the boundary problem of experience

12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
the boundary problem of experience
OP - June 13, 2010, 08:50 PM

This is the problem of explaining the discrete macro-level of experience that humans experience. It's not easy to appreciate the problem so I will try and put it as starkly as possible.
There are two physical theories of the universe and each is thought of as being correct. The first is quantum mechanical where everything is but the interplay of micro-physical phenomena and the second is general relativity where the universe is treated as one complete system of space-time geometry.
The problem is this: how does either conception of the very basis of reality give room for macro-level experience that humans have?

Consider it this way: there is absolutely no difference in quantum terms between me and the couch I am sitting on. Both the couch and I are made up of ordinary matter undergoing ordinary qm reactions. Why is it that I have this boundary of experience seperating the atoms of my body from the atoms of the couch? There is nothing at a quantum level that can explain this boundary to my experience because surely if qm was a total description then the only experience it would allow is experience at a micro-physical level for particles alone - a macro body is just an abstraction of those micro reactions - so why does my experience exist at this macro level?
The other theory fares no better. In general relative terms there is only one manifold of space-time and all matter and energy are changes in this manifold. It is a complete and unitary system. Surely if experience was to exist with just this theory in mind it would have to be experience at a cosmic level, just one subject of experience not the many different middle-level organisms of experience that actually do exist. Just like the qm example, there would be no difference between the couch and me as both the couch and I are just curves in space time - what's so special about the curve that is me?

I suppose this question leads onto and perhaps somewhat answers the question of what counts as a whole in terms of experience for nature. So, ideas?

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- canex
- Suggest a Title
- Ex-Muslim
- Raveeeee
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #1 - June 13, 2010, 10:40 PM

in english please....

Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense. - Voltaire
- Zebedee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #2 - June 13, 2010, 10:58 PM

While it may be true that at the micro level things are basically made of the same stuff, the arrangement of that stuff in the larger scale is in such a way that certain effects and functions can be produced by it.

The physical body is comprised essentially of the same matter, but the forms that that matter takes in the higher scale, like the arrangement of atoms into elements, elements into more sophisticated chemical structures like amino acids or carbohydrates, enable a greater functional capacity than the arrangement of the most basic matter.

So you have something like a neurone, which is itself comprised of atoms, elements, proteins, etc. Each 'tier' is the basis for a more sophisticated one, e.g., a protein is more sophisticated and complex than a single amino acid, and an amino acid is more complex than a hydrogen atom.

But if you take the cumulative capacity of all these structures combined, then it's clear that it is far greater, in terms of the effects it can produce, than basic matter.

I think I should say that the whole property/substance dichotomy of mind and consciousness is a false one. I don't see it that way. I simply see consciousness as being the cumulative effect or product of all of these things, working collectively.

So take some physiological phenomenon, like fear. There are some neurones, muscles, etc., that will work to produce the effect of horripilation. Others will induce accelerated heart rate, perspiration, and so on.

All of these things happen, and all are the product of the collective activity of the afore-mentioned 'parts.' The sensations that they create, experienced collectively, are what is defined as 'fear.'

Of course, something on the micro-scale is not capable of experiencing such a thing, being outside the necessary macro level of experience. But something that possesses the necessary physical and physiological structures that collectively produce this effect are perfectly able to experience it.

Everything at the basic level may be undifferentiated matter, but at the macro level, that's not the case. Hence why we are capable of experiencing the things that could not be experienced at the micro level.

Maybe I didn't address exactly what you were talking about, but I read your question as essentially asking how basic matter can produce things like sentient beings and subjective experience.

Either way, just my thoughts on the issue...
- Zebedee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #3 - June 13, 2010, 11:01 PM

And as for quantum mechanics and the like: I suppose it could describe the physical interactions at the atomic or subatomic level that occur when a person has a subjective experience. But the theory simply isn't designed to describe how an individual might fully experience the collective effect of every such interaction.
- zoomi
- Dusty-footed philosopher.
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #4 - June 14, 2010, 04:58 AM

Canex, essentially what he is saying is that there are currently two (incompatable) explanations as to how the world works -- quantum mechanics and general relativity, and that no matter which one we accept, neither adequately explains human experience (in the typical way that humans experience the world).

