The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
I know that you say you don't see why materialists or anyone else would suggest that consciousness is an illusion, and I am puzzled by it. But, there are some mainstream thinkers who have, especially Dennett, as well as the behaviourist, BF Skinner. I find their arguments extremely hard to grapple with, and I wonder if it just an attempt to say that inner reality does not matter. It appears to me to be a way of dismissing the experience of consciousness.
As far as my own statement about the translation from physical to mental states what I am trying to say is that there is so much exploration of neuroscience in terms of the wiring. However, the actual experience of consciousness is harder to understand. If anything, I am probably coming from the opposite position to Dennett and Skinner, believing that focus and attention needs to be upon inner reality and awareness for understanding consciousness.
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
What is known as the 'holographic principle' differs from an image hologram and has to do with the boundary being able to project what is within; however, it only works in a universe with an anti desitter universe with a negative cosmological constant which our universe doesn't have.
Still,
Since the entropy of a black hole is known
To depend on the surface area of
The event horizon and NOT on its volume,
Then our third dimension MIGHT BE a projection.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
Yes, the holographic model only borrows its name from the image of the hologram, but I have to admit that I have always been fascinated by holographic images. Black holes are interesting, but symbolic black holes too. It is interesting how science and the symbolic aspects of the arts come together as aspects for thinking about the nature of reality.
-
- Posts: 667
- Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
- Location: Michigan, US
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
My statement did not just apply to your current response, but to a summation of your responses in this thread. You do not appear to understand metaphysics at all, and seem to think that science does not require interpretation. You would be wrong if that is what you think. There is a reason why science is referred to as a child of philosophy -- it is an extension of philosophy.stevie wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 3:40 amI don't think so considering the quote I have responded to.Gee wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 2:36 amSo stevie,stevie wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 1:54 amI don't think so. Based on and in line with already validated knowledge a logically consistent hypothesis is set up that can be experimentally tested. If the hypothesis can be confirmed by experiments then the concept of "hypothesis" is transformed into the concept of "theory". So there is no room for metaphysics.JackDaydream wrote: ↑October 24th, 2021, 8:11 am @ stevie
... Many do seek the whys within the physical sciences but even these do draw upon metaphysics. ...
Maybe you don't think so, but on the other hand maybe you should think about it a little more.
Yes. Science is about objective information, but all information is interpreted, subjectively, so what one person may see as evidence another may not. Take the example of a policeman trying to get valid information from a group of witnesses who saw a crime in progress. One would think that if they all saw the same thing, their testimony and evidence would be the same, but it rarely is. Their five senses take in the information, which is then colored by their subjective biases, beliefs, experiences, memories, distractions, etc., so that the "evidence" is not as cut and dried as you imply that it is. Truth is subjective, which means that there will always be interpretation, which means that metaphysics is inevitable.
But neither of them has anything to do with Michael Talbot's book, The Holographic Universe.
I can not believe that you used the phrase "follower of metaphysics". I remember that the members of that science forum also could not tell the difference between religion and philosophy. Generally speaking religions have "followers", metaphysics does not.
Which is a good thing, because if we did not have epistemology seeking knowledge, then we may not really need science.
OK. Do you have some information to add regarding the current topic?stevie wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 3:40 amTaking the brain as the source of consciousness it depends on the inclination of the user as to whether the current topic is related to the brain or the consciousness. Looking at the title of this thread brain or consciousness may be called 'aspects of the current topic' but not 'the current topic'.
Gee
-
- Posts: 667
- Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
- Location: Michigan, US
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
I agree that metaphysics is difficult and confusing, but I don't agree that one should dismiss it out of hand while posting in the metaphysics forum. It seems a little disrespectful. I would never do that in a science forum, even though my personal opinion regarding some science is less than it could be.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 10:49 amIn fairness, our recent topic on defining or describing "metaphysics" failed to discover any form of words with which all (or most) could agree.
One reason for this is that the word is used as a catch-all term, so the things that it gathers together and refers to are not as intimately associated as intuition might expect.
It's like "unconscious mind". We have the "conscious mind", which refers to one part of our minds, and "unconscious mind" that refers not to one part, but to all of the other parts of the mind: a catch-all term, which understandably leads to some confusion. Especially when the one-part term, "conscious mind", is contrasted with the all-parts term, "unconscious mind", as though they are somehow equivalent, and therefore, comparable. But this is not about the mind, it's about metaphysics, and this paragraph is offered only as an example of catch-all terms, and how they can sometimes lead to confusion.
Gee
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
I don't mind if you are a follower of metaphysics. It is just that I am not. No need to open up new sub-topics because we would always end up with you arguing from a metaphysical perspective and me rejecting that and there wouldn't be any benefit.Gee wrote: ↑October 27th, 2021, 11:11 pmMy statement did not just apply to your current response, but to a summation of your responses in this thread. You do not appear to understand metaphysics at all, and seem to think that science does not require interpretation. You would be wrong if that is what you think. There is a reason why science is referred to as a child of philosophy -- it is an extension of philosophy.stevie wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 3:40 amI don't think so considering the quote I have responded to.Gee wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 2:36 amSo stevie,stevie wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 1:54 am
I don't think so. Based on and in line with already validated knowledge a logically consistent hypothesis is set up that can be experimentally tested. If the hypothesis can be confirmed by experiments then the concept of "hypothesis" is transformed into the concept of "theory". So there is no room for metaphysics.
