X is not Y

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » X is not Y

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 01:05 pm
Let X be Knowledge that consists of all sorts of properties that are adaptable to X (knowledge itself) Knowledge's architecture is conducive to forming more knowledge from that knowledge. Whether or not this is an infinite complexity, in that knowledge will never cease to grow is an ontological assumption I'm not willing to make.

So we have X - knowledge and knowledge of that knowledge ad nauseum.

And Y - the physical world of feeling. Let's just assume there is a physical world that interacts with the body in a purely physical way. Let's go so far to say, this is all there is. This is an untenable, practical and rational philosophical position (an ontological supposition, even).

So what becomes of y, when all we can know is x? X is not Y. X does not even correspond to Y in a rigorous and exact way, either. All of our theories are provisional. They work. If NASA decides to make a launch path to Mars, they will use a theory that works, but is not compatible with the whole of physical reality. It is not an ontology. Also, our descriptions - our language - is only referencing the physical world. It is a different "world". It is one of deduction without induction. It is one full of historically and culturally contingent logical paradoxes --- congruencies, incongruencies. Buildings that carry thier weight... well srtuctured, floating buildings of the imagination. The paradoxes are merely there because of our incapacity to deal with paradox, incompatiblities, probabilities, and complexities. Nothing has become completed. No knowledge is certain - Only knowledge of that knowledge; hence the strength of an idealistic position.

It makes me wonder if the physical world (Y) is beyond rationality. It is transrational. Our descriptions work when employed, but thier seems to be a conflicts arising within our current paradigm of rationality.

God, for instance, might be beyond our paradigm.
A strong theistic argument might be to say, If X is not Y in every case, why should X be given so much power in an argument. I might even go so far as to say, Atheism is a dogma because of this. I live my life now without contemplating God's Existence... without knowing wether or not there is a God. It's not a practical necessity at all.

X is often mistaken for Y. Y, though is a mystery for our time.

Any thoughts?
 
Why phil
 
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 07:23 pm
@cypressmoon,
I don't quite understand your categorization of reality into X and Y. I don't think knowledge is really a separate thing, I think it is just the result of complexity in closed systems (brain). Knowledge is just memory of what we pick up in the world. everything is physical interaction though. The things we see are caused by the light waves that they reflect and as they enter our eyes we make sense of them with chemical reactions in our minds.
 
cypressmoon
 
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 08:36 am
@Why phil,
Why wrote:
I don't quite understand your categorization of reality into X and Y. I don't think knowledge is really a separate thing, I think it is just the result of complexity in closed systems (brain). Knowledge is just memory of what we pick up in the world. everything is physical interaction though. The things we see are caused by the light waves that they reflect and as they enter our eyes we make sense of them with chemical reactions in our minds.


Thanks for the response.

Simply put, what I'm saying is, there is feeling and there are thoughts... feeling pain and "pain" (the word, concept, idea etc.).

I think everything is a physical process as well.

If you don't mind me asking, what do you think about "light digestion" from the optic nerves receiving light and transforming it into a digestible material that the brain can process? For instance, the nerve endings in the eye (the retina) process light into perceptual information by transforming light into a digestible nerve-compatible material, that the optic nerve sends to nine nuclei that relay this information into the visual cortex which actually makes the initial signals from the optic nerve more complex. After the additive complexity within the primary visual cortex, it becomes even more complex as the brain, through neural communication and organic mutation, processes the perception with hyper-complex (cannot predict it mathematically) logical and symbolic faculties.

So, considering the above and that the retina can only pick up certain frequencies of light, wouldn't human sight be transforming the look to reality?

Also, I might ask, are imaginative visions, thoughts etc... confined by this hyper-complex brain process and its PHYSICAL limits when processing physical stimuli? On a purely physical level, wouldn't this make the brain a stomach of sorts, where nutrients are absorbed and waste is discarded? Regardless of epistemic limits considered under the faculties of reason, I think there are physical limitations that are a more primary, certain and probable explanation for why knowledge is the way it is.
 
Why phil
 
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 09:34 am
@cypressmoon,
Oh okay. So basically what you are saying is that what we see is just our brain's interpretation of the light waves that enter our eye and stimulate chemicals that cause chain reactions of other molecules which we interpret as messages sent to our brain and this information then somehow interpreted as sight is possibly not an exact portrayal of what actually is in front of us.