The short version:

-- One one hand, QM suggests that humans are comprised of atoms and subatomic particles, (i.e. little seperated pieces of material)

--On the other hand, GR suggests that humans are simply one part of an all-encompassing space-time manifold (i.e. a blip of matter and energy in the spacetime blanket).

-- If we consider humans as the sum of subatomic particles and the interactions between them, then what is seperating our experience from the couch (as a seperate "macro" body from the couch, and as a thinking being), and moreover, why do we experience reality at the macro level at all (i.e. why do we experience the world around us as a body, perceiving other objects like couches, when everything is just particles)?

--If we go the other way and assume that general relativity is true and there is one manifold with numerous small changes of matter and energy within this manifold, why is there several, seperate experiences rather than just one "cosmic" experience, namely, that of the space-time manifold itself.

The really, really short version:

If we are just beings made of the same stuff as everything else, either as a composition of a gazillion particles or as one tiny part of a large Spacetime blanket, why do we experience as a single, seperate being, and why do we experience "macro" level things, and not on a microscopic scale?
- zoomi
- Dusty-footed philosopher.
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #5 - June 14, 2010, 05:12 AM

Personally I don't know how to begin tackling this question, though here are some thoughts:

- The question runs into problems to begin with, because we are assuming quantum mechanics and/or general relativity are true. How do we know they are true (at least to the best of our knowledge)? By (indirectly) experiencing them. So essentially we are predispositioned to view the physical world in this certain way; we comprehend the world in terms of this schema. At risk of sounding too skeptical here, how can we know the noumena?

- Your panpsychic views would do you well here, to claim that there is experience on all levels, therefore avoiding the problem -- we just so happen to be on this "level." But then I suppose one could ask why we're on this level, and why we don't seem to know anything about the other "levels" of experience and how this system works exactly and the whole thing becomes a quagmire again.

- You're outright denying physicalism here too; they physicalists would disagree that experienc exists in the first place, therefore rendering the argument meaningless.

I'll ponder it some more, but this really is a "turtles all the way down" sort of question.
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #6 - June 15, 2010, 06:06 AM

Quote from: Zebedee on June 13, 2010, 10:58 PM

The physical body is comprised essentially of the same matter, but the forms that that matter takes in the higher scale, like the arrangement of atoms into elements, elements into more sophisticated chemical structures like amino acids or carbohydrates, enable a greater functional capacity than the arrangement of the most basic matter.

So you have something like a neurone, which is itself comprised of atoms, elements, proteins, etc. Each 'tier' is the basis for a more sophisticated one, e.g., a protein is more sophisticated and complex than a single amino acid, and an amino acid is more complex than a hydrogen atom.

If I understand you correctly zebedee, you are making the point that experience is a high-level complex collection of lower-level processes.
To this, I would have to state that experience doesn't fit neatly into such a scheme. It is true that there are phenomena at macro level that aren't available at the micro-level but all of these phenomena can be completely explained. The problem is in producing such an explanation for consciousness.
Qm can explain all macro-level phenomena because within it the tools are available to offer the reasoning. Take liquidity as an example. There's no such thing as a liquid at the qm level but liquidity is totally explainable in qm terms - it is the sliding past each other of micro-particles that exhibit less of a structure than solids. The facts of liquidity such as particle structure, particle movement and so on are all within the qm theory itself - they are not added ad hoc unlike what seems to be the case with subjective experience.
I agree with you that of course experience is a physical process that is completely natural. But doesn't this seem like a trivial point? Surely, the important thing is to find out exactly what we mean by "physical" - find out exactly what the nature of the physical is that it has discrete centres of experience at a macro-level that no current theory of the physical can explain.

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #7 - June 15, 2010, 06:17 AM

Quote from: zoomi on June 14, 2010, 05:12 AM

- The question runs into problems to begin with, because we are assuming quantum mechanics and/or general relativity are true. How do we know they are true (at least to the best of our knowledge)? By (indirectly) experiencing them. So essentially we are predispositioned to view the physical world in this certain way; we comprehend the world in terms of this schema. At risk of sounding too skeptical here, how can we know the noumena?

You are correct, there is no need to assume that qm or gr are true. Perhaps it is better to leave science completely out of it when discussing metaphysical matters. However, it seems to me that the same problem presents itself when tackled from an ontological point of view and not just physics. Two of the more popular ontological positions are monism and pluralism but they both seem to suffer from the same idea - neither has room for macro-level objects.

Quote
- Your panpsychic views would do you well here, to claim that there is experience on all levels, therefore avoiding the problem -- we just so happen to be on this "level." But then I suppose one could ask why we're on this level, and why we don't seem to know anything about the other "levels" of experience and how this system works exactly and the whole thing becomes a quagmire again.

Yes, panpsychism doesn't seem to escape the problem either. However, I think it has an advantage over physicalism. For physicalism, one has to somehow figure out how experience is part of the universe and then answer my question but for the panpsycist the first question is already answered and it is only the second that requires an answer.
Having said that, there are a few attempts by panpsychists to formulate a theory that allows for macro-level experience as a collection of micro-experiences. Whitehead is one of them and his system I feel offers the best response. If you want I can expand on his theory.

Quote
- You're outright denying physicalism here too; they physicalists would disagree thoat experienc exists in the first place, therefore rendering the argument meaningless.

I agree, but more importantly, what do you think about experience? Does it exist?

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- debunker
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #8 - June 15, 2010, 08:01 AM

@Z

I thought you already found a satisfactory answer to the hard problem of conscienceness?

A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
- Tlaloc
- Aperture Science Test Subject
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #9 - June 15, 2010, 08:09 AM

Quote from: z10 on June 13, 2010, 08:50 PM
There is nothing at a quantum level that can explain this boundary to my experience because surely if qm was a total description then the only experience it would allow is experience at a micro-physical level for particles alone - a macro body is just an abstraction of those micro reactions - so why does my experience exist at this macro level?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
- Tlaloc
- Aperture Science Test Subject
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #10 - June 15, 2010, 08:14 AM

Quote from: z10 on June 13, 2010, 08:50 PM
It is a complete and unitary system. Surely if experience was to exist with just this theory in mind it would have to be experience at a cosmic level, just one subject of experience not the many different middle-level organisms of experience that actually do exist. Just like the qm example, there would be no difference between the couch and me as both the couch and I are just curves in space time - what's so special about the curve that is me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
- zoomi
- Dusty-footed philosopher.
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #11 - June 16, 2010, 01:17 AM

Quote from: z10 on June 15, 2010, 06:17 AM
Two of the more popular ontological positions are monism and pluralism ...

Are you drunk? tee hee.

Quote from: z10 on June 15, 2010, 06:17 AM
I agree, but more importantly, what do you think about experience? Does it exist?

No idea, but I don't think this question is relevent sans a definitive answer to the question "what is experience?"
- Morpheus
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #12 - June 16, 2010, 01:24 AM

Quote from: z10 on June 13, 2010, 08:50 PM
This is the problem of explaining the discrete macro-level of experience that humans experience. It's not easy to appreciate the problem so I will try and put it as starkly as possible.
There are two physical theories of the universe and each is thought of as being correct. The first is quantum mechanical where everything is but the interplay of micro-physical phenomena and the second is general relativity where the universe is treated as one complete system of space-time geometry.
The problem is this: how does either conception of the very basis of reality give room for macro-level experience that humans have?

Consider it this way: there is absolutely no difference in quantum terms between me and the couch I am sitting on. Both the couch and I are made up of ordinary matter undergoing ordinary qm reactions. Why is it that I have this boundary of experience seperating the atoms of my body from the atoms of the couch? There is nothing at a quantum level that can explain this boundary to my experience because surely if qm was a total description then the only experience it would allow is experience at a micro-physical level for particles alone - a macro body is just an abstraction of those micro reactions - so why does my experience exist at this macro level?
The other theory fares no better. In general relative terms there is only one manifold of space-time and all matter and energy are changes in this manifold. It is a complete and unitary system. Surely if experience was to exist with just this theory in mind it would have to be experience at a cosmic level, just one subject of experience not the many different middle-level organisms of experience that actually do exist. Just like the qm example, there would be no difference between the couch and me as both the couch and I are just curves in space time - what's so special about the curve that is me?