Maybe you don't think so, but on the other hand maybe you should think about it a little more.
Yes. Science is about objective information, but all information is interpreted, subjectively, so what one person may see as evidence another may not. Take the example of a policeman trying to get valid information from a group of witnesses who saw a crime in progress. One would think that if they all saw the same thing, their testimony and evidence would be the same, but it rarely is. Their five senses take in the information, which is then colored by their subjective biases, beliefs, experiences, memories, distractions, etc., so that the "evidence" is not as cut and dried as you imply that it is. Truth is subjective, which means that there will always be interpretation, which means that metaphysics is inevitable.
But neither of them has anything to do with Michael Talbot's book, The Holographic Universe.
I can not believe that you used the phrase "follower of metaphysics". I remember that the members of that science forum also could not tell the difference between religion and philosophy. Generally speaking religions have "followers", metaphysics does not.
Which is a good thing, because if we did not have epistemology seeking knowledge, then we may not really need science.
OK. Do you have some information to add regarding the current topic?stevie wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 3:40 amTaking the brain as the source of consciousness it depends on the inclination of the user as to whether the current topic is related to the brain or the consciousness. Looking at the title of this thread brain or consciousness may be called 'aspects of the current topic' but not 'the current topic'.
Gee
-
- Posts: 667
- Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
- Location: Michigan, US
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
My thought is that Talbot knew that he was presenting an idea that would rattle some cages, so he needed to present as much valid and credible evidence as was possible; hence, the 20 pages. There are some eastern thinkers that have been promoting the idea of correlations between quantum physics and religious ideas, or consciousness, but Talbot was not religious as far as I know. His references deal with neurology and physics, and his book was very well received, but I can tell you it is way out of my league.JackDaydream wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 10:29 pm I am glad to receive a reply from someone who has read Talbot's ideas. I have to admit that I didn't pay too much attention to the notes, but just sought to understand the basics of the perspective from a philosophical point of view.
When I was a child I read a statement that was written on a building downtown. It said, "Man is a physical, mental, and spiritual being." Many years later, I concluded that this statement is true, as it is not disputed by philosophy, religion, or science. After further study, I realized that all life is physical, mental, and spiritual, which many people will disagree with, but there is a great deal of evidence to support this position.JackDaydream wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 10:29 pm I would definitely agree that the understanding of the nature of consciousness can probably be best understood by science, philosophy and religion having ' equal voice'.
Because life is our only evidence that consciousness exists; and because life is physical, mental, and spiritual; and because science studies the physical, philosophy studies the mental, and religion studies the spiritual, it appears we need all three disciplines to fully understand life and consciousness. Each of the disciplines has multiple theories that fall flat because they do not have all the information needed to come up with a comprehensive theory.
I don't need science and religion to be compatible, just respectful of each other.JackDaydream wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 10:29 pm My own searching is one which seeks to combine these, but many people don't think that science and religion are compatible at all. Of course, there are such varying approaches to religion, and the perspective from which I approach religious experience and knowledge is to see the wide panoramas of comparative religion.
My approach is much like yours; I looked for commonalities in religions and found them. All religions promote a morality; morality is just laws guided by emotion. All religions bond their people, usually requiring meetings for prayer or study, to promote their togetherness. Bonding is done through emotion. All religions have sacraments, rites, and/or rituals that note specific developments in our lives such as birth, the age of consent, coming of age as a preteen, marriage, giving birth, aging into crones and elders and death. All of these developments, every damned one of them, relates to hormone changes and all hormone changes cause emotional changes. Religions were celebrating our changes in hormones thousands of years before they knew what hormones were. Then there is the work that religions do regarding charities, grief counseling, and celebrating our births and marriages. It is all about emotion. That is what religion studies -- emotion. We call it spirituality, but what it actually is, is emotion.
Science and religion have to approach their studies differently because science searches out knowledge, much like philosophy does, but religion can't do that because emotion is not actually known -- it is experienced. Because of the difficulty of the subject matter, religion has to use symbols, art, stories and poetry, dance, etc., in order to convey it's messages. Then if you add in the history and culture of the people (bonding) and run all of that through the unconscious aspect of mind and Jung's archetypes, it is pretty easy to see why religions become what they are.JackDaydream wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 10:29 pm Science and religion approach life differently, in the sense that science looks for theories based on evidence and religious worldviews are based on symbolic ways, as expressed in stories. But, Talbot' s emphasis on how even the holographic model is a model only captures the way in which knowledge is limited.
I am not even certain that language (knowledge) is up to the task of explaining consciousness. I keep coming back to the idea that knowledge (language) is static -- on it's own it does not do anything. If you take the greatest thoughts known to man and write them down and put them in a drawer, years later they will still be there. They will not do a thing. The physical (matter) at least takes up space and over time will decay, so there is some action there. Emotion (the spiritual) is an actual force that has/is movement, attraction and repulsion, but it is not known, only experienced.JackDaydream wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 10:29 pm It may be about the way in which explanations are based on models, descriptions and metaphors that is extremely important, and that the understanding of consciousness needs to blend these varying aspects in order to come to a fuller understanding because consciousness involves all of these aspects in their fullest complexity.
Anyway, I certainly don't have the answers.
Gee
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
Anyway, I certainly don't have the answers.
The following is not a criticism of Gee who writes well.It is not a criticism at all. I want to help.
All of philosophy, perhaps especially metaphysics, is an academic discipline, which same as other academic disciplines is quite difficult to understand unless one has been taught it by an experienced teacher at some level appropriate to age and experience.
It is possible to learn it at a distance, say from an accredited beginner's text book.
There are some rightly famous philosophers who do have answers, and these are sometimes difficult to read , so a proper teacher can guide the learner through the maze of philosophy and philosophers and recommend secondary sources to study.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
As Gee said:
There is no such thing as a "follower of metaphysics". It is not a belief system; it only gathers together a particular grouping of philosophical issues.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
Absolutely. I think this is why, as discussed in that other topic, the conversation gets needlessly confused if everybody has their own different definition of a word, like metaphysics. We get silly notions like "being a follower of metaphysics", and others, like the idea that it's all about teleology or that it's somehow all about emotions or all about consciousness or numerous other misuses. Surely better to stick to what it actually means in the context of philosophy.Pattern-chaser wrote:There is no such thing as a "follower of metaphysics". It is not a belief system; it only gathers together a particular grouping of philosophical issues.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
I think that you are right to point out that the ideas in the book, 'The Holographic Universe' probably rattled some cages, but, essentially, it was only a model. It is extremely different from some kind of 'religious' perspective, because it comes as simply as an idea to be thought about like many other scientific models, nothing more or nothing less. My understanding is that its advocates presented it in such a way, recognizing that it was only a model.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
Yes, I think that most people, including those on a philosophy site have such different perspectives on the idea of metaphysics. The biggest problem may be if this is not recognised, and anyone tries to presume that their own is the ultimate one, without regard for the ambiguity of the term and the implications for philosophy discussion. Somehow, the way metaphysics is defined or understood may have implications for the agenda of questions about reality, and what perspectives are considered important or relevant for debate.
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
Well for those who advocate metaphysics it's obviously a belief system. And those who merely try to defend it against criticism without advocating it may do so because they still believe that metaphysics has something to say about an alleged "reality".Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 28th, 2021, 6:13 amAs Gee said:
There is no such thing as a "follower of metaphysics". It is not a belief system; it only gathers together a particular grouping of philosophical issues.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
What kinds of activities would "advocating metaphysics" consist of, in your view? What is it that you think these advocates believe, as a system, that non-advocates don't believe? I think you're doing the same thing that a lot of people do in having the vague notion that metaphysics is a thing that religious/mystical/spiritual/humanities oriented people do, and non-metaphysics (physics? science?) is what people who don't believe in all that do. Correct me if I'm wrong there.stevie wrote:Well for those who advocate metaphysics it's obviously a belief system.
As discussed in this topic if we're using the term "metaphysics" in the sense in which it's used in philosophy (which would seem reasonable, given the forum in which we're talking) then understandings of what metaphysics entails have evolved over the years, but now, at any rate, it largely consists of ontology: consideration of what entities we deem to really exist. So, for example, a person who takes the ontological stance that matter is the only real existent is taking a metaphysical stance called materialism or physicalism. They may, of course, take that stance on the basis of what has been observed about the world and what appears to be coherent (i.e. that makes logical sense). So, in a sense, they'd be taking that stance on the basis of physics. So then we'd have a metaphysical stance/position/view which is based on the discoveries of physics (or the wider activity of observing the world and drawing logically consistent conclusions from those observations, of which physics is a specific, formal instance.)
Would you agree with the above?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
stevie wrote:Well for those who advocate metaphysics it's obviously a belief system.
I can only reiterate what Steve has just said. Personally, I love metaphysics, and metaphysical topics for discussion. But I do not "follow" metaphysics, I do not "advocate" metaphysics - how would one even DO that? - and it plays no part at all in my personal belief system. It's just an interesting area of philosophy.Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 29th, 2021, 6:09 am What kinds of activities would "advocating metaphysics" consist of, in your view? What is it that you think these advocates believe, as a system, that non-advocates don't believe? I think you're doing the same thing that a lot of people do in having the vague notion that metaphysics is a thing that religious/mystical/spiritual/humanities oriented people do, and non-metaphysics (physics? science?) is what people who don't believe in all that do. Correct me if I'm wrong there.
Please describe for us, stevie, what a "follower" or "advocate" of metaphysics might be, and how we might recognise such a person. What would their advocation (?) look like?
"Who cares, wins"
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023