Yes there is even a part of the brain that filters information in our brains, a sort of organization area where sight info is arranged in ways that our brain can easily make sense of it.

Is info discarded in this processes or completely transformed? I think that is highly probable. Also I think perhaps everyone filters/organizes information received by the brain in slightly different ways so though we understand things the same way we may not actually perceive them in exactly the same way that if another person were to be able to enter another's brain with his brain, he would see a world completely or at least slightly different.

So what does this say about knowledge? I think that we could say it is very bounded by our own chemistry. So perhaps by X and Y you mean knowledge, acquired by our bounded brains, cannot be 100% true knowledge of what we are actually seeing.

I would also say that imaginative visions, thoughts have to be confined by the physical processes in our brains. They are probably just complex combinations of stimuli that have been received and then stored in our memories. We are essentially creating things or making sense of things in different ways of what has already caused changes in our brain structure.

What about the future of knowledge? Will we be always confined by this brain? I think evolutionarily speaking, yes, there is no more room for brain growth, communication would otherwise slow down. We are prisoners of our ancestors. But there is hope, we are entering an era of technological evolution where may use technology to alter our brain processes and perhaps begin to see the world around in more accurate ways, perhaps unlocking stuff not accesible to our perception before.
 
Ultracrepidarian
 
Reply Sun 3 May, 2009 12:13 pm
@Why phil,
If all we have is X, what is Y? It's either part of X or it is that-which-is-not X but has no identity of its own.

Y is really nothing except an idea of more.

More than what we have, because when light enters the eye, we change it and it is no longer real. It's part of our X. Why is that? Why the minute our X gets its hands on Y, it becomes less than Y? We can't be conscious of something without making it something that is not entirely real? So, what is real we can't sense and what we sense is not real.
Consciousness is impossible. Yet here I am.

Contrariwise, if we did not make sense of the Y by our X, what we would be is dumb, deaf, and blind. I feel like I'm stating the obvious. Is that wrong?

---------- Post added at 01:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:13 PM ----------

I'm a firm believer in the obvious. I'm also a member of the society of putting things on top of other things. Last year...
 
cypressmoon
 
Reply Wed 6 May, 2009 09:26 pm
@cypressmoon,
Hi Ultracrepidarian,

You are stating the obvious, as am I. I'm not sure what you mean by, dumb deaf and blind, though. Those seem to be value judgments, where you assign a value to something invaluable. It is at the whims of our culturally and historically contingent rules that we make. If this was not the case, how could we value something unless we first knew what that something was? We need rules to even point at it... to give it a location and distinction amongst other things. We value only after we create a fake ground to value upon.

Whether or not we should make sense of Y sounds fairly obvious. But, then on a second look, I don't think it's so obvious. Again, this depends on what we mean by "making sense", I think. Is blues, for the greats - the inventors - a "making sense". I think rather the opposite. It is making Y from Y, not from X. The high E pierces their ear, and an F comes out of their bass guitar. I don't think this has anything to do with sense at all. I don't think music would be possible if all we did was make sense.

Sorry for the late response... been a little busy.
 
Ultracrepidarian
 
Reply Thu 14 May, 2009 10:50 pm
@cypressmoon,
No problem, Cypressmoon. Is this reply late? I think it might be.

Anywho, I think I agree with you about values needing pre-established rules. But why are those rules or grounds fake? Necessarily, I mean.
For instance, I'm saying if we don't "make sense", we are blind, deaf, dumb...etc. There is an value judgment there and I think it is one we should all share. Is seeing everything? No, but I believe the five senses are some kind of foundation for everything X. I think we know where this thought is going.

We may disagree about what music is. I think it is a making sense. It plays on the ear. That is not to say that any animal with an ear can "hear" music. I'm saying that if we are deaf - can't make sense of the vibrations against our ears -, then we won't hear music. I guess I'm saying that on the second look, it still seems obvious to me that making sense is a good thing. Well, good isn't precisely the right word. I think it is vital. Blind people can still live happy lives, I'm sure. But, well, they still are short one functional organ and organs are important. vital.