I suppose this question leads onto and perhaps somewhat answers the question of what counts as a whole in terms of experience for nature. So, ideas?

dude, you need to lay off the acid for a while
- s12345
- Member
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #13 - June 16, 2010, 09:11 AM

the answer lies in neuroscience. the brain clearly has some way of representing the me-not me spatial boundary. i am guessing all animal brains can differentiate this.
- OAK
- Free Cum Farter
- Member
- Douche de jour
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #14 - June 17, 2010, 11:40 PM

I have no problem with the boundry between expeirences, seems with both theories the smaller a body is the greater its expeirence.

electrons travel light years, some without moving an inch, the sweat between my ass and and the seat I'm sitting is does not seem like much of a boundry.
The universe is no more than the sum of its parts and science cannot be used to say that it is. That's the domain of religions and super naturalists.

its not a boundry I see its the faculty of nature

**BANNED**

Stephen Roberts: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"
- zoomi
- Dusty-footed philosopher.
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #15 - June 22, 2010, 04:32 AM

Quote from: s12345 on June 16, 2010, 09:11 AM
the answer lies in neuroscience. the brain clearly has some way of representing the me-not me spatial boundary. i am guessing all animal brains can differentiate this.

Not necessarily true -- sometimes I can't.
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #16 - June 22, 2010, 04:19 PM

Quote from: debunker on June 15, 2010, 08:01 AM
@Z

I thought you already found a satisfactory answer to the hard problem of conscienceness?

This is a somewhat different but related question debunker. I'm not so much concerned with what consciousness is as how it manages to manifest itself at a macro-human level.

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #17 - June 22, 2010, 04:20 PM

Quote from: zoomi on June 16, 2010, 01:17 AM
Are you drunk? tee hee.

Do you not find materialism/ physicalism to be a form of monism? A strict ontology of only one kind of thing?

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #18 - June 22, 2010, 04:23 PM

@tialoc

Please do explain how you think those two fallacies are relevant to the point at hand. Certain factors are true of parts as well as wholes,so I'm not sure if it's enough just to call a fallacy and not explain its application too.

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- Blade Gunner
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #19 - June 22, 2010, 04:30 PM

Quote from: z10 on June 22, 2010, 04:20 PM
Do you not find materialism/ physicalism to be a form of monism? A strict ontology of only one kind of thing?

please keep your lovers tiffs and weird mystical talk that no-one else gets off this forum, weirdos.

heheheh j/k

''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #20 - June 22, 2010, 04:32 PM

i can explain it in more detail if you like abu

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- debunker
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #21 - June 22, 2010, 04:34 PM

Z10,

believe me everyone understand the gist of what you're saying, they just don't like the places thinking about your questions might lead them to.

A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
- Blade Gunner
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #22 - June 22, 2010, 04:37 PM

isn't it possible that quantum mechanics and general relativity are just approximations of physical reality? quantum mechanics is great at describing the very tiny (sub-atomic) and GR is good for everyday scales and bigger. however, there might exist a theory that 'swallows' both these theories and can be used to describe the very tiny and the very large all in one formulation. i'm sure you know that string theory and quantum loop gravity are two possible candiates of such 'theories of everything' - what effect would such a theory, if we managed to figure it out, have on the boundary problem of experience?

''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
- King Koopa
- Ex-Muslim
- Your Mom's Favorite Lover
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #23 - June 22, 2010, 04:44 PM

Quote from: debunker on June 22, 2010, 04:34 PM
Z10,

believe me everyone understand the gist of what you're saying, they just don't like the places thinking about your questions might lead them to.

