[lit-ideas] Re: The location of location
- From: John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 09:16:05 +0900
One modern view says that the problem in question is a non-question because, so
far as anyone can actually see, knowledge is always embodied. Why do we imagine
objects embedded in space-time? The answer is straightforward. Our bodies are
so constructed that a limited set of options, up or down, front or back, left
or right, determine how we naturally think about things. We can force ourselves
to imagine worlds with 1, 2, 4 or 11 dimensions -- mathematicians and
physicists do it all the time. But this is a matter of tweaking or
extrapolating from our usual three-dimensional way of describing the location
of things. That may, if current physics is right, be only a crude approximation
of the way the universe is. (The "11" mentioned above is borrowed from science
news descriptions of the number of dimensions required to account for the
behavior of elementary particles if they work in the ways that current physics
say they do.) It may be of historical interest to wonder how Descartes (or
others reading Descartes) dealt with a problem created by his ontology. But,
given that the ontology in question is pretty much defunct, the issue is of
only historical interest.
Just saying,
John
Sent from my iPad
> On 2015/01/31, at 3:03, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It would surely be contradictory on my part to argue that mind and knowledge
> exist in time, and also to argue that they don't exist. :) The observation
> that they exist in time clearly entails that they exist in some sense, the
> question is how to make sense of that sense. It *might* not necessarily be
> separate from the physical, but it might also be. Also, integrating mind and
> matter is compatible with some versions of idealism just as it is compatible
> with some forms of materialism. (Although radical idealism seems to have
> little credibility nowadays, while radical materialism has some credibility.)
> I certainly don't aspire to provide answers to all these Questions here, or
> probably anywhere.
>
> O.K.
>
>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> >Locating W1 objects within W1 is far more problematic that it might seem>
>>
>> The problem I had in mind was not finding keys when you need them, but, for
>> example, the problem of explaining how/why W1 objects (that are extended in
>> Descartes' sense) are located within space/time (that is unextended in
>> Descartes' sense)? How can an extended object be located within a field that
>> lacks extension (bearing in mind it is simply a hypostasization to treat
>> space and time as if they are 'extended' by referring to them in measurable
>> terms so that it appears they have varieties of size; and even if it is true
>> that they may be measured in size, that does not make them extended in
>> Descartes' sense)? [Compare: how can an 'unextended' force like gravity
>> affect an extended physical object, even one the size of a sun?]
>>
>> We might suggest the problem of explaining how extended W1 'objects' can
>> exist in unextended space/time is at least as problematic as the problem of
>> explaining how W2 or W3 'objects' stand in relation to space/time.
>>
>> These kinds of question cannot properly be left only to philosophers,
>> particularly philosophers without sound understanding of science - they need
>> to be approached taking into close account what we may conjecture about
>> these things in the light of our best contemporary theories in physics.
>>
>> Popper would stress that we lack anything like an ultimate explanation for
>> these things - for example, we lack anything like an ultimate explanation
>> for how or why W1 objects are located within space/time. It may be that
>> contemporary physics will be overthrown before we have a better approach to
>> such questions - e.g. that the relations between space/time and W1 objects
>> will be theorised to be quite different to how they might be taken to be in
>> the light of our present physics (itself a difficult and controversial
>> question).
>>
>> Popper would also argue that ultimate explanations shall never be achieved
>> in this area - though we may make better or worse guesses in the light of
>> our evolving scientific knowledge.
>>
>> This may help indicate why facing the difficulties of locating W1 objects
>> within W1 is therefore a fair starting-point before facing the admitted
>> difficulties of locating W2 and W3 content in relation to space/time and in
>> relation to W1.
>>
>> Certainly taking this as a starting-point may dampen the impulse to doubt
>> the existence of autonomous W2 and W3 content (and its downward affects on
>> W1) because of these 'location' difficulties - given that we do not
>> similarly and impulsively conclude that W1 objects and space/time do not
>> exist simply because there are difficulties in explaining how they relate to
>> one another.
