Tuesday 30 October 2012
Tuesday 9 October 2012
Reality and properties
If I have an object in front of me.
I then close my eyes.
I no longer see the object. But the object is still there.
I then close my ears.
I no longer hear the object. But the object is still there.
I then lose my taste buds.
I no longer taste the object. But the object is still there.
I then lose my ability to touch.
I no longer can feel the object. But the object is still there.
If the object is a closed door, I can not get past the door.
There is something there, even when I have no senses.
So I live in a world with stuff around me.
Now that stuff is relative to me.
If I become the tiniest particle in the world, I can get past the door, getting in between its atoms. But I will not be able to get past some of those protons or neutrons (or what ever the smallest particles are).
So there is stuff in the universe.
However we do not know what this stuff actually is.
We can only know the stuff's properties. And such properties are not physical but descriptive.
For example, when we see a red objective; the objective has no red particle : no it is that when white light shines on the object, it appears to absorb all the other visible light waves and reflect the frequency of light wave that is red. That is its property. The property is descriptive, not physical.
So for the purposes of material physics, the world is full of stuff.
But something is is incredible.
This stuff is not dead. It has energy. It interacts.
Light actually moves. Light bounces off objects. All around us this stuff is interacting all the time. This stuff is 'alive' and interacts with itself. Even a stone is alive in such a context.
So (a) stuff is there and (b) it interacts.
But there is another matter to consider.
To say stuff is there is at a point in time, say t(0).
However to say they stuff interacts is to say that the stuff moves from t(0) to t(1) to t(infinity).
So (c) the stuff interacting is the process of stuff moving from t(n) to t(n+) where + is after n. So it appears that time is there.
From the little I know of physics, time is related to speed. The faster the object, time slows down. Light waves are timeless. They move incredibly fast. Objects are slower and are bound by time, but time is not eternal, as all objectives do move. Our earth is moving.
(An aside : what if there is an objective that does not move at all ? Would time be timeless too, like light?)
So (c) is based on (a) and (b) : time is a property of the stuff being there and interacting.
What is remarkable is that we humans have this ability to sense this stuff.
So not only do we know stuff is there but we (d) 'sense' it. But to be more precise we sense such stuff in a way which means we can interact with the stuff. For example if I am hungry, I can use my senses to see food and eat it.
So we humans can interact with this stuff. That is remarkable!
But such senses are not 'stuff' senses. I do not sense a bananas by having 'stuff' senses. No, my senses take advantage of the stuff AND the interactions. I can see a tomato from the interaction between light and the tomato. I don't need to personally interact with the tomato with the stuff in me.
But there is something else here. There is (e) variety. There are red tomatoes, yellow bananas, green peas, etc. There are not tomatoe stuff and banana stuff and pea stuff which we digest.
And this (e) variety brings about (f) uniqueness. This uniqueness is brought about by the different interactions. I do not know whether it is brought about by having different stuff.
Then we human beings have this ability to (g) attach meaning to our interactions with this stuff.
So combining (f) uniqueness and (g) meaning we attribute (h) properties to this stuff.
So we conclude that the world around us is (i) (1) made of stuff with (2) properties.
Now the wonderful thing about (i) (2) allows us to use the stuff for multitudes of reasons.
So the world is not just about a load of mechanisms going on all around us. That would mean that the world around is just (i) (1). No; we as human beings have attributed properties to these objects, for our own ends and from our senses.
So everything on earth is not just stuff : it is something with a property.
From this I am saying that every physical object is also mental in nature.
The stuff is physical and the property is mental.
But such properties are dependent on we human beings discovering such properties. AND they are dependent on us attributing the property to the object. If the sense of taste did not exist we could not attribute such a property.
So if all objects have properties which we use for our purposes, then perhaps to say that our minds or brains are just a series of 'nerve ending, or things or stuff moving around' is discarding that fact that such objects have properties with meaning. That objects have mental and physical attributes.
But it is our ability to attach meaning that I find remarkable.
Is this ability to have meaning separate to these mental and physical attributes, or is the ability to have meaning drawn from having mental and physical attributes.
I then close my eyes.
I no longer see the object. But the object is still there.
I then close my ears.
I no longer hear the object. But the object is still there.
I then lose my taste buds.
I no longer taste the object. But the object is still there.
I then lose my ability to touch.
I no longer can feel the object. But the object is still there.
If the object is a closed door, I can not get past the door.
There is something there, even when I have no senses.
So I live in a world with stuff around me.
Now that stuff is relative to me.
If I become the tiniest particle in the world, I can get past the door, getting in between its atoms. But I will not be able to get past some of those protons or neutrons (or what ever the smallest particles are).
So there is stuff in the universe.
However we do not know what this stuff actually is.
We can only know the stuff's properties. And such properties are not physical but descriptive.
For example, when we see a red objective; the objective has no red particle : no it is that when white light shines on the object, it appears to absorb all the other visible light waves and reflect the frequency of light wave that is red. That is its property. The property is descriptive, not physical.
So for the purposes of material physics, the world is full of stuff.
But something is is incredible.
