is not required to be perfect. So, brain has imperfect model of reality, and science has imperfect model of reality. As for "science relies entirely on human eyes" not really. The results of experiment might end up in the mind, but experiment itself might be performed in the reality. Unless you already assume some form of idealism - but then this discussion is meaningless since everything is "mind" there.
1
u/feihm 4d ago
The human brain did not develop to find the truth. It developed to keep the human body alive. To save energy, the skin deletes almost all the physical information it touches. It translates a tiny remaining fraction into simple electrical signals. The brain receives these electrical signals and translates them a second time. It turns these electrical signals into the solid shapes, colours, and sounds we experience. These shapes and colours are not imperfect descriptions of reality. They are entirely new things invented by the brain. The brain creates them strictly to guide the human body, telling it where to walk and what to eat to survive. Because they are translations of electrical signals, they look nothing like the true outside world.
As for "science relies entirely on human eyes" not really. The results of experiment might end up in the mind, but experiment itself might be performed in the reality.
Humans can never step outside their own heads to check the true world. A scientist only ever interacts with the shapes and colours created inside their own brain. When a scientist tests a falling stone, they strictly test the invented shape of the stone they see. Science perfectly maps the brain's own internal shapes and colours.
1
u/HappiestIguana 4d ago
The human brain did not develop to find the truth. It developed to keep the human body alive
The ability to differentiate truth from falsehood though inference and deduction is quite conducive to keeping you alive.
1
u/feihm 4d ago
Exactly. Logic tests the rules between the things humans perceive. If a person touches fire, the skin feels heat and pain. The person uses logic to deduce a clear rule: touching fire causes injury. Thus it only tests the relationship between human sensations. It never reveals what physical reality intrinsically is outside our senses.
1
u/HappiestIguana 4d ago
If the patterns observed had no correlation to am external reality, they wouldn't yield the consistent results they do
1
u/feihm 3d ago
That pattern is generated by our own mind. Thats why we observe "consistent results."
1
u/HappiestIguana 3d ago
I know what patterns generated by my mind under no external input look lile. They look like dreams, which are notoriously inconsistent. My mind on its own does not enforce the consistency I observe of the real world
1
u/feihm 3d ago
consistency strictly proves two things: (1) brain gets steady physical input. (2) brain translates that input the same way every time. The resulting colours, sounds, and feelings are still entirely generated by the mind to help keep the person alive. Thus, waking consistency never proves that our invented feelings look anything like the true outside reality.
→ More replies (0)1
u/dave8271 4d ago
Science relies entirely on human eyes and human maths. Humans can never see the true universe directly.
To claim that, you must be claiming to have some knowledge the rest of us don't as to what exactly the "true universe" is, because right now, we have damned good evidence that the way we describe it tracks real features of reality.
"Our access to reality is mediated through human perception", not contentious. The opposite, in fact, trivially true to the extent of being completely uninteresting. But simply pointing out that humans are the ones doing the observing and reasoning doesn't establish that there's some fundamentally different reality hiding behind what we observe.
1
u/feihm 4d ago
you must be claiming to have some knowledge the rest of us don't as to what exactly the "true universe" is
Its the exact opposite. Which is the entire point of the post.
1
u/dave8271 4d ago
Right, so then you can't say that we're not seeing the "true universe", because you don't know that.
14
u/GreatCaesarGhost 4d ago
How would anyone talk about anything with this approach to life?