leyline

I am interested John Page

Do you really believe that if the perception of say a tree occurs in one part of space and that the tree exists in another, that they are not necessarily different despite the fact that they occur in different spaces?

Or are you saying that the above is true just for the special case of space, where even though from a rational perspective the perception of a region of space occurs within a subspace (the head), that nevertheless the resulting head centred perception of that region is not necessarily different to the region itself? ie calling the head a subspace is a false rational deduction.

John Page

No, but they are not necessarily about different things. Its curious that under the brain perception model you are actually saying the "concept of the concept of a tree" is different than the "concept of a tree" (the latter of which you are interpreting as being the tree itself).

I don't disagree with the above for the same reason I don't think the set of all sets is a member of itself.
Not necessarily.

Cheers, John

leyline

How can a thing in one region of space not be different to a thing in another? Moreover if one of the regions of space is packed with brain tissue, and the other is a tree, how can they not be 'about different things"?

"you are actually saying the "concept of the concept of a tree" is different than the "concept of a tree" (the latter of which you are interpreting as being the tree itself). "

!!!!

I have to admit john page that i cannot unambiguously decipher what you mean from your responses so I will try a different approach.

According to the scientific paradigm the tree exists in space. It is not a brain concept. I am talking about the scientific paradigm: -

Real space with real tree and real brain in it (i.e. brain and tree separate in space). - Perception of tree occurs in brain. - Therefore perception of tree is necessarily different to the tree at least spatially because spatially the perception is confined within the space of the brain -

Q of scientist - Is perception necessarily different in kind to the reality it refers to as well? - Yes of course - we don't believe in miniature trees being created in the brain at the point of perception because we are materialists - as consummate materialists we have discovered that scale makes an enormous difference because of atoms - a miniature bonsai tree might work, but an elephant wouldn't. - therefore we know that perceptions are not literal physical recreations of what is perceived. - but we do believe that perceptions are an aspect of physicality, specifically the brain, but we just haven't figured it out yet.

Q What about the perception of space? - is the perception of space necessarily different in kind to space just like the perception of the tree is necessarily different in kind to the tree?

- uh..... yes i suppose so – well if the perception of space is necessarily different in kind to real space, then your whole assumption that the brain occurs ‘inside’ space is based upon the transference of a quality of a subjective experience to that of the real thing, despite the fact that science claims they are different in kind.- this is a reversal of the deductive arrow of science - i.e. in the case of space, science necessarily intrinsically trusts the quality of the senses. For everything else it doesn't (necessarily). – which means that for the special case of space the scientific edifice of reality is based upon the axiom that space exists, deducted purely from sensory experience. (in the case of time for example, it is willing to consider it as a complete illusion as perceived by humans, and that it is in fact just another spatial dimension in a block universe. Also a tree for example does not have a colour. That false perception is caused by a quality of light. And so on..)

Further if science responds differently to the above question and says that the perception of space is a special case, whereby it is not different in kind to real space, then science cannot tell whether it is studying the real world, or the subspace of perception that occurs in the head. Not only that but both positions set up an inconceivability in the perception of space scientifically, which isn’t surprising once one sees space as an axiom of the paradigm. (that’s the nature of axioms)

Now as I said a while back I am not criticising science for accepting that space exists from the senses, and many of the essential qualities that go with it, BUT what I am saying is that it is not in the position to criticise other paradigms of existence that trust the qualities of different senses, purely on the basis of that trusting the senses is suspect, because science does it as well.


lol

John Page

Under the paradigm you describe, they are.
"Tree" is a mind/brain concept! That a material object exists (at a definable point in time) having spatial coordinates and other features that we match the mind/brain concept of a tree is, I think, a more accurate description.

I suspect you are ascribing more rigidity to the scientific paradigm than exists. I think its more to do with repeatable measurement and explaining the relations between the experimental subjects through observation. Maybe its ironic that the results of experiments are causing you question the conventional understanding of space. I regard your question as a valid inquiry into the nature of human perception of space and how this squares with "counter-intuitive" theories of relativity et al.
Yes, we need to understand in scientific terms how our perception of space arises. Of yes, and our perception of perception as a scientific or intuitive paradigm.....
But science is not based purely on trusting the senses. In fact, it seems to me to have arisen from the observation that our "native" senses can be unreliable.

Cheers, John

sophie

leyline, to clarify what I mean by simultaneous-proximity. To begin the singularity is self-simultaneous. The theory of relativity holds that precise simultaneity seems unknowable. The theory that one thing is simultaneous with itself is a definitive fact. If one thing replicates or divides itself and say it is part of a DNA strand then the whole functional unit has to be in simultaneous proximity in order to make the appropriate connections. The theory of existence entails that all matter which is visible in this dimension must be simultaneous-proximate in order to have its appearance of unity.

The world for a human starts with the approximate simultaneity of the individual human parts and dropping the approximate adjective whenever we speak of the human as a whole.


leyline, you note, spatial relationship is a deduction within perception, then again as a deduction it is different from that which it is deducing from.

I reply that it is different but it is connected.

you continued with, this is my whole point. Even deductions occur within the head as concieved by science. Thus whatever you deduce remains there. ie what we sense as space according to science, is the result of an internal process. Even if there is some kind of projection going on it is not, according to science creating the actual space outside. (else perception would not be in the head)

I concieve my answer as, no because the arrangement of that from which it is deduced is correspondent to the representation of it. If represented as not(matter) then the truth of its qualification is identical in its presumed real form or in its representational form. In its representational form, space becomes not(representation of matter).

So space perceived can be identically represented and it would not be represented the same as matter is represented.

*I wanted to add, that this simultaneous-proximate paradyne works to eliminate space from all equations and replace space with time-parameters.

leyline

john page

"I think its more to do with repeatable measurement and explaining the relations between the experimental subjects through observation. "

yes, but that phrase has no meaning without the concept of space being assumed to exist. "relations between" according to science is dependent upon the assumption that space exists. 'between' is a concept that is intrinsically spatial in the scientific paradigm.

"But science is not based purely on trusting the senses. In fact, it seems to me to have arisen from the observation that our "native" senses can be unreliable. "

precisely. thats my point. science does claim that, with the exception of space, in which it trusts that the subjective experience of space as including fundamental properties of 'real space' that it relies upon. That is not to say that science claims that in percieving space our perception is actual real space. After all it now claims that time is a spatial, but we don't percieve it as that. BUT it does claim that when our subjective experience of space tells us that the brain resides in space, that that particular subjective experience is trustworthy, and a property of 'real space'.

In fact science agrees with the common sense view that it is inconciavable that the brain does not reside in a real space. However, for all other subjective experiences as you pointed out science claims that it is a mistake to trust the senses. Thus WRT space, science relies upon the subjective inconcievability that the brain does not reside in space. This is also why the perception of space is inconcievable. ie there is an essence to subjective space that is true of real space, and this particular essence of subjective space (but not all essences of subjective space) is thus not percieved. It is the real thing directly unlike all other perceptions.

Of course i agree with science on this, like most people, but it follows that if a person also believes that another essence of subjectivity, say emotions, is trustworthy in that it is an essence of the thing in itself (but not neccesarily all aspects of subjective emotions), although science can disagree it cannot object on the grounds that we are trusting an essence of our subjectivity...... because science does WRT space.

eg if a person claims that we cannot trust our subjective experience that the brain occurs in space, and science agreed because it stuck to that general principle for all subjectivity, it would then find itself without the fundamental medium that it requires for scientific representation of reality, and the empirical testing of it.

another angle on this follows:-

Sophie

"The theory of existence entails that all matter which is visible in this dimension must be simultaneous-proximate in order to have its appearance of unity."

well i would point out the light centred and space centred assumptions that are implicit in that phrase in order for it to have meaning. "dimension" has no meaning without the assumption of space.

"I reply that it is different but it is connected."

yes of course. First of all 'connection' has no scientific meaning without the assumption of real space. Secondly, it is precisely that connection that is the point where science trusts the direct subjective experience of space. The aspects where subjective space is not the same as real space, defines the difference.

"no because the arrangement of that from which it is deduced is correspondent to the representation of it"

yes ok that is one method of trying to resolve the issue, i assume you mean that that correspondence is simultaneous. BUT if two things are simultaneous then one of them cannot be said to have caused the other. Thus real space does not cause subjective space in that particular respect. That is precisely why the perception of space is not scientifically concievable, because science says that cause and effect are fundamantal. Thus real space cannot cause subjective space, because there is a fundamental characteristic between the two that is simultaneous real, and therefore in that respect the relationship is not causal.

John Page

Not all relations are intrinsically spatial. If anything, I would consider them all change related - it is the detection of movement that provides a spatial context, it is the exposure of our tongue to changed substance that provides a relartive sense of taste.

Its not clear whether you are you saying the concept of space does not exist or that space does not exist?

Really? Where is this claimed?
Space is a concept and I'm not sure your anthropomorphism of "science" is appropriate. I think scientific observations show that the brain does exist in reality ("real space" is another thing). We can measure a brain's dimensions, the meaning of which is sptially interpreted in the mind. Perhaps you can come up with a non-spatial interpretation of scientific observations.
Perhaps "Some scientists think it inconceivable that the brain does not reside in space"
Right, so we need to understand how the brain represents reality to itself......to likely discover that one's conception of reality is necessarily relative to the characteristics of one's brain.

Cheers, John

sophie

leyline, responded well with, well i would point out the light centred and space centred assumptions that are implicit in that phrase in order for it to have meaning. "dimension" has no meaning without the assumption of space.

Objects exist in a dimension. sometimes this is misrepresented and space is used by physicists. This space and that space. The use of containment to represent space then to use the word space to represent the absence of material in the containment really veils the point of to which space we are referring.

Your above response reeks of mismanagement of the utilisation of the term space. Can you clarify. I for one strictly use the term dimension to imply an enclosure or a containment field. On one approach it is improper to call the enclosure we live in space because there is mass in the enclosure. The enclosure may consist of mass and space and we call space everywhere there is no material or no mass.

If we utilise space in terms of the space-time continuum then the space there implies where mass and no mass interact, intriguingly enough there is no space on the space-time continuum when mass is addressed, space is displaced - perhaps gone to its many worlds (chortle).

sophie

My reply was : "I reply that it is different but it is connected."

leyline rebutted with, yes of course. First of all 'connection' has no scientific meaning without the assumption of real space. Secondly, it is precisely that connection that is the point where science trusts the direct subjective experience of space. The aspects where subjective space is not the same as real space, defines the difference.

I fa·ce·tiously conclude the argument with,
when you say real space you mistakingly mean existence. I doubt there is anything such as real space. It is only an acyronym for absence of material. The universe is based on material not space, it is only through the arrangements of the material does what lie between various masses propose the concept of space.

Like time which is an ernestwhile partner of existence, space is contingent to mass and the material arrangement. We note that mass is itself an apparition of existence thus space is the third order in the existence relationship. Existence our grand master holds the most importance and this is what scientists try to model as the space-time continuum. Note in continuum there is an implied dt which is the foundation of existence.

leyline

ok John Page

"Its not clear whether you are you saying the concept of space does not exist or that space does not exist? "

i find this statement bizarre. I have never said either of them. Whether speaking personally or through the scientific paradigm.

"We can measure a brain's dimensions, the meaning of which is sptially interpreted in the mind."

it is because the mind interprets spatially that science claims that it is measuring the brains dimensions. Not the other way around.

"Perhaps you can come up with a non-spatial interpretation of scientific observations."

well since i claim that space is a fundamental context to all scientific observations (all things according to science occur in or as a spatial dimension.) i am not sure why you ask me to provide evidence for the contrary.

WRT science now claiming that time is spatial

"Really? Where is this claimed? "

i find it hard to believe that you do not know exactly what i am refferring to particularily since i have mentioned it before. You are therefore not being genuine in your surprise.

i feel that the discussion between the two of us has gone as far as it usefully can.