The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

[stevie]

Well for those who advocate metaphysics it's obviously a belief system.

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.

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.

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?

Such a person would assertively speculate about what isn't evident.

[stevie]

Well for those who advocate metaphysics it's obviously a belief system.

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?

Such advocates would assertively speculate about what isn't evident, claiming this and that in terms of what is not evident and believe [in] what is not evident.

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.

Metaphysical speculation is part of common everyday life, i.e. many conventional views are based on it. That is why that it isn't surprising that even physicists/scientist often advocate metaphysics.

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?

I have not read the thread you are referring to but I would agree that metaphysics is about views about what really exists, is [really] true and/or is [truly] real.

[Pattern-chaser]

Well for those who advocate metaphysics it's obviously a belief system.

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.

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.

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?

Such a person would assertively speculate about what isn't evident.

Surely "assertively speculate" is an oxymoron? Speculation is necessarily, er, speculative, and any conclusions drawn must be tentative, I think, when considering things that are not evident.

For example, it is possible that we are brains-in-vats, but this is an idea that is not "evident", so to assert anything other than that the example is possible goes beyond the evidence (in this example: none), and is therefore unjustified. Nothing can be justifiably asserted.

[Pattern-chaser]

Such advocates would assertively speculate about what isn't evident, claiming this and that in terms of what is not evident and believe [in] what is not evident.

Metaphysical speculation is part of common everyday life, i.e. many conventional views are based on it. That is why that it isn't surprising that even physicists/scientist often advocate metaphysics.

To make use of metaphysical thinking is just part of life and living for us humans, as you say. Making such use is not "advocating" metaphysics, but only applying it. Do you advocate set and number theory when you aver that 1 + 1 = 2? No, you don't, although you do make use of (i.e. apply) those theories and their underlying axioms.

[Gee]

I see what you mean about materialism being monist, in the sense of seeing matter as being the only 'real existent'. At times, I have embraced non dualism, which is essentially going beyond the duality of matter and mind. This is monist too, but differs from materialism, but in some ways, it may come down to the issue of emphasis. Some materialists suggest that consciousness is an illusion...

I don't see why any materialist (or anyone else) would suggest that consciousness is an illusion. It would be a very odd usage of the word "illusion", although I have seen some people using that word in some odd ways. It seems pretty clear, based on all the evidence we have, that consciousness exists and that it is always associated with the physical things called brains. That's not to say that new evidence couldn't arise at some later time to indicate something different. But it wouldn't make much sense (to me at least) to base my views on what evidence might turn up in the future. Since any evidence might turn up in the future, I'd then have to believe every possible thing.

Have you looked at "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett? He is very much a materialist, or physicalist, who hates religion and works hard trying to deny the intangible aspects of consciousness ending up actually dismissing intangible and subjective aspects of consciousness as illusion. This is probably why some philosophers have dubbed his book, "Consciousness Explained Away". Dennett is very popular in the science forums, so the idea that consciousness can be dismissed as "illusion" is more prevalent than you suspect.

Please note that when you state that consciousness is associated with the brain, you are talking about a specific level of consciousness -- not all consciousness. We work very hard to prove that consciousness in humans is the only real consciousness, and that which is in other species is dubious -- whether they have a brain or not.

...whereas the non dualitist does not think that at all, but sees mind and matter as being two interconnected realities, but in some ways it may be seen as only a subtle difference. The dualist is more distinct in the way of seeing mind and matter as clearly seprable.

Yes, despite the fact that no evidence exists to suggest that they are actually separable.

Actually this is not true. There is evidence, which usually falls under the explanation of paranormal -- you know, illusion. It is just that science likes to act like the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. But science translates it as see no unapproved evidence, hear no unapproved evidence, speak no unapproved evidence.

What I would add is that I am inclined to think in some ways there is some duality, with brain and mind not being identical because there is the translation from the physical to mental states, which depends on some underlying spark to ignite consciousness. However, to separate mind and matter is probably impossible because it would imply some kind of disembodied form of existence, rather like the ghost coming out of the machine.

I don't really know what you mean by the first sentence there. I don't know what you're referring to with the phrase "translation from the physical to mental states".

I don't know either, but would like to.

Gee

[Gee]

Gee wrote:

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.

It is kind of you to say that I write well, and I am sure that I could use help, but what are you offering?

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.

Agreed. I have often wished that I could have had more formal training in philosophy.

Do you realize that by its very nature academia causes conflicts between the disciplines of science, philosophy, and religion? In many cases this is not a problem, but in the study of consciousness I see it as a huge problem. A few years back, I studied the entire section of consciousness in the SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Afterward, I concluded that there was a tremendous amount of information on consciousness that I did not know; I also concluded that the SEP does not have a clue as to what consciousness really is.

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.

This wouldn't do me much good. About 20 years ago, I had a serious attack of MS (multiple sclerosis) which left me blind in my dominant eye for about 4 months. When my vision came back, I was dyslexic. It took me two years to learn to read again. I also lost some cognitive skills, a good half of my vocabulary, and the ability to work. I will never again have the abilities that I had before that attack, which may also have been a stroke along with the MS attack. My doctor would like me to pay a few thousand dollars for testing my brain, but since the results would do no more than satisfy his curiosity and not offer any corrections, I said, "Thanks, but no thanks."

I have picked up some information here and there, and find that Spinoza's thoughts on consciousness are closest to mine. But I will not be able to learn enough math to follow quantum theories. If you see me making some huge mistakes, it would be a kindness to say so. But also consider that I do not follow the leader in my opinions and positions.

Gee

[Gee]

@ Gee

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.

What would rattle cages was the idea that a person could have out-of-body experiences. These experiences were not a "model" to Talbot, they were part of his reality, and he needed to understand them. But science and classic physics does not explain these experiences at all, and Talbot was not religious, so there was no real help there. His investigations brought him to quantum physics and the Holographic Model, which were not well known, so the references were required to give the idea credibility. That was all I meant.

The Holographic Model is useful in that it can explain phenomenon that heretofore was unexplainable.

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.

It is not so very different. I am not advocating a religious perspective, I am saying that when someone states that consciousness is part of the very fabric of space, and religion says "God" is everywhere, they are talking about the same thing. It is just semantics.

Gee

[Belindi]

Gee wrote:

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.

It is kind of you to say that I write well, and I am sure that I could use help, but what are you offering?

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.

Agreed. I have often wished that I could have had more formal training in philosophy.

Do you realize that by its very nature academia causes conflicts between the disciplines of science, philosophy, and religion? In many cases this is not a problem, but in the study of consciousness I see it as a huge problem. A few years back, I studied the entire section of consciousness in the SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Afterward, I concluded that there was a tremendous amount of information on consciousness that I did not know; I also concluded that the SEP does not have a clue as to what consciousness really is.

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.

This wouldn't do me much good. About 20 years ago, I had a serious attack of MS (multiple sclerosis) which left me blind in my dominant eye for about 4 months. When my vision came back, I was dyslexic. It took me two years to learn to read again. I also lost some cognitive skills, a good half of my vocabulary, and the ability to work. I will never again have the abilities that I had before that attack, which may also have been a stroke along with the MS attack. My doctor would like me to pay a few thousand dollars for testing my brain, but since the results would do no more than satisfy his curiosity and not offer any corrections, I said, "Thanks, but no thanks."

I have picked up some information here and there, and find that Spinoza's thoughts on consciousness are closest to mine. But I will not be able to learn enough math to follow quantum theories. If you see me making some huge mistakes, it would be a kindness to say so. But also consider that I do not follow the leader in my opinions and positions.

Gee

Sure I will, Gee. if I can. Not "following the leader" attitude will have helped you recover your faculties after your illnesses.

I too like to be corrected if I make mistakes. These forums help participants to learn from each other by correcting and challenging. A good tutor does both of these without any time-wasting dross. Distance learning includes tutorials. I'm not a tutor, and I don't want to be one, however there are one or two people here I'd nominate for the job of distance -learning tutor if the occasion arose and they wanted the job.

I just did a search for philosophy text books, and I gather one needs to select one's level of reading comprehension and choose the academic level. Also one needs to choose a text book that is accredited by a reliable academic institution.

[Steve3007]

viewtopic.php?p=398218#p398218

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.

Metaphysical speculation is part of common everyday life, i.e. many conventional views are based on it. That is why that it isn't surprising that even physicists/scientist often advocate metaphysics.

As I said, a metaphysical position like (for example) materialism would be based on observations of what things appear to really exist, so it would be based on an informal version of what physics does. Does taking a metaphysical position like that constitute, to use your phrase, "advocating metaphysics"?

I have not read the thread you are referring to but I would agree that metaphysics is about views about what really exists, is [really] true and/or is [truly] real.

So if metaphysics is about things like that, why do you describe it as "claiming this and that in terms of what is not evident and believe [in] what is not evident.". How does taking a view as to what really exists constitute doing what you've described there?

[Pattern-chaser]

About 20 years ago, I had a serious attack of MS (multiple sclerosis) which left me blind in my dominant eye for about 4 months. When my vision came back, I was dyslexic. It took me two years to learn to read again. I also lost some cognitive skills, a good half of my vocabulary, and the ability to work. I will never again have the abilities that I had before that attack, which may also have been a stroke along with the MS attack.

I had something similar, but much, much, less than you have suffered. Nevertheless, the sudden, step-wise, loss of cognitive skills was clearly noticeable (to me), and affected my whole life, at work and at home. You've had a hard time, my friend, and I sympathise. And I admire your return from such a major setback; I'm not at all sure I could've done the same.

[stevie]

Well for those who advocate metaphysics it's obviously a belief system.

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.

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.

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?

Such a person would assertively speculate about what isn't evident.

Surely "assertively speculate" is an oxymoron? Speculation is necessarily, er, speculative, and any conclusions drawn must be tentative, I think, when considering things that are not evident.

For example, it is possible that we are brains-in-vats, but this is an idea that is not "evident", so to assert anything other than that the example is possible goes beyond the evidence (in this example: none), and is therefore unjustified. Nothing can be justifiably asserted.

I used the expression "assertively speculate" to refer to a speculative claim. So the meaning may also expressed with "Such a person would make speculative claims about what isn't evident."

Such advocates would assertively speculate about what isn't evident, claiming this and that in terms of what is not evident and believe [in] what is not evident.

Metaphysical speculation is part of common everyday life, i.e. many conventional views are based on it. That is why that it isn't surprising that even physicists/scientist often advocate metaphysics.

To make use of metaphysical thinking is just part of life and living for us humans, as you say. Making such use is not "advocating" metaphysics, but only applying it. Do you advocate set and number theory when you aver that 1 + 1 = 2? No, you don't, although you do make use of (i.e. apply) those theories and their underlying axioms.

I don't think so. E.g. if a persons uses "god" as argument this persons is advocating theism merely through arguing this way. The same is applicable to a person making speculative metaphysical claims, regardless of the context being everysay life or philosophical conversation.

[stevie]

viewtopic.php?p=398218#p398218

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.

Metaphysical speculation is part of common everyday life, i.e. many conventional views are based on it. That is why that it isn't surprising that even physicists/scientist often advocate metaphysics.

As I said, a metaphysical position like (for example) materialism would be based on observations of what things appear to really exist, so it would be based on an informal version of what physics does. Does taking a metaphysical position like that constitute, to use your phrase, "advocating metaphysics"?

Saying "what things appear to really exist" isn't a metaphysical position because it's about appearances. A corresponding metaphysical position would be saying "what things really exist".

I have not read the thread you are referring to but I would agree that metaphysics is about views about what really exists, is [really] true and/or is [truly] real.

So if metaphysics is about things like that, why do you describe it as "claiming this and that in terms of what is not evident and believe [in] what is not evident.". How does taking a view as to what really exists constitute doing what you've described there?

Because "really exists" isn't evident at all. It's actually a double metaphysical claim: 1. reference to a non-evident 'reality' by means of "real" and 2. reference to a non-evident 'existence' by means of "exist". What may be evident might be an appearance if - and only if - there is an agreement about what appears. But imputing 'reality' or 'existence' to an appearance is an add-on which is completely unnecessary and only advocates of metaphysical speculations will insist on it.
But of course two followers of metaphysics may agree that what appears necessarily has to be reality and existing. But that then is just an example of a convention within a community of believers. I don't mind them having such a convention based on belief and I am far from asserting the opposite ('is unreal and does not exist') because that also would be a metaphysical speculative claim. All I say is that evident appearances need not be judged as to 'reality' and/or 'existence' because the evidence of appearances is sufficient to deal with them.

[Steve3007]

As I said, a metaphysical position like (for example) materialism would be based on observations of what things appear to really exist, so it would be based on an informal version of what physics does.

Saying "what things appear to really exist" isn't a metaphysical position because it's about appearances.

I didn't say "what things appear to really exist" is a metaphysical position. I said a metaphysical position like materialism would be based on observations of what things appear to really exist. It seems clear to me that the metaphysical position called materialism is based on the materialist's observations of the world. That doesn't mean it is those observations of the world.

A corresponding metaphysical position would be saying "what things really exist".

Yes, and that would be based on what is observed.

Because "really exists" isn't evident at all. It's actually a double metaphysical claim: 1. reference to a non-evident 'reality' by means of "real" and 2. reference to a non-evident 'existence' by means of "exist". What may be evident might be an appearance if - and only if - there is an agreement about what appears. But imputing 'reality' or 'existence' to an appearance is an add-on which is completely unnecessary and only advocates of metaphysical speculations will insist on it.

It depends what you mean by "completely unnecessary". Unnecessary for what purpose? It looks like you're taking a solipsistic view that the only thing we have evidence for is a bunch of sensations. I take the view that the patterns and similarities in those sensations are evidence for the existence of a thing called reality. You can call that reality a model in my mind whose purpose is to help me to describe and predict those sensations if you like. But there's no good reason to do that.

But of course two followers of metaphysics may agree that what appears necessarily has to be reality and existing. But that then is just an example of a convention within a community of believers. I don't mind them having such a convention based on belief and I am far from asserting the opposite ('is unreal and does not exist') because that also would be a metaphysical speculative claim. All I say is that evident appearances need not be judged as to 'reality' and/or 'existence' because the evidence of appearances is sufficient to deal with them.

So do you see no function for concepts like "reality"?

[stevie]

As I said, a metaphysical position like (for example) materialism would be based on observations of what things appear to really exist, so it would be based on an informal version of what physics does.

Saying "what things appear to really exist" isn't a metaphysical position because it's about appearances.

I didn't say "what things appear to really exist" is a metaphysical position. I said a metaphysical position like materialism would be based on observations of what things appear to really exist. It seems clear to me that the metaphysical position called materialism is based on the materialist's observations of the world. That doesn't mean it is those observations of the world.

Fine, but "a metaphysical position like materialism would be based on observations of what things appear to really exist." isn't appropriately expressed. Why? Because ""a metaphysical position like materialism" is a position of followers of metaphysics and followers of metaphysics would not speak of "what things appear to really exist" but of "what things really exist".

A corresponding metaphysical position would be saying "what things really exist".

Yes, and that would be based on what is observed.

Yes, but not only that because what is observed is believed as being really existent.

Because "really exists" isn't evident at all. It's actually a double metaphysical claim: 1. reference to a non-evident 'reality' by means of "real" and 2. reference to a non-evident 'existence' by means of "exist". What may be evident might be an appearance if - and only if - there is an agreement about what appears. But imputing 'reality' or 'existence' to an appearance is an add-on which is completely unnecessary and only advocates of metaphysical speculations will insist on it.

It depends what you mean by "completely unnecessary". Unnecessary for what purpose?

For the purpose of applying the conventional name and for other purposes like e.g. scientific investigation.

It looks like you're taking a solipsistic view that the only thing we have evidence for is a bunch of sensations.

Nowhere have I expressed such a view. On the contrary sensations are not evident because they cannot be publically observed independent of beliefs. However verbal expressions about sensations are evident because these can be publically heared or read independent of beliefs.
If you and me are seeing a car then the car is an evident appearance.

I take the view that the patterns and similarities in those sensations are evidence for the existence of a thing called reality. You can call that reality a model in my mind whose purpose is to help me to describe and predict those sensations if you like. But there's no good reason to do that.

Maybe you are referring to subjective evidence? From my perspective evidence is necessarily connected with public observability, i.e. accessibility by the five senses independent of beliefs. But if you are referring to "patterns and similarities in those sensations" as verbal expressions but not the "patterns and similarities in those sensations" as such then these verbal expressions of course are evident.

But of course two followers of metaphysics may agree that what appears necessarily has to be reality and existing. But that then is just an example of a convention within a community of believers. I don't mind them having such a convention based on belief and I am far from asserting the opposite ('is unreal and does not exist') because that also would be a metaphysical speculative claim. All I say is that evident appearances need not be judged as to 'reality' and/or 'existence' because the evidence of appearances is sufficient to deal with them.

So do you see no function for concepts like "reality"?

They function as the basis for speculations. If someone feels the need to speculate then "reality" is necessary for this indvidual. But the concept isn't needed for e.g. scientific investigations.

[Steve3007]

Fine, but "a metaphysical position like materialism would be based on observations of what things appear to really exist." isn't appropriately expressed. Why? Because ""a metaphysical position like materialism" is a position of followers of metaphysics and followers of metaphysics would not speak of "what things appear to really exist" but of "what things really exist".

OK, so we come back to this group of people you've created and called "followers of metaphysics". You assert that these people don't speak of "what things appear to really exist". So are you saying that there is a group of people you've experienced who ignore all of their sensations? If I am a materialist, would you accept that that is my metaphysical position? Or would you only accept that it's a metaphysical position if I am a "follower of metaphysics", with all that you say that entails?