sophie

leyline you claim that the perception of space is quite simply inconceivable within the rationalism of science, but if spatial arrangement is deduced from simultaneous-proximity then all is well again. Simultaneous-proximity if deduced from a singularity would give space real meaning from alll positions of possible perspectives. In other words by my body holding a large degree of SP (simultaneous-proximity) then all other bodies should experience things similarily because of the SP factors.

Is the explaination too heady?

leyline

John Page

well if you do believe that perceptions occur exclusively inside the head then i return to my previous line

"it in fact does not make sense to say that perception is in the brain and the thing percieved is on the outside, without necessarily saying that they are different."

whether you see perception as made of mental processes, cells in the nervous system or whatever, it doesn't matter, as long as you concede that they are different to what is on the outside. And that crucially they are different because they are not on the outside.

Thats my whole point. That particular difference works for everything except for the perception of space itself.

John Page

Not "necessarily". As I pointed out in my previous post, "It seems that we are aware that we have thoughts and we're trying to figure out what they are." In this case, the thing perceived is an artefact of the brain.

I think you are misrepresenting that materialism necessarily claims things are either "inside" or "outside". Neither do I see materialism as claiming that things can't be sensed as "different".

Perhaps this explains why I think you're heading off in a dualist direction when, in fact, that is not necessary.

Cheers, John

leyline

"Not "necessarily". As I pointed out in my previous post, "It seems that we are aware that we have thoughts and we're trying to figure out what they are." In this case, the thing perceived is an artefact of the brain."

i have to admit i don't have a clue what you mean. If a perception is an artefact of the brain, and one that is inside it, how can it not necessarily be different to the thing outside it? At least in respect to the fact that it is inside the brain. Surely you concede that if perceptions occur inside the brain and existences outside it, then they must at least be different by virtue of being in spatially two seperate places?

John Page

Agreed. "perception of a tree" is not "a tree". You are supposing the reason for this is that one thing is outside the organ of perception and the other is inside. I think one can ask why one supposes this - and see below.
I didn't say it wasn't different. An idealist would say that everything is inside the mind. An idealist/materialist would say that the mind is made of material and everyting that is material is the mind.

When I say that my view comprises a, b, c etc. I'm just saying that makes sense to me. You seem to be asking the question why the concept of "space". IMO the concept of space arises from the notion of distance running in multiple directions, a useful tool in tracking things in our reality. I do not think we perceive space in the way that you describe it - we perceive objects and their changes over time through sense data which the mind interprets using a spatial model.

Cheers, John

BTW, nice topic. I've found that the more succinct the OP the better the response.

leyline

Sophie

"but if spatial arrangement is deduced from simultaneous-proximity then all is well again. Simultaneous-proximity if deduced from a singularity would give space real meaning from alll positions of possible perspectives. "

i am not sure what you mean by simultaneous-proximity. According to relativity, simultaneity has no universal meaning anyway, but i am not sure if that is relevant. As for the singularity are you suggesting that we all have one in our brains? And how would you define a singularity anyway? As in that which occurs in a black hole?

The only bit that i can relate to directly is your line "but if spatial arrangement is deduced from ...." ie perception of space is a deduction.

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

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)

So space perceived is not space existent, anymore than a tree percieved as a sound , or colour, or touch is the existent tree. If they were then the tree would be in our heads according to the head centred perception paradigm.

leyline

ok john page

with all due respect i was not discussing or trying to find fault in your personal model of perception. The point of the thread is that the head centred mechanistic perception paradigm of science is all good and hunky ........... until you try to concieve of the perception of space itself under that paradigm. It is simply inconcievable. Science relies upon the subjective experience as being the thing in itself.

What i pointed out as a consequence of this is that space therefore holds a very special axiomatic position in science and that all things must be related to it. Even time can be reworked as an aspect of space such as in the block universe model. Some of the latest theories consider space not to be a vacuum, but an energy. Thus even mass and energy are concievably reworkable into different aspects of multidimensional space.

As long as everything has to occur in space (including human perception) then all seems well, until you consider the perception of space itself.

leyline

BTW

" I didn't say it wasn't different. "

no but you said that it wasn't necessariliy different. Thus you allowed the possibility that it could be the same. ie you didn't commit either way. It could be different but then it might not.

I am saying that it is necessarily different.

John Page

I disagree, people can measure it and obtain repeatable results - one of the foundations of scientific method.

The brain as the organ of perception in the manner discussed here is a relatively new view (in my non-expert opinion), the grey matter having been regarded as unknown filler for quite a while.

Please note in my previous response I view space as a concept used to interpret reality. We perceive that there is space through this interpretation. In this way, space appears as a universal whereas (I think we agree) it is not.

As an analogy, we can view god as a concept used to understand things about reality. We can perceive that there is a god through this interpretation and god will appear to be a universal w.r.t. this view.

Contrasting the previous two paragraphs I come back to the physical measurability of space through scientific methods. You might find it interesting to contemplate the discovery of sub-atomic particles that pass right through our bodies, these were not even imagined a few years ago but are nevertheless measurable phenomena.

Cheers, John

John Page

Then we necessarily agree to differ!