This stuff is not dead. It has energy. It interacts.
Light actually moves. Light bounces off objects. All around us this stuff is interacting all the time. This stuff is 'alive' and interacts with itself. Even a stone is alive in such a context.
So (a) stuff is there and (b) it interacts.
But there is another matter to consider.
To say stuff is there is at a point in time, say t(0).
However to say they stuff interacts is to say that the stuff moves from t(0) to t(1) to t(infinity).
So (c) the stuff interacting is the process of stuff moving from t(n) to t(n+) where + is after n. So it appears that time is there.
From the little I know of physics, time is related to speed. The faster the object, time slows down. Light waves are timeless. They move incredibly fast. Objects are slower and are bound by time, but time is not eternal, as all objectives do move. Our earth is moving.
(An aside : what if there is an objective that does not move at all ? Would time be timeless too, like light?)
So (c) is based on (a) and (b) : time is a property of the stuff being there and interacting.
What is remarkable is that we humans have this ability to sense this stuff.
So not only do we know stuff is there but we (d) 'sense' it. But to be more precise we sense such stuff in a way which means we can interact with the stuff. For example if I am hungry, I can use my senses to see food and eat it.
So we humans can interact with this stuff. That is remarkable!
But such senses are not 'stuff' senses. I do not sense a bananas by having 'stuff' senses. No, my senses take advantage of the stuff AND the interactions. I can see a tomato from the interaction between light and the tomato. I don't need to personally interact with the tomato with the stuff in me.
But there is something else here. There is (e) variety. There are red tomatoes, yellow bananas, green peas, etc. There are not tomatoe stuff and banana stuff and pea stuff which we digest.
And this (e) variety brings about (f) uniqueness. This uniqueness is brought about by the different interactions. I do not know whether it is brought about by having different stuff.
Then we human beings have this ability to (g) attach meaning to our interactions with this stuff.
So combining (f) uniqueness and (g) meaning we attribute (h) properties to this stuff.
So we conclude that the world around us is (i) (1) made of stuff with (2) properties.
Now the wonderful thing about (i) (2) allows us to use the stuff for multitudes of reasons.
So the world is not just about a load of mechanisms going on all around us. That would mean that the world around is just (i) (1). No; we as human beings have attributed properties to these objects, for our own ends and from our senses.
So everything on earth is not just stuff : it is something with a property.
From this I am saying that every physical object is also mental in nature.
The stuff is physical and the property is mental.
But such properties are dependent on we human beings discovering such properties. AND they are dependent on us attributing the property to the object. If the sense of taste did not exist we could not attribute such a property.
So if all objects have properties which we use for our purposes, then perhaps to say that our minds or brains are just a series of 'nerve ending, or things or stuff moving around' is discarding that fact that such objects have properties with meaning. That objects have mental and physical attributes.
But it is our ability to attach meaning that I find remarkable.
Is this ability to have meaning separate to these mental and physical attributes, or is the ability to have meaning drawn from having mental and physical attributes.
Saturday 6 October 2012
A thought experiment about mental health
Imagine someone with a knife cuts someone, say Jon, and Jon bleeds. Jon goes to hospital and is treated for his cuts.
Jon regularly goes to hospital with cuts.
In fact there are many people like Jon who go to hospital with bleeding cuts.
The health service thinks "there are many people coming to us with bleeding cuts. We need to help them stop being cut and help them heal quicker. We need to find better drugs and healing their cuts. When people are cut, there is blood coming out of their skin."
The health service never sees the person that cut all the victims. The health services 'customer' is the victim.
After a while the health service would be better at dealing with people with bleeding cuts, they're cuts would be fewer, theoretically, the cuts would heal quicker.
"Health service reduces number of people with bleeding cuts. Health service has noted that when people are cut, blood is coming of their skin" Would be in the headlines.
Then a recession would come, causing more people to cut people. More divorces would come, causing more people to cut people.
The health service would need more money to deal with an increase in "bleedingness".
This idea is proposterous isn't it?
But this is exactly what happens with certain aspects of mental health!
For many with mental health problems : they are the victims of other people's harm. But they tell the victims that their mental health is because they have a chemical imbalance in the brain. Just like blood comes out of your skin when you are cut, so do your chemicals in your brain alter when you are hurt emotionally by someone.
In a world where competition, the economy, being a worthy member of society, winning the vote of people is prized over relationships, love, truth, peace; mental health is a natural consequence. Mental health is not a natural condition, just as bleeding skin is not a natural condition.
Jon regularly goes to hospital with cuts.
In fact there are many people like Jon who go to hospital with bleeding cuts.
The health service thinks "there are many people coming to us with bleeding cuts. We need to help them stop being cut and help them heal quicker. We need to find better drugs and healing their cuts. When people are cut, there is blood coming out of their skin."
The health service never sees the person that cut all the victims. The health services 'customer' is the victim.
After a while the health service would be better at dealing with people with bleeding cuts, they're cuts would be fewer, theoretically, the cuts would heal quicker.
"Health service reduces number of people with bleeding cuts. Health service has noted that when people are cut, blood is coming of their skin" Would be in the headlines.
