Simplest Explanation of Metaphysics

[David Ottinger]

If you had to explain what the term metaphysics referred to, what would be your simplest explanation?  If you take the Wiki's first line, it simply states, "Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it"Someone could read that and easily say, "Yeah, but isn't that exactly what physics does?"And as one reads further through the Wiki, there is quite a bit of terminology that's rather overwhelming to someone just learning philosophy.  Eventually, one gains this vague grasp that 'metaphysics' refers to belief systems, but that's not really a succinct explanation of the term.  When left at that, some people ask, "What's the point of metaphysics when you have physics?"   In other words, who cares about beliefs when there is science?So, after watching the below video, I'm considering that maybe the best way to explain metaphysics is to refer to it as the simulation our minds create.  And maybe a great way to demonstrate that is to point out the sensation of color.  Or how a child after a growth spurt has to recalibrate his/her coordination in order to realign his/her perception with reality.  And, maybe even pointing out how the mind compensates for our blind spots.  Basically leading one to point out the importance of truths and falsehoods of our internal "simulation" which really determines our perception of reality.(On a side note, funny thing I recently noticed is how sleep deperavation can affect one's coordination by creating "lag" in the simulation -- ended up dropping a cup when I tried to transfer it from one hand to the other.)     

 

 

[fractional slacker]

I beg your pardon if this comes off as hyper critical or a cheap shot. Metaphysics is something I would like to learn about, but can you call a 47 minute video a simple explanation? Is there one section of the video you would recommend?

[Pepin]

Metaphysics has been replaced by physics for the most part, though there are more philosophical topics which can be considered metaphysical as they are not in the realm of science. God for instance can be considered to be apart of that class, as nonexistent entities can never be disproved through empiricism.

 

It is important to understand the history of philosophy in context to the term, as philosophers from the past postulated theories of reality that do not make sense today. There was an intermixing of elements which we now know do not bind together.

[ParaSait]

How about this: Metaphysics is the philosophy of the axioms of existence.

[Kevin Beal]

So, after watching the below video, I'm considering that maybe the best way to explain metaphysics is to refer to it as the simulation our minds create.

That's funny, because that's definitely not what John Searle would say. John Searle would be annoyed in fact that you'd used his video to support this conclusion.

 

He would not say that we generate a simulation in our minds. Is a microscope a simulation of closer viewing?

(Don't be put off by the 2 hour view time, he gets into it at the beginning)

 

Metaphysics is how we answer what is knowledge, what is real, and what ought we do (epistemology, ontology and ethics). Science is the application of the scientific method, which is itself a philosophical principle developed through work in these 3 areas in metaphysics.

[David Ottinger]

I beg your pardon if this comes off as hyper critical or a cheap shot. Metaphysics is something I would like to learn about, but can you call a 47 minute video a simple explanation? Is there one section of the video you would recommend?

 

The video wasn't intended to serve as an explanation.  What the professor is explaining in the video are 4 categories:  ontologically objective & ontologically subjective; epistemically objective & epistemically subjective.  

 

It is these categories that helped me come up with my simplification of what metaphysics pertains to.  And, according to Kevin Beal, my description might actually be misleading.  Personally, I'm trying to find a way to put the meaning in layman terms such that it is distinguishable from physics.  

 

And, I should've said this sooner, but my inability to explain metaphysic simply to someone has a lot to do with my own novice understanding of the term. 

That's funny, because that's definitely not what John Searle would say. John Searle would be annoyed in fact that you'd used his video to support this conclusion.

 

He would not say that we generate a simulation in our minds. Is a microscope a simulation of closer viewing?

(Don't be put off by the 2 hour view time, he gets into it at the beginning)

Metaphysics is how we answer what is knowledge, what is real, and what ought we do (epistemology, ontology and ethics). Science is the application of the scientific method, which is itself a philosophical principle developed through work in these 3 areas in metaphysics.

 

I certainly see the point, but I'm not sure if it really negates the point.  I watched the video, but I do need to watch it again because I don't know what "intentionallity" is.  There were a lot of terms that I'm unfamiliar with as far as philosophy goes.

 

But, to the point...

 

Why is it erroneous to consider that the input from, say the eyes, aren't just an input source?  It feeds the simulation insofar as to tether it to reality.  Because, don't we experience everything at the subconscious level?  Once we upload it to the conscious level we can play with the world in an abstract sense.  Hence, Einsteins famous quote, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."

 

Again, I have to watch the video you posted again.  Though, any input is welcome (no pun intended). 

[Kevin Beal]

Why is it erroneous to consider that the input from, say the eyes, aren't just an input source?  It feeds the simulation insofar as to tether it to reality.  Because, don't we experience everything at the subconscious level?  Once we upload it to the conscious level we can play with the world in an abstract sense.  Hence, Einsteins famous quote, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."

I don't know what it would mean to experience something at the subconscious level, I don't know what you mean by "uploading", and I don't understand why the fact that perception is limited would change anything about the fact that we experience things directly (rather than an interpretation of events "modeled" in the brain).

 

You said that there is a simulation of reality in the brain. This would mean that what we experience is the simulation rather than reality directly. Otherwise, what would be the point of the simulation?

 

Believing that we experience a "model" of reality in our minds rather than reality directly is called "idealism", and also in the video being referred to as the "argument from science" since many prominent scientists have made the same claim. It is often argued that if we see an illusion then we can't distinguish it from the real objects, therefor we must be experiences the same thing in both (the "model" in the brain).

 

The reason this is false is because it confuses two different senses of "aware of": "I am aware of my hand" and "I am aware of my perception of the hand". The object being perceived and the actual sensual experience of perceiving it. Confusing these two things leads to the erroneous conclusion of idealism when it says that what we are aware of is the "model", rather than events as they are.

 

But what is that "model"? It's the actual visual (audial, touch, etc) experience itself, not at object to be perceived. Saying the "model" is the object perceived is a categorical error. It's equivalent to me hitting a desk with my hand, and me arguing that I'm not hitting the desk, but rather, I'm hitting the hitting. It makes no sense, and is why I keep putting "model" in quotes. "Model" wrongly implies that it is an object to be perceived rather than the perception itself.

 

Does that help?

[David Ottinger]

Yes, that helps a little, but I think I need to clarify a few points because there is still some confusion, at least on my end.  

 

I meant upload metaphorically because I do not know a better way of describing how our brains process sensory information.  I just don't know neurology well enough to actually describe the mechanisms that are occurring.  So, I try to relate it to computers in an analogous way because that's something I understand better.My crude understanding of the brain is that we have these layers, i.e. the reptile brain; the mammal brain; and, then the human brain.  So, we have all this sensory input that affects all these different brains.  But, it's the human brain that allows us to absorb this input and project it into this abstract realm.  This realm is not really there, so it's more of a simulation.  When we imagine something we're producing a simulation.  (Again, maybe a crude way of putting it.)So, I agree that we're definitely experiencing reality directly. But, there is a part of us, our higher brain function, i.e. the human brain, that's experiencing a simulation.  And we can switch between the two, and one can experience this in a very fascinating way after taking certain psychedelics.If, for example, you had a kid's action figure standing on your desk, you could imagine it moving insofar as to overwrite your sensory input so that it appears that it's actually moving around as though it's alive.  You can imagine it doing cartwheels across your desk so that it moves from one side of the desk to the other.  And, that whole time you are experiencing this vision with your eyes open and fixed on that point, it's not actually happening in the real world.  I don't know what's actually going on with one's eyes, but so long as you're holding that simulation in your mind, i.e. imagining this, you will not see that figurine in its real position.  So, the whole time you're playing with this sensory override phenomenon you're aware that this experience isn't real, but it certainly feels real.  Now, another time where I think something similar occurs is when you hear an athlete talk about being in the zone.  Except, in such a case, one is not overwriting his/her sensory input, but rather turning off the simulation and thus being fully present in the moment.

 

 

 Is this what is referred to as duality? 

[Kevin Beal]

I am not any kind of expert on the history of philosophy and someone more familiar is more than welcome to correct me where I've made factual (or logical) errors. But this is my account regarding your questions.

 

 Is this what is referred to as duality? 

Duality describes any two opposing things. Dualism is the philosophical position, coming from religion, that says that the mind and the body are two separate things. The mental and the physical are said to be of two separate realms, one spiritual and one of the physical world our bodies exist in.

 

The philosopher René Descartes is that guy who said "I think, therefore I am" and is like the guy responsible for dualism in western philosophy. He was absolutely insane, scary kind of crazy when it came to a lot of things, absolute madness.

 

He supposed that they were separate because of what essentially is an argument from incredulity (i.e. "I can't imagine how it could be, therefore it's not"). He said that he can't be sure that the external objective world exists because a Cartesian Demon could be manipulating his perceptions, causing him to perceive a world which is not real, and he would never know the difference. So he went about trying to figure out what he could know for certain while accepting that he could not be certain that his perception of reality was not all completely illusory.

 

What he determined was that even if you accept this, you still have to accept the existence of your own consciousness. He took that to mean that the spiritual takes primacy over physical existence in determining truth from falsehood. (i.e. God's will is supreme even if my eyes show a clear absence of gods).

 

 

 

If, for example, you had a kid's action figure standing on your desk, you could imagine it moving insofar as to overwrite your sensory input so that it appears that it's actually moving around as though it's alive.  You can imagine it doing cartwheels across your desk so that it moves from one side of the desk to the other.  And, that whole time you are experiencing this vision with your eyes open and fixed on that point, it's not actually happening in the real world.

But you don't experience the action figure behaving in extraordinary acrobatic ways. That's what makes imagination different from experience. Imagining myself getting blown by a supermodel isn't me experiencing oral sex from anyone, right?

 

I completely misunderstood you, if what you meant was that metaphysics is imagination or hallucinations when you said:

 

 

So, after watching the below video, I'm considering that maybe the best way to explain metaphysics is to refer to it as the simulation our minds create.

 

If you didn't mean that it's imagination or hallucinations, but perception itself that is a simulation that we experience, then I have to refer to my previous post where I outline the categorical error in hitting a hitting.

 

If you meant that imagination and hallucinations are simulations, then I guess that's possible. I don't know enough to say.

[Kevin Beal]

I was wrong, Idealism comes out of Plato.

[luxfelix]

So... I include the following video because it's relevant to the discussion about metaphysics, but also because it's presented in an entertaining way:

 

(Not that I didn't find the other videos valuable, just... I dunno... different acclimated preferences...?   )

 

 

I will also add that the John Searle video made sense to me on a practical level; for example, in audio production we learn that we can "hear" frequencies between roughly 20Hz and 20kHz (what we actively "listen" to with sensitivity varies based on the Fletcher-Munson Curve and the Cocktail Party Effect... ergo, a tree falling in the woods produces sound pressure waves, but only an audience can translate that into sounds). This doesn't mean that frequencies outside the range are imperceptible (we can still feel and be affected by subsonic and supersonic frequencies), but that we use sense organs other than our ears (and auditory system) to make sense of them. A similar thing occurs with frequencies of light, whereby we perceive ultraviolet light just beyond the visual spectrum as heat (through our skin and tactile system), instead of as visual imagery (through our eyes and visual system).

 

Though, technically we can see and hear beyond these ranges when frequencies are brought into these ranges through technological means, it can also be argued that artifacts will be produced similar to wonky translations between distant languages (i.e. how some languages have more or less words for colors than English).

[Bipedal Primate]

But you don't experience the action figure behaving in extraordinary acrobatic ways. That's what makes imagination different from experience. Imagining myself getting blown by a supermodel isn't me experiencing oral sex from anyone, right?

 

{{LMAO}}! -- um, if you could stop making me laugh, that would be great. I am trying to concentrate on the meaning of metaphysics. :-p

 

Well done, knowledge injected with humor is a great combo.

 

I am giving you two thumbs up: one simulated thumb and one real thumb ;-)

[Kevin Beal]

{{LMAO}}! -- um, if you could stop making me laugh, that would be great. I am trying to concentrate on the meaning of metaphysics. :-p

Boy howdy do I wish idealism were true!

[PatrickC]

But you don't experience the action figure behaving in extraordinary acrobatic ways. That's what makes imagination different from experience. Imagining myself getting blown by a supermodel isn't me experiencing oral sex from anyone, right?

 

I believe that's what they refer to in Britain, as 'lying back and thinking of england'. I think the metaphor included keeping ones eyes shut, so as not to spoil the illusion.