We must still disagree and I'm fairly confident that I haven't said anything that you aren't likely to have already heard. Still, I don't know what. That's my inability to see what it is we are really talking about. Which again is not a problem with my eyesight. Its just a problem of solving for X ... or actually Y. Letters are confusing, aren't they?
 
chad3006
 
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 02:07 pm
@cypressmoon,
That reminds me of a song from one of my favorite rockabilly bands, High Noon. It was called "MY X is Y."
 
cypressmoon
 
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 08:46 am
@Ultracrepidarian,
Ultracrepidarian;63130 wrote:
No problem, Cypressmoon. Is this reply late? I think it might be.


I don't think there's a problem at all with late responses. Sometimes, for me anyway, letting an idea in the mind, and coming back to it every now and then in vocal conversations or thought... revisiting it after experiences time after time... is an effective way to enter an open space and claustrophobic reactions to ideas (time closing in, social rules etc.,) tend to become dismissed. The anxieties involved in formal debate on forums or whatever are the reason for many stubborn, dogmatic attitudes about ideas. Debate is strange like that - particularly philosophical debate. It relies on principles (a constituent of a dogma) to engage. I might go so far as to say that it is necessary. Interestingly, philosophy is about the adaptation of ideas, their ability to transform to new discoveries in the landscape (physical things). Principles can be thrown away, but dogmas can't. The stubborness that grows out of anxiety ridden claustrophobia may cause a thinker to adhere to some untenable principle. The outcome of a debate, after the blood has been spilled might turn the principle into a rock solid dogma. Debate is a very powerful, stressful, and shocking activity.

Quote:
Anywho, I think I agree with you about values needing pre-established rules. But why are those rules or grounds fake? Necessarily, I mean.
For instance, I'm saying if we don't "make sense", we are blind, deaf, dumb...etc. There is an value judgment there and I think it is one we should all share. Is seeing everything? No, but I believe the five senses are some kind of foundation for everything X. I think we know where this thought is going.


Why are they fake? Maybe fake is too strong of a word. They are potentially false. Qualia, I think, is really at the heart of this epistemic, ontological divide. Feeling pain, and the idea of it are two very different things. Feeling is real, and the word "pain" is a convention to point to the real feeling. It's nothing other than a wagging finger. We can map things. I can tell you where they are, when they happen, how often it occurs, and (most interestingly, I think) value it. How does one value the feeling of pain? 1 to 10? Blue to red? None to alot? Expressing it is a value judgment. It can only be expressed upon contingent things, like past experiences. You cannot extrapolate pain. It is not compatible with reason. Reason must start and end. Without the confines of reason, there would be no expression. It is determinately uncertain. Reason can make determinations and map things, but it is uncertain because of the practical necessity to extrapolate where it is unwarranted, like pain (a 10, for instance)

Quote:
We may disagree about what music is. I think it is a making sense. It plays on the ear. That is not to say that any animal with an ear can "hear" music. I'm saying that if we are deaf - can't make sense of the vibrations against our ears -, then we won't hear music. I guess I'm saying that on the second look, it still seems obvious to me that making sense is a good thing. Well, good isn't precisely the right word. I think it is vital. Blind people can still live happy lives, I'm sure. But, well, they still are short one functional organ and organs are important. vital.


Sure. But why does music make us dance? As Gothe said, "architecture is frozen music." A painting doesn't make me do the jiggle hop. But music sure does. If a car is coming at you, you will most likely jump out of the way. If a Chuck Berry riff rocks into your body through your ear, you will most likely jump out of the way. Many call it dancing. For me, anyway, music is all about physical interaction. There's always classical though for the thinkers and the need to have there emotions manipulated in a gentle way. Me, I like rock and roll. I like how powerful it is and the way in which it makes me move. Sure, our interpretation of the music is expressed through dance. We can never leave the mind behind.

Quote:
We must still disagree and I'm fairly confident that I haven't said anything that you aren't likely to have already heard. Still, I don't know what. That's my inability to see what it is we are really talking about. Which again is not a problem with my eyesight. Its just a problem of solving for X ... or actually Y. Letters are confusing, aren't they?


We're not talking about anything. We're talking about language. If you think we can actually talk about real things, then I think we should talk about language.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 03:14 pm
@cypressmoon,
cypressmoon;70818 wrote:
They are potentially false.

