Zizek: seems like a nob
- Thread starter el-ahrairah
- Start date
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I have loads of disagreements with Dennett, but I've never, ever seen him write in an obscure manner. He's very clear about what he means.
Mad4ziz
Member
It means that the contribution we make (that you refer to) is constitutive of the world, rather than the world being "out there".
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I know - note I said 'just a theory'
Mad4ziz
Member
Thats fair. He is clearer than Z. But I think Z may be onto something. Then again..
The contrast between analytic and continental philosophy in two sentences:
Dennett makes me think "hmm". Zizek makes me think "lolwut".
Dennett makes me think "hmm". Zizek makes me think "lolwut".
But Dennett's phrases are like engineer's jargon. Which is for real men.
Mad4ziz
Member
Bugger. I thought I'd get the ladies by being continental...Sartre did, and I'm even uglier than him
love detective
there's no love too small
so, articul68
who did that offend the most
who did that offend the most
TruXta
tired
Why didn't you say so rather than using a 100% obscurantist term? And why can't both be true? In fact, both are true. It's what science tells us. It's what common sense tells us. We've no real reason to disbelieve that the world as we know it is the only world there is. If humans were wiped
TruXta
tired
Which is not the same as having convincing arguments.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
True. As I said, I have disagreements with Dennett. I think his 'multiple drafts' theory of consciousness is wrong, for instance, and his and Churchland's dismissal of qualia as a problem to be explained is also imo wrong. Subject for another thread to explain why I think he's wrong, but I understand his arguments well enough. Zizek - well I've not read much, but what I have read has made as much sense to me as those on this thread defending him - ie not much.
I'm quite glad you've turned up. I was going to introduce some science to this discussion earlier as an example of the light science can shed on these questions. Bjorn Merker has come up with a model of consciousness that does not require many of the things that, imo, the likes of Dennett have been distracted by – all the clever things humans can do. This article is written for neuroscientists, but it's readable, fascinating, and I think largely right, at least in what it is trying to address, namely what it is to, as Merker puts it, 'inhabit a neural simulation'.
imo one of the hardest things with consciousness is finding the right questions to ask. That is where science has to come in. It's pointless trying to understand consciousness without it.
TruXta
tired
I'm not too bothered about qualia being a problem. It is a problem, but a pretty minor one in a scientific sense. I have much bigger problems with bullshit. I don't mind "continental" philosophy as such, I just think certain directions, like the Lacan-Zizek one, is plain and simple bullshit. Zizek is at least half-way enteraining and half-way tongue in cheek. Lacan actually believed he was onto something big. Derrida had one grand ideaBut then you have people like Deleuze, Gadamer and Habermas, who at least have some intelligible message to their arguments.
TruXta
tired
How does the TOR take into account that we constitute the world?
TruXta
tired
Are you being serious?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Not sure I understand you either, Knotted. I'm intrigued as I'm sure you understand the basics of relativity. It says that no one frame of reference is privileged, but it actually give completely precise means to deal with that, doesn't it - to measure precisely what would be happening in other frames of reference.
Yes, we're possibly talking at cross purposes. Descriptions of various dynamical systems change with the inertial frame of reference of the observer, but this is in order to explain the fact that the speed of light does not change regardless of the inertial frame of reference. And yes we can work out various precise descriptions for various frames of reference.
Yes, I'm being a bit sloppy. There is a difference between "relative" and "subjective" (and conversely "absolute" and "objective").
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Ok, question:
Quantum entanglement depends on simultaneity. In a very real sense, two electrons doing the same thing at the same time in different places can be considered to be the same one electron in both places. Now relativity teaches us that simultaneity depends on your frame of reference. Change your frame of reference and different events become simultaneous.But would that mean that different entanglements will be seen to occur depending on the observer's frame of reference? Or have I missed something obvious?
Quantum entanglement depends on simultaneity. In a very real sense, two electrons doing the same thing at the same time in different places can be considered to be the same one electron in both places. Now relativity teaches us that simultaneity depends on your frame of reference. Change your frame of reference and different events become simultaneous.But would that mean that different entanglements will be seen to occur depending on the observer's frame of reference? Or have I missed something obvious?
TruXta
tired
Yes, relative here has a precise mathematical meaning, whereas subjective isn't even a term that enters into any equation. I think you've been reading about observers when reading descriptions of what inertial frame of reference is. "We observe an inertial frame of reference" etc. The thing is that that's just a way of relating it back to more easily understandable concepts for lay people. It has no real theoretical implication, e.g. it doesn't matter whether the "observer" is a stone, a star or a squirrel. Basically all any "frame of reference" means is that we have two or more objects moving through space-time, thus moving relative to each other.
No it doesn't quite.
Quantum mechanics has been made compatible with special relativity but not general relativity. You can put a relativistic correction on quantum mechanics and you end up with quantum field theory. So all this can come out in the wash.
You are probably interpreting QM in a certain way - probably subconsciously. Some interpretations require a notion of simultaneity - namely the pilot wave interpretation (and maybe others) but even this can be modified.
Bell's theorem about inequalities does not depend on any notion of simultaneity. It is something that needs to be stated very carefully. I think I will say (without looking it up) that it states that if there is a causal description of an entangled pair then that description cannot be described in terms of local causality (ie. there is not a state of affairs in the past time cones of both observers that can be used to predict the results). Bell's notion of non-local does not require simultaneity, but merely that if there is an action then it is a superluminal action.
I don't think it is just about making it more accessible to lay people. There is the matter that all that we know about all of this is based on observations. We are generalising from our (subjective) observations to an objective description and the theory is verified when it explains our (subjective) observations. And I don't think "subjective" is any less precise than "relative". Subjective=relative to a (human) observer.
I do think the objective nature of the universe is relative to our frames of reference. The various momentums of various bodies are both real and relative.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Ta. I assumed I must have been getting something wrong. I'll refresh my memory of Bell's theorem. I'm a bit rusty on this stuff annoyingly. When I study it, I grasp it, but when I neglect it, I lose that grasp somewhat.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Not sure I agree with that. The qualities of our qualia and how these qualities are expressed may, I suspect, shed a great deal of light on the way our consciousness develops. How do those qualities become attached to perceptions, and why those particular qualities? They clearly must represent the importance and meaning to us of the respective perceptions, reflecting among other things our emotional responses to them - and perhaps even in an important sense being our emotional responses.
Actually, that is somewhere where I don't understand Dennett/Churchland. They claim that qualia do not exist. But they do exist. We know they exist.
Mad4ziz
Member
Z would agree with you I think. He would say something like "once one has subtracted every descriptive predicate of a mental state, some X nevertheless remains" The X would be the qualia. I think DD gets to zero for the result of the subtraction.
Mad4ziz
Member
I used the term to try and get into Z's way of thinking. Its what I did many years ago when I took a science degree-you know, I used terms unfamiliar to people who weren't studying the subject so as to communicate symbolically with other students who also used similar terms. I think your phrase it's merely an excess of idle idiosyncratic bullshit musings, nothing personal" was used by my dad to describe what I was learning. You will probably think "yes but science has real useful effects in the world whereas this Z stuff doesnt". Useful to..oh yes, human subjects and the world they have constituted. If our civilisation collapses to a lower level of complexity the few humans left alive will have a very different view of what is of importance and I doubt science will feature. After Rome came Christianity
Similar threads
