Hi. I thought I had left these "metaphysical like" musings long ago when I had completed my undergraduate studies. You, however, have rekindled my likes and understanding of these ideas. All I can say is "WoW" Thanks and keep writing; absolutely fascinating.
I’m having a similar experience, David. Hey, I just checked your Substack and wanted to read more from you. But the cupboard was bare, though I see you have an excellent collection of subscriptions. I encourage you to write and post.
Great, now you're making me question the very nature of my reality and whether I'm simply a collection of atoms or an emergent property. Thanks a million.
Also, my 7-year-old daughter would like to have a word with you about the whole "Unicorns are an illusion" claim.
Whenever I think about reality vs illusion I often am reminded of the pithy quote by John Stuart Mill: If you classify a situation as ‘real’ then it is real in its consequences. So if something is consequential I generally consider it ‘real’.
Also, might have read somewhere that because of our mirror neurons, we believe what read and watch are real, which is why they can fill us with real emotions and we can fall in love with fictional characters.
Then there’s the cognitive biases of if your friend gets a red Volkswagen, you start noticing all the red Volkswagens. So in this way, what you pay attention to creates your lived experience.
And then of course we get to Plato’s forms and the allegory of the cave!
Such a rich topic it deserves a several hour discussion with a cocktail of choice!
Such great points! Questioning reality with our inevitable cognitive, emotional, and attentional biases is problematic and, therefore, best done with an alcoholic beverage of choice.
And! Yes, Plato’s forms and the allegory of the cave is so relevant here. Thanks for mentioning it.
I grasp intuitively the inclusion of constructed subjectivity in the realm of real… Can’t recall the author of the three-world theory (Habermas? Kuhn?), the world, my world, and our world. We behave as if a stop sign is an invisible log in the road. So the stop sign is physical with a constructed function. Because we are conscious (the function of the brain) the stop sign is real to us but not to a dog. Reality is physical; consciousness by modus ponens must also be physical in order to be real (not an illusion). I am incapable at this moment of connecting any of this to your wildly interesting and structured framework. Help me get a foothold here.
Hi Terry, I think you're onto something with your stop sign example. While the stop sign is grounded in objective physical reality, its meaning and functional role is constructed. To a dog, it may register as just another object (unless it's a really smart dog), but to us with our language and cultural contexts, the stop sign takes on symbolic significance (constructed). This symbolic significance influences our behaviour. This highlights how constructed things emerge as meaningfully "real" to us.
I'm not sure I can make it all make sense. Questions about reality are some of the trickiest questions we face.
The Carroll's framework is not necessarily correct. It's just fits with the way philosophy and science traditionally tend to think about reality.
Where I see the framework being helpful is it gives us a way to think about how we talk about things -- for example a stop sign -- we can talk about a stop sign in different ways. At the fundamental level, the stop sign is made of atoms and forces. We don't really have any reason to talk about a stop sign at this level. Doing so would be very inconvenient. It would require us to list all the atoms and how they were arranged every time we wanted to talk about stop signs.
We tend to talk about stop signs at the macro level -- the physical characteristics of a stop sign -- it's shape, colour, etc. Or we talk about stop signs at the constructed meaning level -- what a stop sign means to us.
The question is, do the levels build upon each other? Can the constructed level be grounded in (reduced to) the macro level, and can the macro level be grounded in (reduced to) the fundamental level? Or is there something new -- a property of the higher levels (like solidness, or the meaning that a stop sign means we should stop) that can not be explained by the lower levels?
Your point about consciousness itself likely being physical is well-taken based on the modus ponens argument. Sean Carroll would argue that all real levels are just as real as each other. This gets around the need to try to explain the meaning of a stop sign with fundamental physics. The meaning we construct is real -- just as real as the fundamental level.
He doesn't think of the laws of physics as things that have separate existence, he thinks of them as descriptions of the world. He's a reality realist -- the physical world is real and it exists.
There is a different view -- one that argues that real reality is mathematical -- everything is processes and functions. We would call these people something like -- a mathematical realist. They argue that all that exists is processes and functions. So consciousness is a function of the brain. The brain is a function of fundamental physics, and fundamental physics is a function of mathematics.
They would have us question -- is mathematical language just a convenient way for us to talk about reality, or is reality mathematics?
But we may also want to consider that a traditional type of framework like Carroll's might not be the best way to think about reality.
Do waves on the ocean exist? Do waves have any property which defines them as being unique and separate from water, and the energy moving through the water?
Ocean waves might be best described as a pattern. The pattern is real, but it doesn't exist in the sense that it has no weight or mass. Like math, or the laws of physics. Or like the vast majority of reality at every scale, space. Real, but non existent.
Hey Phil! Great point! I often think about waves — they are physical in the sense that we can measure their properties, their amplitude (the height of the wave), their frequency (how often the waves crash in a given amount of time) and their phase (the position of the wave relative to its origin or another point of reference). But they are functions — real but only in the sense that they describe the shape of physical matter over time. The mind-bending question is, is this true even for things we call ‘real’ matter — the solid macro things that have weight and mass?
My sense is that the answer to your question is yes. All of reality is like the wave, a pattern, a complex array of relationships, math. Touching anything is like putting our hand in to an ocean wave.
There's perhaps a less abstract way to put this? The overwhelming vast majority of reality at every scale is space. Space is a single unified field uniting all things everywhere. So even if we grant the existence of "things", they are a very very small deal, because every "something" mostly consists of nothing.
It's interesting that when we try to understand reality we will often, perhaps typically, largely ignore space, even though space is what reality mostly is. My take is that this is because of the inherently divisive nature of thought, the observer, which is always trying to conceptually divide reality, and is thus obsessed with things, instead of that single phenomena which unites all things.
My own evolving theology has begun wondering if space has some property related to what we call intelligence. Is space God?
To illustrate, science claims that all of reality, all "things", arose from an infinitely small single point, ie. almost nothing. Apparently, almost nothing somehow gave birth to all somethings, which suggests space is not just an empty field in which all else happens.
I get most of my physics education from Netflix University. :-) I would imagine you are familiar with the great documentary by Jim Al-Kahlili called Everything and Nothing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvGJ4kwLZGc&t=706s. He spends an hour exploring the nature of space far better than I can.
If I understand, he claims that space is a vibrating field with countless super tiny particles popping in and out of existence a billion times a second. That is, according to him, space is in a sense alive, and not just an empty stage upon which all else happens.
The Catholics claim that God is ever present in all times and places. Joni Mitchell :-) claims that God is a "tireless watcher". Kinda sounding like space to me.
It is interesting that we ignore space. My thought is that we ignore space for the same reason we ignore ultraviolet and infrared light -- we simply don't have the hardware to perceive such things. Things we can't perceive are far less interesting to us.
I haven't seen the Everything and Nothing, but I will! It looks amazing. Thanks for the recommendation.
In a draft version of this post, I had a quote from astrophysicist Dr Ethan Siegel who says, "Inside your body, you aren't mostly empty space. You're mostly a series of electron clouds, all bound together by the quantum rules that govern the entire Universe." Which (to me) sounds a bit like your description of space -- "a vibrating field with countless super tiny particles popping in and out of existence a billion time a second". It's amazing to think about.
And now you've mention Joni Mitchell, I'll have to pull out some old records - such an amazing songwriter
You write, "Things we can't perceive are far less interesting to us."
To compound the problem, space is not a thing. Space is The Everything, the stage upon which things perform. Space isn't just another one of the countless things in reality which can be observed, but rather a fundamentally different phenomena, a single unified field.
Because thought operates by a process of conceptual division, we have an extreme bias for things, phenomena perceived to be separate and divided from other phenomena. Phenomena like space which is not divided seem hard for our brains to compute.
From what I've read of your writing, I think you might really like Everything and Nothing. It's a two hour show.
The first hour, Everything, focuses on cosmology, the universe, all of reality. The second hour, Nothing, focuses on space, tracing the history of science on the subject.
Imho, it's one of the better documentaries, as he does a great job of telling the story in a way which keeps the laymen's interest. I've watched it at least a half dozen times.
You can never go wrong with Joni Mitchell, in my geezer hippy opinion. She is the patron saint of hippy chicks, who are my preferred form of deity. :-)
Could it be that ocean waves exist in the same way that stop signs exist—as part of our shared social constructions like money, marriage licenses, etc.—things that are real because we agree they are and must treat them so? I mean now that you bring it up Phil I don’t know if waves are real while simultaneously I think omg am I crazy? Of course waves are real…
Hi Terry, I seem to be claiming that waves are real, but they don't exist. Other examples of "real but doesn't exist" could be math and the laws of physics.
By "doesn't exist" I mean a phenomena which has none of the properties we use to define existence, such as weight, mass, location etc.
Crazy is another thing that is both real, and doesn't exist. :-)
I differentiate materialism from physicalism based on, respectively, weak versus strong emergence (and align with the latter). I think there are emergent properties that are real and cannot be explained by their low-level properties. (As one of the most complicated and amazing emergent properties, I think consciousness easily fits in the category.) Per your questions: No (just the fundamental level); Not always, but with the brain, maybe; Yes, absolutely; No to "inconsistent", but yes to "totally new" (higher properties must be consistent with lower ones but can be unexpected).
That framework reminds me vaguely of Plato's divided line. Your "macro level" corresponds with the classical physics level. That division between the fundamental quantum world and the emergent classical one being one of the greatest mysteries in science. Besides consciousness perhaps one of the most urgent places the question of strong emergence arises.
If unicorns aren't real, how is it we all know exactly what the word refers to? If money and marriage are constructs, aren't unicorns as well? 🦄😊
My question when it comes to functionalism is what implements the function? What does the doing? It doesn't seem helpful to view spacetime that way. I take functionalism to be about equivalence between, for instance, our brains and something that replicates their function. A functionalist approach to spacetime suggests to me the notion of something else replicating that functionality.
Looking forward to reading more!
(I hope you'll forgive this: Quarks *are* leptons. One might say "quarks and electrons" to stay in the realm of matter, or "quarks and photons" to cover both particle bases.)
On the question of whether unicorns are constructs, like money, I think the claim would be that unlike constructs, illusions are mistakes. They are not useful in describing anything at any other level of reality.
Yes, functionalism does seem to be used in the sense of equivalence of 'doing' -- we say things like this performs the same function as 'that'. But I think your thoughts on functionalism raises other mind-bending questions about the metaphysics and science of causation. What types of things can stand in causal relations - events, facts, constructs, objects, properties, etc.?
Also, just briefly, I don't want to take credit for someone else's work, so to be clear, the framework and the questions are not mine. They are from Sean Carroll's book, The Big Picture. The framework is a taken directly, and the questions are similar (I've just changed the wording).
(If I recall, Plato classified reflections and shadows as illusions.) I had a sense that "mistake" was involved in the distinction but discussing what's "real" is as twisty as a box of corkscrews. Writers and fans of fantasy would define unicorns as quite useful (no mistake!), whereas some might define marriage as less useful (and a mistake). Once we get away from demonstrable physical reality, it seems to be dealer's choice.
And causality is a whole other rabbit hole, especially with regard to consciousness. "Words can move mountains." Our ideas have reshaped the world.
Understood the diagram was Carroll's. Missed that the questions were, too.
The dealer's choice, is a great way to describe it -- which really makes things tricky. Thanks, again for a great comment. You've given me a lot to think about.
That’s a good summary of the dominant views. But the debate is going nowhere because it’s stuck in an antinomy. Namely: the fundamental level is most important (because it’s fundamental); the fundamental level is least important (because what’s fundamental is unanalyzable and thus, in essence, meaningless). If two theories differ *only* at the fundamental level, then they don’t really differ at all.
Consciousness is a really hard and complicate debate so tackling it seems very difficult in the words you use. But very interesting! I have a hard time buying too much into the conversations on consciousness right now because it seems like an unsolvable problem. Many of the debates involved tackle exactly the problem you brought up, why does a ship measuring 59.99 m lose it shipiness? And does it really matter? What about measuring the coastline of Florida exactly? Is it even possible or matter, and the answer is no. A lot of discussions ramble around to no real avail because it’s so complicated, no ground can seem to be made. However, an interesting read and very well done, and sufficient brain activation while sitting in the airport :) thanks, Suzi!
Yes!!! Consciousness is really hard and complicated. But, as you say, very interesting. To me, the most interesting questions are those that might never be answered. They are endlessly fascinating.
This is wonderful, Suzi. Thank you. I more or less knew most of this but i’ve never seen it written down so clearly and succinctly before (and I have read Sean Carrol). Wonderful.
A couple of thoughts.
In software engineering, when we are building a model of the software that we are building, we have class models, sequence diagrams, component diagrams, object diagrams, etc. None of them is more correct than another but they each emphasise different aspects and we use them for different purposes. I feel the same way about, for example, functionalism vs identity theory. They aren’t competing theories; they are different ways at looking at the same thing. Functionalism can explain how the mind works in the absence of a brain — or of a different kind of brain like an octopus or Wall.E — while identity theory explains how all these “functions” are just interactions between neutrons. It’s not just a matter of reductionism or composition; they are just different ways of looking things.
Another thought. It occurs to me that we don’t actually have direct access to electrons, atoms, stop signs, or signals. All we have are observations of them. So, in a sense, it’s all models all the way down.
Thank you so much! I'm glad you found the article clear and helpful.
Your point about not having direct access to physical reality is fascinating to me. It reminds me of the predictive processing theory in cognitive neuroscience, which suggests our brains construct models of reality based on sensory input and prior knowledge. I wrote a little on the predictive processing theory in this weeks article. I'll write more on this topic. Actually, I'm planning an upcoming article, which I am now tempted to title -- "it's all models all the way down."
Hi. I thought I had left these "metaphysical like" musings long ago when I had completed my undergraduate studies. You, however, have rekindled my likes and understanding of these ideas. All I can say is "WoW" Thanks and keep writing; absolutely fascinating.
Stay well, stay healthy, stay safe.
Respectfully,
David Z Joseph
Hi David! Thank you so much! I'm so happy you enjoyed it.
I’m having a similar experience, David. Hey, I just checked your Substack and wanted to read more from you. But the cupboard was bare, though I see you have an excellent collection of subscriptions. I encourage you to write and post.
Great, now you're making me question the very nature of my reality and whether I'm simply a collection of atoms or an emergent property. Thanks a million.
Also, my 7-year-old daughter would like to have a word with you about the whole "Unicorns are an illusion" claim.
Sorry! 😬 For the record, I think you're real. As for unicorns, well... 7-year-old daughters can be very convincing.
Indeed. That's what makes them so good at gaslighting me, as I once described (https://substack.com/@whytryai/note/c-39868662)
Haha That's hilarious! I immediately like your daughter very much.
Well, both of you occasionally make me question my grip on reality, so you definitely have that in common!
Whenever I think about reality vs illusion I often am reminded of the pithy quote by John Stuart Mill: If you classify a situation as ‘real’ then it is real in its consequences. So if something is consequential I generally consider it ‘real’.
Also, might have read somewhere that because of our mirror neurons, we believe what read and watch are real, which is why they can fill us with real emotions and we can fall in love with fictional characters.
Then there’s the cognitive biases of if your friend gets a red Volkswagen, you start noticing all the red Volkswagens. So in this way, what you pay attention to creates your lived experience.
And then of course we get to Plato’s forms and the allegory of the cave!
Such a rich topic it deserves a several hour discussion with a cocktail of choice!
Such great points! Questioning reality with our inevitable cognitive, emotional, and attentional biases is problematic and, therefore, best done with an alcoholic beverage of choice.
And! Yes, Plato’s forms and the allegory of the cave is so relevant here. Thanks for mentioning it.
I grasp intuitively the inclusion of constructed subjectivity in the realm of real… Can’t recall the author of the three-world theory (Habermas? Kuhn?), the world, my world, and our world. We behave as if a stop sign is an invisible log in the road. So the stop sign is physical with a constructed function. Because we are conscious (the function of the brain) the stop sign is real to us but not to a dog. Reality is physical; consciousness by modus ponens must also be physical in order to be real (not an illusion). I am incapable at this moment of connecting any of this to your wildly interesting and structured framework. Help me get a foothold here.
Hi Terry, I think you're onto something with your stop sign example. While the stop sign is grounded in objective physical reality, its meaning and functional role is constructed. To a dog, it may register as just another object (unless it's a really smart dog), but to us with our language and cultural contexts, the stop sign takes on symbolic significance (constructed). This symbolic significance influences our behaviour. This highlights how constructed things emerge as meaningfully "real" to us.
I'm not sure I can make it all make sense. Questions about reality are some of the trickiest questions we face.
The Carroll's framework is not necessarily correct. It's just fits with the way philosophy and science traditionally tend to think about reality.
Where I see the framework being helpful is it gives us a way to think about how we talk about things -- for example a stop sign -- we can talk about a stop sign in different ways. At the fundamental level, the stop sign is made of atoms and forces. We don't really have any reason to talk about a stop sign at this level. Doing so would be very inconvenient. It would require us to list all the atoms and how they were arranged every time we wanted to talk about stop signs.
We tend to talk about stop signs at the macro level -- the physical characteristics of a stop sign -- it's shape, colour, etc. Or we talk about stop signs at the constructed meaning level -- what a stop sign means to us.
The question is, do the levels build upon each other? Can the constructed level be grounded in (reduced to) the macro level, and can the macro level be grounded in (reduced to) the fundamental level? Or is there something new -- a property of the higher levels (like solidness, or the meaning that a stop sign means we should stop) that can not be explained by the lower levels?
Your point about consciousness itself likely being physical is well-taken based on the modus ponens argument. Sean Carroll would argue that all real levels are just as real as each other. This gets around the need to try to explain the meaning of a stop sign with fundamental physics. The meaning we construct is real -- just as real as the fundamental level.
He doesn't think of the laws of physics as things that have separate existence, he thinks of them as descriptions of the world. He's a reality realist -- the physical world is real and it exists.
There is a different view -- one that argues that real reality is mathematical -- everything is processes and functions. We would call these people something like -- a mathematical realist. They argue that all that exists is processes and functions. So consciousness is a function of the brain. The brain is a function of fundamental physics, and fundamental physics is a function of mathematics.
They would have us question -- is mathematical language just a convenient way for us to talk about reality, or is reality mathematics?
But we may also want to consider that a traditional type of framework like Carroll's might not be the best way to think about reality.
Do waves on the ocean exist? Do waves have any property which defines them as being unique and separate from water, and the energy moving through the water?
Ocean waves might be best described as a pattern. The pattern is real, but it doesn't exist in the sense that it has no weight or mass. Like math, or the laws of physics. Or like the vast majority of reality at every scale, space. Real, but non existent.
Hey Phil! Great point! I often think about waves — they are physical in the sense that we can measure their properties, their amplitude (the height of the wave), their frequency (how often the waves crash in a given amount of time) and their phase (the position of the wave relative to its origin or another point of reference). But they are functions — real but only in the sense that they describe the shape of physical matter over time. The mind-bending question is, is this true even for things we call ‘real’ matter — the solid macro things that have weight and mass?
Hi Suzi, thanks for your reply.
My sense is that the answer to your question is yes. All of reality is like the wave, a pattern, a complex array of relationships, math. Touching anything is like putting our hand in to an ocean wave.
There's perhaps a less abstract way to put this? The overwhelming vast majority of reality at every scale is space. Space is a single unified field uniting all things everywhere. So even if we grant the existence of "things", they are a very very small deal, because every "something" mostly consists of nothing.
It's interesting that when we try to understand reality we will often, perhaps typically, largely ignore space, even though space is what reality mostly is. My take is that this is because of the inherently divisive nature of thought, the observer, which is always trying to conceptually divide reality, and is thus obsessed with things, instead of that single phenomena which unites all things.
My own evolving theology has begun wondering if space has some property related to what we call intelligence. Is space God?
To illustrate, science claims that all of reality, all "things", arose from an infinitely small single point, ie. almost nothing. Apparently, almost nothing somehow gave birth to all somethings, which suggests space is not just an empty field in which all else happens.
I get most of my physics education from Netflix University. :-) I would imagine you are familiar with the great documentary by Jim Al-Kahlili called Everything and Nothing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvGJ4kwLZGc&t=706s. He spends an hour exploring the nature of space far better than I can.
If I understand, he claims that space is a vibrating field with countless super tiny particles popping in and out of existence a billion times a second. That is, according to him, space is in a sense alive, and not just an empty stage upon which all else happens.
The Catholics claim that God is ever present in all times and places. Joni Mitchell :-) claims that God is a "tireless watcher". Kinda sounding like space to me.
Hey Phil! Great comment, thank you.
It is interesting that we ignore space. My thought is that we ignore space for the same reason we ignore ultraviolet and infrared light -- we simply don't have the hardware to perceive such things. Things we can't perceive are far less interesting to us.
I haven't seen the Everything and Nothing, but I will! It looks amazing. Thanks for the recommendation.
In a draft version of this post, I had a quote from astrophysicist Dr Ethan Siegel who says, "Inside your body, you aren't mostly empty space. You're mostly a series of electron clouds, all bound together by the quantum rules that govern the entire Universe." Which (to me) sounds a bit like your description of space -- "a vibrating field with countless super tiny particles popping in and out of existence a billion time a second". It's amazing to think about.
And now you've mention Joni Mitchell, I'll have to pull out some old records - such an amazing songwriter
You write, "Things we can't perceive are far less interesting to us."
To compound the problem, space is not a thing. Space is The Everything, the stage upon which things perform. Space isn't just another one of the countless things in reality which can be observed, but rather a fundamentally different phenomena, a single unified field.
Because thought operates by a process of conceptual division, we have an extreme bias for things, phenomena perceived to be separate and divided from other phenomena. Phenomena like space which is not divided seem hard for our brains to compute.
From what I've read of your writing, I think you might really like Everything and Nothing. It's a two hour show.
The first hour, Everything, focuses on cosmology, the universe, all of reality. The second hour, Nothing, focuses on space, tracing the history of science on the subject.
Imho, it's one of the better documentaries, as he does a great job of telling the story in a way which keeps the laymen's interest. I've watched it at least a half dozen times.
You can never go wrong with Joni Mitchell, in my geezer hippy opinion. She is the patron saint of hippy chicks, who are my preferred form of deity. :-)
I'm going to watch Everything and Nothing this weekend! Can't wait.
Could it be that ocean waves exist in the same way that stop signs exist—as part of our shared social constructions like money, marriage licenses, etc.—things that are real because we agree they are and must treat them so? I mean now that you bring it up Phil I don’t know if waves are real while simultaneously I think omg am I crazy? Of course waves are real…
Haha! Metaphysics will do that to you. We think we are questioning reality, but all we end up doing is questioning our sanity.
Hi Terry, I seem to be claiming that waves are real, but they don't exist. Other examples of "real but doesn't exist" could be math and the laws of physics.
By "doesn't exist" I mean a phenomena which has none of the properties we use to define existence, such as weight, mass, location etc.
Crazy is another thing that is both real, and doesn't exist. :-)
Good article!
I differentiate materialism from physicalism based on, respectively, weak versus strong emergence (and align with the latter). I think there are emergent properties that are real and cannot be explained by their low-level properties. (As one of the most complicated and amazing emergent properties, I think consciousness easily fits in the category.) Per your questions: No (just the fundamental level); Not always, but with the brain, maybe; Yes, absolutely; No to "inconsistent", but yes to "totally new" (higher properties must be consistent with lower ones but can be unexpected).
That framework reminds me vaguely of Plato's divided line. Your "macro level" corresponds with the classical physics level. That division between the fundamental quantum world and the emergent classical one being one of the greatest mysteries in science. Besides consciousness perhaps one of the most urgent places the question of strong emergence arises.
If unicorns aren't real, how is it we all know exactly what the word refers to? If money and marriage are constructs, aren't unicorns as well? 🦄😊
My question when it comes to functionalism is what implements the function? What does the doing? It doesn't seem helpful to view spacetime that way. I take functionalism to be about equivalence between, for instance, our brains and something that replicates their function. A functionalist approach to spacetime suggests to me the notion of something else replicating that functionality.
Looking forward to reading more!
(I hope you'll forgive this: Quarks *are* leptons. One might say "quarks and electrons" to stay in the realm of matter, or "quarks and photons" to cover both particle bases.)
Whoops, wait, you're right. I was thinking fermions. Never mind. 😏
Another great comment!
On the question of whether unicorns are constructs, like money, I think the claim would be that unlike constructs, illusions are mistakes. They are not useful in describing anything at any other level of reality.
Yes, functionalism does seem to be used in the sense of equivalence of 'doing' -- we say things like this performs the same function as 'that'. But I think your thoughts on functionalism raises other mind-bending questions about the metaphysics and science of causation. What types of things can stand in causal relations - events, facts, constructs, objects, properties, etc.?
Also, just briefly, I don't want to take credit for someone else's work, so to be clear, the framework and the questions are not mine. They are from Sean Carroll's book, The Big Picture. The framework is a taken directly, and the questions are similar (I've just changed the wording).
(If I recall, Plato classified reflections and shadows as illusions.) I had a sense that "mistake" was involved in the distinction but discussing what's "real" is as twisty as a box of corkscrews. Writers and fans of fantasy would define unicorns as quite useful (no mistake!), whereas some might define marriage as less useful (and a mistake). Once we get away from demonstrable physical reality, it seems to be dealer's choice.
And causality is a whole other rabbit hole, especially with regard to consciousness. "Words can move mountains." Our ideas have reshaped the world.
Understood the diagram was Carroll's. Missed that the questions were, too.
The dealer's choice, is a great way to describe it -- which really makes things tricky. Thanks, again for a great comment. You've given me a lot to think about.
That’s a good summary of the dominant views. But the debate is going nowhere because it’s stuck in an antinomy. Namely: the fundamental level is most important (because it’s fundamental); the fundamental level is least important (because what’s fundamental is unanalyzable and thus, in essence, meaningless). If two theories differ *only* at the fundamental level, then they don’t really differ at all.
Consciousness is a really hard and complicate debate so tackling it seems very difficult in the words you use. But very interesting! I have a hard time buying too much into the conversations on consciousness right now because it seems like an unsolvable problem. Many of the debates involved tackle exactly the problem you brought up, why does a ship measuring 59.99 m lose it shipiness? And does it really matter? What about measuring the coastline of Florida exactly? Is it even possible or matter, and the answer is no. A lot of discussions ramble around to no real avail because it’s so complicated, no ground can seem to be made. However, an interesting read and very well done, and sufficient brain activation while sitting in the airport :) thanks, Suzi!
Yes!!! Consciousness is really hard and complicated. But, as you say, very interesting. To me, the most interesting questions are those that might never be answered. They are endlessly fascinating.
This is wonderful, Suzi. Thank you. I more or less knew most of this but i’ve never seen it written down so clearly and succinctly before (and I have read Sean Carrol). Wonderful.
A couple of thoughts.
In software engineering, when we are building a model of the software that we are building, we have class models, sequence diagrams, component diagrams, object diagrams, etc. None of them is more correct than another but they each emphasise different aspects and we use them for different purposes. I feel the same way about, for example, functionalism vs identity theory. They aren’t competing theories; they are different ways at looking at the same thing. Functionalism can explain how the mind works in the absence of a brain — or of a different kind of brain like an octopus or Wall.E — while identity theory explains how all these “functions” are just interactions between neutrons. It’s not just a matter of reductionism or composition; they are just different ways of looking things.
Another thought. It occurs to me that we don’t actually have direct access to electrons, atoms, stop signs, or signals. All we have are observations of them. So, in a sense, it’s all models all the way down.
Thank you so much! I'm glad you found the article clear and helpful.
Your point about not having direct access to physical reality is fascinating to me. It reminds me of the predictive processing theory in cognitive neuroscience, which suggests our brains construct models of reality based on sensory input and prior knowledge. I wrote a little on the predictive processing theory in this weeks article. I'll write more on this topic. Actually, I'm planning an upcoming article, which I am now tempted to title -- "it's all models all the way down."