What isn't? A tautology. Thats it.

cypressmoon;70818 wrote:
Qualia, I think, is really at the heart of this epistemic, ontological divide. Feeling pain, and the idea of it are two very different things. Feeling is real, and the word "pain" is a convention to point to the real feeling. It's nothing other than a wagging finger. We can map things. I can tell you where they are, when they happen, how often it occurs, and (most interestingly, I think) value it. How does one value the feeling of pain? 1 to 10? Blue to red? None to alot? Expressing it is a value judgment. It can only be expressed upon contingent things, like past experiences. You cannot extrapolate pain. It is not compatible with reason. Reason must start and end. Without the confines of reason, there would be no expression. It is determinately uncertain. Reason can make determinations and map things, but it is uncertain because of the practical necessity to extrapolate where it is unwarranted, like pain (a 10, for instance)


So in other words, Qualia is not something that can be communicated. For instance, 'my green is your green in a qualitative sense' is not a verifiable proposition. I can only verify the aspects that are quantitative: the wavelength of light for instance. However, there is no relational difference that occurs from perceiving green light as another person might perceive orange light so long as the perception is consistent. As long as there is no change to the relation framework of your perception, it is functionally the same as anyone elses and the difference cannot be revealed simply through communication.



cypressmoon;70818 wrote:
But why does music make us dance?

It doesn't make me dance. I don't know why it makes you dance. I can dance to it, but it isn't the music making me dance. It might be the social conditioning I have been subjected to, it might be that I see a girl I want to dance with, I might simply choose to dance, but the music does not make me dance. As far as I know there is no physiological reason to believe that music makes you dance. If dancing is how you have been conditioned to react to music, the quandry at hand is sociological. Whether it can be solved from a physical basis is another matter.



cypressmoon;70818 wrote:

We're not talking about anything. We're talking about language. If you think we can actually talk about real things, then I think we should talk about language.

Are we not talking about anything or are we talking about language? Please don't say something cute like 'Does it really have to be one or the other?' because it does indeed. Also, I don't think that it is just language in general we are talking about. We are talking about the limits of communication in respect to qualia, and whether these limits impede the usefulness of communication to any degree.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 06:17 pm
@cypressmoon,
cypressmoon;58301 wrote:
Let X be Knowledge that consists of all sorts of properties that are adaptable to X (knowledge itself) Knowledge's architecture is conducive to forming more knowledge from that knowledge. Whether or not this is an infinite complexity, in that knowledge will never cease to grow is an ontological assumption I'm not willing to make.

So we have X - knowledge and knowledge of that knowledge ad nauseum.

And Y - the physical world of feeling. Let's just assume there is a physical world that interacts with the body in a purely physical way. Let's go so far to say, this is all there is. This is an untenable, practical and rational philosophical position (an ontological supposition, even).

So what becomes of y, when all we can know is x? X is not Y. X does not even correspond to Y in a rigorous and exact way, either. All of our theories are provisional. They work. If NASA decides to make a launch path to Mars, they will use a theory that works, but is not compatible with the whole of physical reality. It is not an ontology. Also, our descriptions - our language - is only referencing the physical world. It is a different "world". It is one of deduction without induction. It is one full of historically and culturally contingent logical paradoxes --- congruencies, incongruencies. Buildings that carry thier weight... well srtuctured, floating buildings of the imagination. The paradoxes are merely there because of our incapacity to deal with paradox, incompatiblities, probabilities, and complexities. Nothing has become completed. No knowledge is certain - Only knowledge of that knowledge; hence the strength of an idealistic position.

It makes me wonder if the physical world (Y) is beyond rationality. It is transrational. Our descriptions work when employed, but thier seems to be a conflicts arising within our current paradigm of rationality.

God, for instance, might be beyond our paradigm.
A strong theistic argument might be to say, If X is not Y in every case, why should X be given so much power in an argument. I might even go so far as to say, Atheism is a dogma because of this. I live my life now without contemplating God's Existence... without knowing wether or not there is a God. It's not a practical necessity at all.

X is often mistaken for Y. Y, though is a mystery for our time.

Any thoughts?