>>
>> Dnl
>> Ldn
>>
>>
>> On Friday, 30 January 2015, 13:37, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >If something changes over time - as both mind and knowledge do - then it
>> >exists in time. It shouldn't even be necessary to make such an obvious
>> >point.>
>>
>> While trying to work out something more substantial on these issues of
>> 'location', I note that, in Popper's conception, W3 is not "timeless" a la
>> Plato but has a history - and so W3 content would apparently exist in time.
>> Likewise the succession of thoughts in W2 would seem to imply that W2
>> content also exists in time.
>>
>> I should also add that Popper, unlike Kant, is a realist as to time and
>> change - and has indeed asserted that the reality of time and change are the
>> crux of realism.
>>
>> But my own workings out began by reflecting on the location of W1 objects
>> within W1 - and particularly within space and time where these are conceived
>> as dimensions of W1. Locating W1 objects within W1 is far more problematic
>> that it might seem - and it seems to me these problems should be addressed
>> first if we are to keep in proper perspective the admitted problems of
>> localising W2 and W3 content.
>>
>> Dnl
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, 29 January 2015, 16:34, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> If something changes over time - as both mind and knowledge do - then it
>> exists in time. It shouldn't even be necessary to make such an obvious point.
>>
>> Descartes' mind is obviously burdened with left-overs from Christian soul,
>> which is supposed to be eternal.
>>
>> O.K.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
>> DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In a message dated 1/26/2015 2:08:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>> I agree it would appear contradictory to argue (1) pain belongs to W2 but
>> (2) that pain also is located within the W1 brain and (3) W2 is located in
>> a way distinct to anything located in W1 [i.e. W2 events, like conscious
>> pain, do not share the identical spatio-temporal location of any W1 events].
>> I also agree that there is a large and unresolved problem as to the
>> 'location' of consciousness, and thus of W2. I would also agree there is a
>> large
>> and unresolved problem as to the 'location' of W3 or W3 contents. But these
>> admittedly large and unresolved problems are far from conclusive arguments
>> against the independence of W2 and of W3 from W1.
>> I don't intend to suggest a solution to these large problems but here
>> clarify that Popper's position is that W3 "exists but exists nowhere" and
>> that
>> W2 is located not within W1 but somehow adjacent to the W1 brain.
>> It seems that we have no obvious model for locating anything in space and
>> time except in the way we seek to locate W1 objects within W1: and this
>> creates an admitted problem, for there is a lack of any clear model for how
>> we
>> 'locate' W2 or W3 in these terms.
>> Despite this, it seems overwhelmingly the case that consciousness exists;
>> and though it is less overwhelming, the strong case is that consciousness
>> is distinct from being a mere W1 process - for there is no analogue of
>> consciousness in any W1 processes as these are conceived by science.
>> So we quickly reach one of the immense and weird imponderables of the
>> mind-body problem, that have given rise to very different reactions -
>> including
>> that radical materialism, a la Quine, that takes consciousness to be
>> merely an illusion. But if consciousness is not simply an illusion, the
>> mind-body dichotomy surfaces in all its presently unsolvable strangeness.
>> There is
>> no present possible position without strangeness - the radical materialist,
>> in denying consciousness, is one of the strangest. Against the strangeness
>> of these alternative positions [e.g. panpsychism] it might seem less
>> strange to accept the admitted strangeness of accepting a W3 and a W2 that
>> cannot readily be 'located', and certainly not 'located' in W1 terms.
>>
>> It seems simpler to postulate that space-time belongs in w1 only?
>>
>> There's the physical world, and space and time are physical 'concepts' or
>> entities or items.
>>
>> w2 is the world of thinking.
>>
>> Palma:
>>
>> "Note that, if Descartes were right, thought can’t have extension
>> properties, such as temporal properties."
>>
>> The implicature is that Descartes ain't right?
>>
>> If an item in the world of 'psychology' has spatio-temporal
>> qualifications, it seems to me because it 'corresponds' in some way to some
>> item in the
>> physical world, which necessarily does.
>>
>> w3, the world of concepts and stuff surely does not require on the other
>> hand any sort of Cartesian spatio-temporal coordinate. But surely the
>> CONTENT of a book on space and time (such as Einstein's) belongs in this
>> 'third
>> reich', as Popper's predecessor also called it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Speranza
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
Other related posts:
