Regressive physics penetrates
all aspects of our lives. Among its peculiarities is the objectification of
motion, which was Einstein’ greatest philosophical error.[1]
It apparently is what makes so many have so much difficulty understanding matter
and motion. This is in spite the fact that matter (subject) and the motion of
matter (predicate) form the basis of almost
every sentence in every language. Now comes the venerable, if poorly edited,
New York Times offering more of the same:
Consciousness
Isn’t a Mystery. It’s Matter.
By Professor Galen Strawson,
Department of Philosophy, University of Texas, Austin, TX
At first thought, you may think that this piece might be a breath of fresh air. After all, it forgoes the usual claptrap about “spirituality” and “unfathomableness,” professing to approach the subject from the standpoint of materialism. Unfortunately, the professor’s “materialism” might better be called “matterism.” Like Einstein, he is a victim of “objectification” or “reification,” which is the tendency to regard motion as matter. The title says it all: consciousness is matter. Egads, that should stir up the Mind-Brain Muddle in the halls of academia for quite awhile. Now, readers know that the universe displays only two fundamental phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. That is as simple as our sentence structure. There should be no Muddle. The brain is matter and the mind is the motion therein. Dead brains have no consciousness. What is so hard about that?
Lesson
in Distinguishing Motion from Matter
At
first, I thought that Professor Strawson’s article was some kind of academic
spoof. However, the fact the Times published this, even if it
was considered “opinion,” means that others actually believe this stuff. That
does not mean that you should. So I
have decided to set up a little exercise for you. It goes like this: While
reading the article count the number of objectifications. When you have
finished counting just send me a comment to this Blog post. The first three to
get it right will get a free ebook copy of "The Scientific Worldview"
or "The Ten Assumptions of Science."
To
get you started, here is the second one (the title, of course, is #1):
“consciousness is itself a
form of physical stuff”
Hints: Remember that matter (i.e., “physical stuff”)
exists and has xyz dimensions. Motion does not exist, it occurs.
Philosophy
and physics sidelights: Note Strawson’s confusion about the nature of energy (remember,
it’s a calculation). He is reluctant to accept microcosmic infinity as the
explanation for the nature of “physical stuff.” He then makes a complete
turn-about, viewing the necessary failure to discover a finite particle “intrinsic”
to all matter as his excuse to adopt wholesale immaterialism.
Deepak and other solipsists would be proud!
[1] Borchardt, Glenn,
2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of the
Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011,
College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68
[10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407].
Posts
7 comments:
part 2
It apparently is what makes so many have so much difficulty understanding matter and motion. This is in spite the fact that matter (subject) and the motion of matter (predicate) form the basis of almost every sentence in every language. Now comes the venerable, if poorly edited, New York Times offering more of the same:
{You are confabulating two different sentences. Matter (subject) is that which exists (predicate) and Motion (subject) is matter in motion (predicate).}
Prt 3
It’s ironic that the people who are most likely to doubt or deny the existence of consciousness (on the ground that everything is physical, and that consciousness can’t possibly be physical) are also those who are most insistent on the primacy of science, because it is precisely science that makes the key point shine most brightly: the point that there is a fundamental respect in which ultimate intrinsic nature of the stuff of the universe is unknown to us — except insofar as it is consciousness.”
{Strawson means by this that our human ability to hold experience and to use reason to interpret with it, is a major part of what is consciousness, to humans. The only ones so far that have figured this out, that we know of, that is.}
Part 4
At first thought, you may think that this piece might be a breath of fresh air. After all, it forgoes the usual claptrap about “spirituality” and “unfathomableness,” professing to approach the subject from the standpoint of materialism. Unfortunately, the professor’s “materialism” might better be called “matterism.”
{Why not give Strawson a break here since I am pretty sure he would use matter and material in essentially the same way, at least as intended in this article, that is. He does not know of your “spin” on these two words. “Matter is an abstraction for the world of physical objects” and as for “material” I couldn’t find a definition in your book TSW, but assume you would accept “That which exists” as a close approximation. Personally, I do not separate the two much at all. Material is matter, or matter is material, whatever. Just a matter of semantics.}
Part 5
Like Einstein, he is a victim of “objectification” or “reification,” which is the tendency to regard motion as matter. The title says it all: consciousness is matter. Egads, that should stir up the Mind-Brain Muddle in the halls of academia for quite awhile. Now, readers know that the universe displays only two fundamental phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. That is as simple as our sentence structure. There should be no Muddle. The brain is matter and the mind is the motion therein. Dead brains have no consciousness. What is so hard about that?
{Well, it is wrong that’s what is so hard about it. Matter and motion are inseparable. Didn’t you say that in TSW? Humans see (think) matter and motion as two separate items or objects, but some know that they really are inseparable. Right?}
Part 7
“consciousness is itself a form of physical stuff”
{ consciousness {as an abstract idea} is itself a form of physical stuff {as an abstract idea} what is wrong with expressing it that way?}
Part 8
Philosophy and physics sidelights: Note Strawson’s confusion about the nature of energy (remember, it’s a calculation). He is reluctant to accept microcosmic infinity as the explanation for the nature of “physical stuff.” He then makes a complete turn-about, viewing the necessary failure to discover a finite particle “intrinsic” to all matter as his excuse to adopt wholesale immaterialism. Deepak and other solipsists would be proud!
{I don’t read Strawson as an immaterialist in this article, even If he is considered that in his earlier life. I don’t know. I will try to look up his current perspective.}
Part 1
Regressive physics penetrates all aspects of our lives. Among its peculiarities is the objectification of motion, which was Einstein’ greatest philosophical error.[1]
{I don’t know why we cannot have an object in thought, such as motion is such an object. Granted it is an abstraction from what is real, but then everything in the human mind is such an abstraction, anyway.}
Post a Comment