Then a recession would come, causing more people to cut people. More divorces would come, causing more people to cut people.
The health service would need more money to deal with an increase in "bleedingness".
This idea is proposterous isn't it?
But this is exactly what happens with certain aspects of mental health!
For many with mental health problems : they are the victims of other people's harm. But they tell the victims that their mental health is because they have a chemical imbalance in the brain. Just like blood comes out of your skin when you are cut, so do your chemicals in your brain alter when you are hurt emotionally by someone.
In a world where competition, the economy, being a worthy member of society, winning the vote of people is prized over relationships, love, truth, peace; mental health is a natural consequence. Mental health is not a natural condition, just as bleeding skin is not a natural condition.
Without God and with evolution then power is the driving force
Without God and with evolution, then there is no intrinsic meaning to life. Things just happened and hey presto billions of years later I'm here! You're here! Just through a process of creation and breathing oxygen, drinking fluid, eating food, and surviving through other means such as being able to learn a skill which gets you money which makes you buy what you need to survive. Being in poverty is a fact, your genes are just not able to survive.
The more ability I have to survive, the more I survive. And generally that comes with power. The weaker we are the less we have to survive.
Life has nothing to do with truth or love or dignity. It is about power to survive. It is also about power to have more power.
Already in power? What do I need to do to stay in power? What do I need to do to gain more power?
But if there is no intrinsic meaning to life then why do believe murder is wrong? It can only be that murder has been powerfully thought to be wrong. And that wrongness has been powerfully created.
If there are a set of humans where murder is acceptable, then such has acceptability has been powerfully created, and hence allowable. Colatoral damage is a form of murder that has been accepted, through powerful forces. Abortion too. If sufficient people with sufficient power want to murder, they will.
However if God does exist, then everything has different values. Saving a human being from death has higher value than murdering them. And if God exists, we have the ultimate perfect judge for the ills of the world. It also means that ultimately the power we see before us is not the driving force. No, God is the driving force.
The more ability I have to survive, the more I survive. And generally that comes with power. The weaker we are the less we have to survive.
Life has nothing to do with truth or love or dignity. It is about power to survive. It is also about power to have more power.
Already in power? What do I need to do to stay in power? What do I need to do to gain more power?
But if there is no intrinsic meaning to life then why do believe murder is wrong? It can only be that murder has been powerfully thought to be wrong. And that wrongness has been powerfully created.
If there are a set of humans where murder is acceptable, then such has acceptability has been powerfully created, and hence allowable. Colatoral damage is a form of murder that has been accepted, through powerful forces. Abortion too. If sufficient people with sufficient power want to murder, they will.
However if God does exist, then everything has different values. Saving a human being from death has higher value than murdering them. And if God exists, we have the ultimate perfect judge for the ills of the world. It also means that ultimately the power we see before us is not the driving force. No, God is the driving force.
A sense is a unique method of understanding the world
When I see, I have an eye which uses light to see objects in front of me. My eye does not hear the object nor smell it.
When I hear, my ear interprets the sound waves in the air to hear. My ear does not see the sound nor see the object that made the sound.
When I use photoshoot to see the file on my computer with photoshoot files, the software interprets the files so that I can see the files.
When I use a certain method to mix up a set of words in a sentence, and know the method of setting out the words in the proper way, I have a method of interpreting mixed up sentences which have been mixed up in this way.
The way we understand the world is based on our methods of understanding the world. Any methods of understanding that might exist that we have not found limit our understanding of the world. On the assumption we have not found every method of understanding the world, then we do not understand the world.
When I hear, my ear interprets the sound waves in the air to hear. My ear does not see the sound nor see the object that made the sound.
When I use photoshoot to see the file on my computer with photoshoot files, the software interprets the files so that I can see the files.
When I use a certain method to mix up a set of words in a sentence, and know the method of setting out the words in the proper way, I have a method of interpreting mixed up sentences which have been mixed up in this way.
The way we understand the world is based on our methods of understanding the world. Any methods of understanding that might exist that we have not found limit our understanding of the world. On the assumption we have not found every method of understanding the world, then we do not understand the world.
Proving something exists
Can a blind man prove red exists?
Does red exist?
Does love exist? Can love be discovered through scientific research, without knowing in advance what love is?
Does doubt exist?
If science keeps discovering new things, did they exist before they were discovered?
If science discovers something universal in 2000 years time, then it exists now.
What is existence?
Does God exist?
Does the word 'table' exist?
Does a Picasso picture exist?
If someone is standing behind a wall, and I cannot see them, and sight is my only sense for knowing if something exists, does that person exist? It is not until I move that I see them.
Does red exist?
Does love exist? Can love be discovered through scientific research, without knowing in advance what love is?
Does doubt exist?
If science keeps discovering new things, did they exist before they were discovered?
If science discovers something universal in 2000 years time, then it exists now.
What is existence?
Does God exist?
Does the word 'table' exist?
Does a Picasso picture exist?
If someone is standing behind a wall, and I cannot see them, and sight is my only sense for knowing if something exists, does that person exist? It is not until I move that I see them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)