An apple is not an orange (or No apples are oranges) seems to me absolutely clear. It means, in terms of class logic, that The class of apples. and the class of oranges, are mutually exclusive. In fact, when we say that No X is a Y, that is exactly logically equivalent to saying that No Y is an X. Logically they mean the very same thing. So, in fact. when I know that No X is a Y, I know, at the very same time, that No Y is an X. So I have equal knowledge about the X's and the Y's, contrary to what you say.
 
cypressmoon
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 12:00 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;70876 wrote:
So in other words, Qualia is not something that can be communicated. For instance, 'my green is your green in a qualitative sense' is not a verifiable proposition. I can only verify the aspects that are quantitative: the wavelength of light for instance. However, there is no relational difference that occurs from perceiving green light as another person might perceive orange light so long as the perception is consistent. As long as there is no change to the relation framework of your perception, it is functionally the same as anyone elses and the difference cannot be revealed simply through communication.


When I said, "it's nothing more than a wagging finger", I meant that it is a physical gesture, a physical mannerism. It is nothing else. If my thumb gets smashed by a hammer, and I jump up and down and wriggle my limp wrist with a flailing arm and say "ouch!", I will be communicating some idea to whoever witnesses that experience of mine through a gesture. What am I communicating though? I'm communicating an idea. Some considerate person may say, "do you want ice?" after my antics. It's a gesture... physical behaviors that must be interpreted. They are symbols (the wagging wrist, the grimace etc.,) just like words.

It's my pain. Yet somehow, you know I need ice (just pretend you're considerate for the time being). How is this interpretation possible? If you were to walk by empty space, you wouldn't ask the empty space for ice. If you were to walk by a vertical line, still no response. If you were to walk by a cross, still no response. On the other end, as this pattern is extended to its pole, where all variables of angles are exhausted within the limits of this extrapolation, you would end up with a sphere, or a circle depending on your rules. Still, you don't ask the sphere for ice. Yet, you ask me if I want ice.

Why would you ask me if I want ice, and not a circle, sphere, or line? Why would you be so considerate of me and not inanimate matter?

You don't feel my pain, you know it to some degree. Otherwise, there would be some strange response, like giving me a cake. By flailing my arms like a cute girl, I have successfully communicated to you that I need ice and attention. Similarly, If I wag my wrist in a way with a stick in front of an orchestra, I will control the dynamics of the sound. They won't ask if i need ice. I sincerely ask you why? Why one response with one gesture and another with another one?

Matter generates ideas. I'm sure Cybersemiotics is discovering how this works in great detail and high probability with neurology, mathematics, semiotics etc. But the truth is, matter generates ideas and contra wise. I'm not communicating with you through ideas right now, but words - symbols. They're generating ideas in you - just a bunch of well placed lines. Disparities and tensions both in the visual matter itself - varying degrees of opposition - and in the concepts generated by the matter give a word its power both visually and conceptually ( hot cold).

Quote:
It doesn't make me dance. I don't know why it makes you dance. I can dance to it, but it isn't the music making me dance. It might be the social conditioning I have been subjected to, it might be that I see a girl I want to dance with, I might simply choose to dance, but the music does not make me dance. As far as I know there is no physiological reason to believe that music makes you dance. If dancing is how you have been conditioned to react to music, the quandry at hand is sociological. Whether it can be solved from a physical basis is another matter.

Are we not talking about anything or are we talking about language? Please don't say something cute like 'Does it really have to be one or the other?' because it does indeed. Also, I don't think that it is just language in general we are talking about. We are talking about the limits of communication in respect to qualia, and whether these limits impede the usefulness of communication to any degree.


I'll respond later to the music thing. Don't try to shed your VALUES onto me by implementing homophobic tactics. That's bullshit. If that's where this is going, raise your own chilren.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 12:20 pm
@cypressmoon,
cypressmoon;71112 wrote:
When I said, "it's nothing more than a wagging finger", I meant that it is a physical gesture, a physical mannerism. It is nothing else. If my thumb gets smashed by a hammer, and I jump up and down and wriggle my limp wrist with a flailing arm and say "ouch!", I will be communicating some idea to whoever witnesses that experience of mine through a gesture. What am I communicating though? I'm communicating an idea. Some considerate person may say, "do you want ice?" after my antics. It's a gesture... physical behaviors that must be interpreted. They are symbols (the wagging wrist, the grimace etc.,) just like words.