You know he's an atheist right?
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #24 - June 22, 2010, 05:12 PM

Quote from: abuyunus2 on June 22, 2010, 04:37 PM
isn't it possible that quantum mechanics and general relativity are just approximations of physical reality? quantum mechanics is great at describing the very tiny (sub-atomic) and GR is good for everyday scales and bigger. however, there might exist a theory that 'swallows' both these theories and can be used to describe the very tiny and the very large all in one formulation. i'm sure you know that string theory and quantum loop gravity are two possible candiates of such 'theories of everything' - what effect would such a theory, if we managed to figure it out, have on the boundary problem of experience?

I feel the effect will be accidental at best.
Both string theory and quantum loop theory are being devised to tackle the problem of reconciling qm with gr and neither has any pretentions to tackle problems of experience. Unfortunately, for most people working on "theories of everything" consciousness is seen as a problem for neuroscientists and too messy for the neat equations and formulas of physics to tackle.
After all, what kind of a self-respecting objective science exists that has even the basic tools to tackle subjectivity? I used qm and gr as examples to highlight the problems of experience but I do not think the answers will come from physics - they will have to go beyond the bare differences in structure that science can offer and actually attempt to explain the thing-in-itself.

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- Blade Gunner
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #25 - June 22, 2010, 05:24 PM

cool, great to have you back posting btw

''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #26 - June 22, 2010, 05:30 PM

thanks

I made a thread elsewhere on what I think about the purpose of science in relation to all metaphysical matters and not just experience, I can dig that up for you if you're interested.

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- Blade Gunner
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #27 - June 22, 2010, 05:59 PM

yeah i'd be interested in reading that too

''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #28 - June 22, 2010, 06:03 PM

http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=8513.0

I kind of went on a tangent speaking of necessary truths after a while but the beginning may interest you

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- charlesmartel
- Member
- offline
Re: the boundary problem of experience
Reply #29 - June 22, 2010, 06:09 PM

Quote from: z10 on June 13, 2010, 08:50 PM
This is the problem of explaining the discrete macro-level of experience that humans experience. It's not easy to appreciate the problem so I will try and put it as starkly as possible.
There are two physical theories of the universe and each is thought of as being correct. The first is quantum mechanical where everything is but the interplay of micro-physical phenomena and the second is general relativity where the universe is treated as one complete system of space-time geometry.
The problem is this: how does either conception of the very basis of reality give room for macro-level experience that humans have?

I think modern science is still limited in a way because it doesn't take into account subjectivity. It has focused so much on the outside world, that it has not studied the observer itself. The scientific theories don't try to explain experience, perception, consciousness, thoughts, feelings/emotions etc. which though being as real as the various objects like sun, moon, galaxies and various chemicals, still haven't been studied much.

I would simplify the problem you pose, and say that the boundary doesn't really exist; it is only the limits of our perception which make us feel that there is a boundary. What I am trying to say would be easier to get if you consider instruments of differing capacities. For each instrument, there would exist a boundary which would be arbitrary and limited by the capacity of the instrument.

Quote
Consider it this way: there is absolutely no difference in quantum terms between me and the couch I am sitting on. Both the couch and I are made up of ordinary matter undergoing ordinary qm reactions. Why is it that I have this boundary of experience seperating the atoms of my body from the atoms of the couch? There is nothing at a quantum level that can explain this boundary to my experience because surely if qm was a total description then the only experience it would allow is experience at a micro-physical level for particles alone - a macro body is just an abstraction of those micro reactions - so why does my experience exist at this macro level?

Limits of our perception. Macro and micro levels are defined by us humans.

Quote
The other theory fares no better. In general relative terms there is only one manifold of space-time and all matter and energy are changes in this manifold. It is a complete and unitary system. Surely if experience was to exist with just this theory in mind it would have to be experience at a cosmic level, just one subject of experience not the many different middle-level organisms of experience that actually do exist. Just like the qm example, there would be no difference between the couch and me as both the couch and I are just curves in space time - what's so special about the curve that is me?

The limits of our perception. There is nothing special about you except for the fact that all your sensory organs, including the mind, have limitations. Whatever we can conceive of cannot grasp the reality.

Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »