Perception of Duality

[Wechtlein Uns]

It is common, or rather, it was common, in the western world, to believe in and understand a duality of mind and matter. There were two ultimate poles on the stratum of the universe: The observed and the observer. The mind and the matter. In recent history, however, almost all of a scientific disposition have moved to the conclusion that there is no opposing pole opposite of matter, and that there is not a single cell in your body that represents "you."

Interestingly enough, knowing that this is so doesn't make the duality of everyday perception go away. It is one thing to take the brain apart cell by cell, but quite another to introspect your own thoughts. Really, "what are we"? It is certain that we are composed of matter, just a brick is, but a brick doesn't have sentience, or a concept of self, and neither do our most advanced artificial intelligences. Truth is, what is it about sentience that doesn't seem to be inherent in matter.

It is clear that a brick could not know itself. But slightly less clear, is that the mind can not know itself either. It's similiar to the problem of having a sword cut itself.

Here's a thought: Without awareness of objects, we would cease to exist. Let me put it this way, a container is made to store things. We store and archive information, all in our heads, it's all there. Our genes are information. Life, in this sense, is information's battle with the universe, it's fight to preserve itself in a chaotic and destructive world. But there is something else. The function of a container is not just to store things. Why does it store things? So that we can take those things out later.

It is well known that all phenomena is transient. This computer, while it seems to be constant on the macro scale, is never truly the same from moment to moment. And I as a container lack any inherent existence at all, except by what I contain, which even then is constantly changing.

I am going to suggest then, that the scientific view that matter/energy is the sole substance of this universe is incorrect. Truth is, if the energy of sub-atomic particles were to stop interacting with other sub-atomic particles, I have strong hunch that they would cease to exist. I think, that it would be more accurate to say that the final pole, the defining substance of existence, is communication. Interaction. Letting someone know, really know that you exist.

And I'm tempted to think, interestingly enough, that when the second law of thermodynamics finally has it's way, and the universe reaches perfect equilibrium--it will finally be over. The universe might cease to exist.

After all, who will know it is there?

[Will]

Forgive my non-answer, but I can't imagine humanity being aware of the answer of this question for a long time. While some of us are constantly attempting to push the frontier of our understanding, the truth is that we really don't know a great deal about the nature of existence yet.

I will say that mind over matter, at least the supernatural interpretation of that phrase, is certainly incorrect. I always took "mind over matter" to mean one can concentrate through pain or discomfort, one can think one's way out of some pain.

The view of matter and energy is a dated one, but it's a good way to introduce someone to physics. If I were going to explain the nature of matter to a child, I'd start macro and move smaller. Start with cells, then move to compounds, then elements, then atoms, then subatomic particles, etc. You can't start at the most complex point because it violates intuition so much. It violates human intuition that matter and energy tend to exist. It violates human intuition that the universe is expanding. Thus I don't know if I'd call the view of matter and energy incorrect, I'd call it incomplete. There's more in the lesson plan after matter and energy.

I really like your take on communication being the only thing holding together the universe. It begs comparisons to human society.

[Wechtlein Uns]

yeah, I don't think humanity has been aware of this problem for a long time either. It's one of those things that only surfaces after thousands of years of answer after answer. It makes you wonder just how far introspection can take a person, and at which point they either are satisfied or give up.

actually, no, I don't think that will happen. The way it works is, a person could get tired of asking and answering questions. His son won't. If you know what I mean.

[AnnaM]

Truth is, what is it about sentience that doesn't seem to be inherent in matter.

Are helicopters inherent in matter?  Sentience is an emergent system, in our case largely predicated upon pattern recognition.  The difference between the experience of sentience and the science of neurology is akin to the difference between being in a relativistic vessel and watching one fly by.  In fact this differentiation can be taken even further, the explanation of anything (gravity, electrons, mass) are not the same as the fact of gravity, electrons and mass.

[Wechtlein Uns]

Truth is, what is it about sentience that doesn't seem to be inherent in matter.

Are helicopters inherent in matter?  Sentience is an emergent system, in our case largely predicated upon pattern recognition.  The difference between the experience of sentience and the science of neurology is akin to the difference between being in a relativistic vessel and watching one fly by.  In fact this differentiation can be taken even further, the explanation of anything (gravity, electrons, mass) are not the same as the fact of gravity, electrons and mass.

I'm afraid sentience isn't inherent in matter. It's inherent in communication. You know your brain? It doesn't just sit there, but rather communicates with itself. All those individual brain cells are communicating with the others, and they are forming structures that communicate with other structures, which form the hemispheres which communicate with each other. And throughout the whole thing there comes a vague impression that there is an "I" which exists.

It's communication. Interaction. I don't think it's a coincidence that scientists can only be sure of a particles existence only[/b] whewn it's interacting with something else.

[SSY]

Could you not interpret those communications as merely electrical signal running along nerves? The electricity being energy, and energy and mass being the same thing, this would imply those communications are just mass, thus sentience really is inherent in matter after all? As long as the matter system is in a functioning state, ie, your brain has the ability to send those impulses, I think we can be considered sentient.

I agree with Anna on this, sentience seem emergent to me. Those communications ar really just phenomena caused by the structure of the brain and the activity of its cells ( which is really just a function of the cells structure ).

[Wechtlein Uns]

Could you not interpret those communications as merely electrical signal running along nerves? The electricity being energy, and energy and mass being the same thing, this would imply those communications are just mass, thus sentience really is inherent in matter after all? As long as the matter system is in a functioning state, ie, your brain has the ability to send those impulses, I think we can be considered sentient.

I agree with Anna on this, sentience seem emergent to me. Those communications ar really just phenomena caused by the structure of the brain and the activity of its cells ( which is really just a function of the cells structure ).

Well, in the end, scientists have reached an impasse as to what this "matter" is really made of. For example, this electricity you mention is made of electrons. What are electrons made of?

Well, electrons are quantum particles, and quantum particles only exist when they are interacting with something else. What are they when they are not interacting? They are quantum waves, which indicate only "potential" interaction. So when you get down to it, you really can't have an electron at all unless it's interacting with something. But if that's the case, can we really say that the electron has an existence apart from interaction? Nope. The only sense you could make of it would be that the base unit of the universe is interaction itself, which finds form in the various quantum particles that result as it manifests itself, leading ultimately to the macro world we have today.

 

[Caucmusulman]

I am amazed by your hypothesis because it is so close to what I think about when I think of matter, such a great thought, gotta admit that. interactions with something else truly are a very important factor, because many things have been discovered inderectly by looking at ineractions, besides, if the big rip actually happens, and every single piece of matter is pulled away from everything else, the universe most likely will cease to exist, no communication=no universe.

[PipeBox]

Well, in the end, scientists have reached an impasse as to what this "matter" is really made of. For example, this electricity you mention is made of electrons. What are electrons made of?

Well, electrons are quantum particles, and quantum particles only exist when they are interacting with something else. What are they when they are not interacting? They are quantum waves, which indicate only "potential" interaction. So when you get down to it, you really can't have an electron at all unless it's interacting with something. But if that's the case, can we really say that the electron has an existence apart from interaction? Nope. The only sense you could make of it would be that the base unit of the universe is interaction itself, which finds form in the various quantum particles that result as it manifests itself, leading ultimately to the macro world we have today.

 :blink:

We use waves in the quantum form (though you will never, ever, here someone say "quantum wave" if they aren't on an episode of star trek, or otherwise have discovered something I am ignorant of) to express that something is there without giving specifics.  ANY interaction will suffice to "make" (though it was always there) this quantum particle you speak of, including observing it.  It is always there, but you have to interact with something to express where it is.   It is useless suggesting that something is not there soley because it is not interacting with anything else at that point in time.  Electrons never stop being "real," if you will, we just don't know where they are without them interacting with something.  We cannot observe them if they do not interact with something.  Suggesting they don't exist when we don't see them is akin to me suggesting you aren't real when I'm not perceiving you.

Now, quantum particles can be funny little buggers, don't get me wrong.  They can tunnel to distant places and apparently through other material.  Their positions can be altered by being observed.  We can never know both exactly where a subatomic particle is, and its vector at the same time.  All of this is documented and none of it makes the particles cease being denizens of reality when they aren't "communicating."

Now, if you want to make the broad statement that only what you perceive is real, and reality is only what you perceive just that instant, then you will absolutely correct, and things will only exist when they are aware of each other by some mechanic.  Of course, this has the nasty side effect of making everything behind you unreal until you face it, or me unreal as soon as you finish reading my post.  If you afford me and whatever is behind you the benefit of being perceived previously (and it standing to reason that we should still exist when outside your perception) then you should afford electrons the same.

Matter and energy interacting are responsible for everything, including our perceptions of them.  If we want to classify "interacting" it must demonstrate itself not to be dependent on matter and energy.  But it is.  The ability to interact is an inherent property of matter and energy.

In the end, I'm not really sure where you were going with this.  It reads as "Only what is perceived is perceived," or "Matter is only perceived by other matter," which is useless to say.  What else is supposed to happen?  Were you counting on it being real if it worked any other way?  It's true, our brains won't work without interaction, but for that interaction to stop, we would need to stop time.  The interactions are a property of our brains, thinking is a property of how that matter is organized.  There is no duality here.  Your hypothesis requires things to stop existing when they do not interact, and since this is not the case, matter is not a property of interaction, but vice versa.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I am feeling a bit light-headed today, as though I can think clearly, but I'm pretty sure your argument is based on a false premise and bad information regarding electrons (where did you get the idea that electrons ceased to be when they weren't interacting?).

I'm gonna go get something to eat, hopefully it's just my mind running on empty.

[SSY]

.

You said this SO much better than I ever could have.

[PipeBox]

.

You said this SO much better than I ever could have.

Thanks.  

[DennisK]

Your perception of reality is always correct.  If you believe something to be true, it is correct in your mind.  If you change your views through persuasion or exploration, you are right again.

Scientific studies usually "prove" the hypothesis of the scientist(s) who run them.  The more conviction, the more proof is found.  Their findings are either supported later by some experiments, disproved by other experiments or ignored.  Your perspective of the "correct" data guides your reality.  I don't refute the laws of physics because they are my current reality.  Is the universe truly pliable to one's beliefs?  Probably not, but perceptions of the universe are.

In regards to electrons, how do we know they are there when they aren't observed?  It is likely that other dimensions exist.  Therefore, how do we know one way or another there isn't interaction between dimensions at an atomic or subatomic level?  What if electrons or subatomic particles are trans-dimensional?

[VanReal]

[AnnaM]

The absurdity of anything 'non-material' has long been proven by the Epicureans and Stoics, I can't believe people still debate the subject.

[alias]

we view the particles as well, particles. the best definition, or way of looking at the particle as, that i have come up with is that of understanding it as waves. just like a photon is a 'packet' of light energy or a wave.

a particle is just a way (of describing, or) to quantize the infinite. that dude that was greek and came up with that theory that stumped scientists for decades. the theory that was solved by saying that you can take an infinite number of steps to go from a to b.. crapydoo!! cant remember his name. anyway.

to quantize somthing is only a way for us to understand that phenomenon. in doing this, the entity (elecron) that you have quantised, will be understood, but only to that level, i.e. to the level whereby that elecron/entity behaves like a 'particle'.

to move away from this ridgid way of thinking for the sake of progression is definately needed. this is what has happened with M theory. through this, the understanding that we have needed for so long, is in its infancy.

another way to explain this is using the progrssion of einsteins theory. einstein, using the baseline of the speed of light, (as in his day they knew not of anything exceeding the speed of light-i wander if they were ignorant of the core of black holes..anyway..), using the baseline of the speed of light, the famous equation was constructed. but now this baseline that the speed of light is the limit, has broken down and now, more of an exponential nature is found to the speed of light.

i hope that this further explains that you are only correct to the degree to which you set your own baseline/limit/standard, irrispective of the true reality of the entity /elecron you wish to analyse. this further suggests that, in looking at a seemingly simple entity /elecron, and set your own standard/goal/baseline, you can further your understanding BUT dependant to the level at which you wish to go.

so.

i feel that if you wish to see a continous wave as a discrete particle, then up to you. a wave can take any shape. so that wave is always existing, but just takes that form. so it was always there, but upon viewing, it manifests itself into an entity /elecron  and we analyse this.

im open to analysis. thanks by brothers!