It's my pain. Yet somehow, you know I need ice (just pretend you're considerate for the time being). How is this interpretation possible? If you were to walk by empty space, you wouldn't ask the empty space for ice. If you were to walk by a vertical line, still no response. If you were to walk by a cross, still no response. On the other end, as this pattern is extended to its pole, where all variables of angles are exhausted within the limits of this extrapolation, you would end up with a sphere, or a circle depending on your rules. Still, you don't ask the sphere for ice. Yet, you ask me if I want ice.

Why would you ask me if I want ice, and not a circle, sphere, or line? Why would you be so considerate of me and not inanimate matter?

You don't feel my pain, you know it to some degree. Otherwise, there would be some strange response, like giving me a cake. By flailing my arms like a cute girl, I have successfully communicated to you that I need ice and attention. Similarly, If I wag my wrist in a way with a stick in front of an orchestra, I will control the dynamics of the sound. They won't ask if i need ice. I sincerely ask you why? Why one response with one gesture and another with another one?

Matter generates ideas. I'm sure Cybersemiotics is discovering how this works in great detail and high probability with neurology, mathematics, semiotics etc. But the truth is, matter generates ideas and contra wise. I'm not communicating with you through ideas right now, but words - symbols. They're generating ideas in you - just a bunch of well placed lines. Disparities and tensions both in the visual matter itself - varying degrees of opposition - and in the concepts generated by the matter give a word its power both visually and conceptually ( hot cold).


Many of the ideas your are expressing smack of the magnum opus of R.D. Lang 'Politics of Experience'.

The idea that language objects point to certain concepts or thought objects goes way back to Frege.

cypressmoon;71112 wrote:

I'll respond later to the music thing. Don't try to shed your VALUES onto me by implementing homophobic tactics. That's bullshit. If that's where this is going, raise your own chilren.


:shocked:Wow, totally out of left field there. I seriously have absolutely no idea how you could have interpreted anything I said that way. Sounds like you have some kind of underlying issues. I don't have kids, I don't even know if I'm sure what you mean by 'homophobic tactics'. What values are you talking about? If you're gay, that's fine with me I personally don't give a ****.

I was simply trying to illustrate that physical response to qualia is determined socially.
 
cypressmoon
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 12:39 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;71119 wrote:
Many of the ideas your are expressing smack of the magnum opus of R.D. Lang 'Politics of Experience'.

The idea that language objects point to certain concepts or thought objects goes way back to Frege.


Well, there goes that conversation. I didn't know you knew everything about semiotics already and whether or not its applicable to the problem of qualia.

:perplexed:

Quote:
I was simply trying to illustrate that physical response to qualia is determined socially.


That's a very cute idea. Please do undress it with your words.
:flowers:
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 12:54 pm
@cypressmoon,
I understand both of your comments to be mildly sarcastic, but fine, whatever floats your boat. I'll answer your question as though it is posed in earnest if only to facilitate discussion.


So you want me to expatiate on the idea that physical response to qualia is socially determined? You point out that body language somehow seems to alert me to your present state of mind. This is due to social conditioning. I might respond to certain stimuli in a natural way, and other stimuli in a less natural way(like music and dancing). The mutual understanding of the response, however, comes from my recognition(or assumption) that other people have similar experiences to mine and that they respond similarly. This is socially conditioned into my thought process. The same thing is true of language in general and since, as you pointed out, response to stimuli is in a sense very much communicative, it should come as no surprise that body language is no different.

The reason that I know in a general way what you mean when you say 'I am in pain' is that language itself is a social tool, so that compounded with the social/psychological tendency to project oneself onto whatever one interacts with, elicits an understanding of what is being communicated by another person. Also, the tendency to inductively expand a concept leads to the understanding(not totally accurate, but often close enough) of greater pain that one has experienced.
 
cypressmoon
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 01:21 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;71134 wrote:
So you want me to expatiate on the idea that physical response to qualia is socially determined? You point out that body language somehow seems to alert me to your present state of mind. This is due to social conditioning. I might respond to certain stimuli in a natural way, and other stimuli in a less natural way(like music and dancing). The mutual understanding of the response, however, comes from my recognition(or assumption) that other people have similar experiences to mine and that they respond similarly. This is socially conditioned into my thought process. The same thing is true of language in general and since, as you pointed out, response to stimuli is in a sense very much communicative, it should come as no surprise that body language is no different.


I'm not sure what you mean by socially conditioned. Are you talking about historically contingent influences? Is this physical? Mental?

Quote:
The reason that I know in a general way what you mean when you say 'I am in pain' is that language itself is a social tool, so that compounded with the social/psychological tendency to project oneself onto whatever one interacts with, elicits an understanding of what is being communicated by another person. Also, the tendency to inductively expand a concept leads to the understanding(not totally accurate, but often close enough) of greater pain that one has experienced.


sure.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 01:32 pm
@cypressmoon,
cypressmoon;71143 wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by socially conditioned. Are you talking about historically contingent influences? Is this physical? Mental?


By social conditioning, I mean a social process/interaction that one is habitually exposed to, to the point that it becomes ingrained in their behavior and by extension their perception of the behavior of others.
 
cypressmoon
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 04:25 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;71147 wrote:
By social conditioning, I mean a social process/interaction that one is habitually exposed to, to the point that it becomes ingrained in their behavior and by extension their perception of the behavior of others.


Wouldn't social conditioning be a completely physical process with all sorts of autopoietic feedback loops with matter and matter digested by the senses and processed with the brain... some hypercomplex (cannot be modeled mathemetically) loopy, hermeneutic genetic evolutionary process - a historically continual (i.e. never ceases) physical process?

Consider a social structure. There is a line of command, authority, power etc. In this hierarchy, how does one attain their position? I think it's through social game playing. In the case of a promotion, they are measuring say 2 people by criteria that the one's in power are making up. You get a winner and a loser based upon contingent criteria. They are analysing physical behavior in this process. They are using historically contingent criteria. The power divisions are made up. Our valuations through contingent criteria (the normative for brevity's sake) create delusions of power. What is a hierarchy, but socially, and uncertainly determined degrees of control? Although, the delusions of a big executive making a few phone calls a day that completely change the financial direction of the company and effect millions of lives is a delusion / dream / nightmare that is only possible because many believe the dream is real. This is a problem rooted in epistemic problems - particularly the contingency of criteria on physical history. Remember, matter generates ideas... it generates the normative (criteria). I deas generate matter. Ontologically, though, the assumption (a highly probable one) is that matter generates matter. Brain matter generates physical structures and physical structures generate brain matter in autopoietic feedback loops. (that's the fancy phrase for automatically produced matter through physical interaction).

I ask you this in honesty, because I don't know... how is social conditioning much different, in process, than the pressure on a rock at the bottom of the canyon changing it's atomic makeup?
 
cypressmoon
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 08:42 pm
@cypressmoon,
Music is moving sound. It is animated architecture. Layers upon layers of textures are at play with each other, twisting, turning, swelling, crushing, crunching, swallowing, spitting, catching, throwing, digging, cracking, shattering, splitting etc. Dance, singing, playing (I don't see where a distinction is warranted) is a reaction to a sound call. What makes music different from natural languages? It doesn't reference the world. It's not a referent. It's not a wagging finger pointing at an object or an idea. It's not really something musicians, listeners, dancers, or singers understand the way you're understanding this paragraph. In principle, physical sound is not much different than the way letters are put together. A blues song without lyrics, an irish folk song, classical, or a jazz standard ("conventional" music) doesn't make sense, because it's not referencing anything specific. It is as ambiguous as an expression you can make. Music would be more like a set of dead letters on a page that could not be interpreted. Words that meant nothing... just a bunch of powerful abstract lines and textures, but as powerful as moving architecture (to some). Take a tone. something like this:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A constant wave without undulation away from its frequency. throw a sharp in there:

----------------------------------------___------------------------------------

There. We have a disparity - tension. It's no longer stale, mute or dead. both the tone and the sharp are strengthened at once and made more powerful. Take this idea further and look at an abstract expressionist painting. There's some potent visual charge in those paintings. It's not a referential thing though. It's ambiguous and powerful. A tone is a possibility space. The reaction to it, even if it's baking a cake or throwing a sharp in there, is derived from purely physical interaction of the ears and the world. The way in which you react, if indeed the assumption that everything is physical is correct, is a historically, genetically and culturally continual (never ceases... no gaps) reaction.

Anyone agree or disagree? Does this make any sense to anyone?
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 12:36 am
@cypressmoon,
cypressmoon;71209 wrote:

I ask you this in honesty, because I don't know... how is social conditioning much different, in process, than the pressure on a rock at the bottom of the canyon changing it's atomic makeup?



Well, considering that the exact physical processes are not totally known, how would you suggest this be answered? Also, by your definition, the process of pressure changing the atomic makeup of a rock is not necessarily hyper complex(a dubious term considering what you mean by it).

I wonder, how can you verify that something is necessarily hyper complex? What phenomena have we been totally unable to model to any degree of accuracy(and not just because no efforts have been made) that might clarify exactly what the property of hyper complexity entails?

I think that we currently lack the tools to develop a any sort of accurate model of the physical processes that would result in certain cultural tendencies. Neuroscience is still in its infancy.

What we do have is a tool set that can give us a social/linguistic explanation, but you seem to be going where I'm going here (by speaking of 'hypercomplexity'), that the (currently)correct approach to this problem is not found in physical science.

---------- Post added at 02:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 AM ----------

cypressmoon;71209 wrote:
Wouldn't social conditioning be a completely physical process with all sorts of autopoietic feedback loops with matter and matter digested by the senses and processed with the brain... some hypercomplex (cannot be modeled mathemetically) loopy, hermeneutic genetic evolutionary process - a historically continual (i.e. never ceases) physical process?


Probably(aside from the assertion of hypercomplexity), but we don't have the tools(which are denied by the not necessarily true assertion of hypercomplexity) presently that would be able to give us an answer there(not certain if we possibly could or not).

cypressmoon;71209 wrote:
Consider a social structure. There is a line of command, authority, power etc. In this hierarchy, how does one attain their position? I think it's through social game playing. In the case of a promotion, they are measuring say 2 people by criteria that the one's in power are making up. You get a winner and a loser based upon contingent criteria. They are analysing physical behavior in this process. They are using historically contingent criteria. The power divisions are made up. Our valuations through contingent criteria (the normative for brevity's sake) create delusions of power. What is a hierarchy, but socially, and uncertainly determined degrees of control? Although, the delusions of a big executive making a few phone calls a day that completely change the financial direction of the company and effect millions of lives is a delusion / dream / nightmare that is only possible because many believe the dream is real. This is a problem rooted in epistemic problems - particularly the contingency of criteria on physical history. Remember, matter generates ideas... it generates the normative (criteria). I deas generate matter. Ontologically, though, the assumption (a highly probable one) is that matter generates matter. Brain matter generates physical structures and physical structures generate brain matter in autopoietic feedback loops. (that's the fancy phrase for automatically produced matter through physical interaction).


Your general theory of the mind is one that I essentially share. As far as social games, of course this is true, but I don't know if I would call it delusion. It essentially relies on a general cultural understanding( due to cultural conditioning) that has psychological(neurological++) underpinnings. Many concepts do not exist without a social context, such as the notion of power as something abstract(not just strength or brute force). The social game is one that is so strictly enforced that one rarely(if ever) has the opportunity to leave it, and if he does, he must leave behind any trace of social interaction.

---------- Post added at 03:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 AM ----------

cypressmoon;71270 wrote:
What makes music different from natural languages? It doesn't reference the world. It's not a referent. It's not a wagging finger pointing at an object or an idea. It's not really something musicians, listeners, dancers, or singers understand the way you're understanding this paragraph


I wouldn't be so sure of that. The feeling that(depending on how they are used of course) minor or diminished scales are ominous and major ones are happy or that some musical phrase is expressing a certain feeling or mood(such as the whole tone scale sounding dreamy/mysterious) are based strongly in culture and social interaction. There are some very symbolic aspects to music.

cypressmoon;71270 wrote:
The reaction to it, even if it's baking a cake or throwing a sharp in there, is derived from purely physical interaction of the ears and the world. The way in which you react, if indeed the assumption that everything is physical is correct, is a historically, genetically and culturally continual (never ceases... no gaps) reaction.

From the position of physicalism, yes, your reaction to music would necessarily be of the above nature.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » X is not Y
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 10:58:58