The site name karlpu is a tribute to Karl Popper and his universe
The current scientific paradigm is now so consolidated that it in many camps functions as a whirlpool that drags everything into it. Since presumably nothing can explain everything this leaves the door open for exploitation of the cracks between the paradigmatic world view and the reality (given that the reality cannot be explained in its totality). This creates tension that cannot be monitored from within the paradigm.
Michael Cain’s character Professor John Brand in the movie Interstellar has a Plan A for the survival of mankind. If that doesn’t work he has a backup Plan B. Plan A is the wanted one whereas Plan B saves some astronauts and a lot of fertilized eggs.
Today we have a scientific culture that functions as our Plan A. That culture states that everything in one way or the other is physical. A recent shift in our language is the move from “my thoughts are in my mind” to “my thoughts are in my brain”. If we have thoughts and everything in the end is physical it is natural to think that one’s thoughts are in one’s brain.
In preparation for the defense of my master thesis (Gamper 2019) I played with an application of it and found that it provided an ontologically neutral view of the scientific object. I had introduced the concept of causal objects and it applied for any kind of object (with a causal background). In my preparation I saw that separate ontological fields could be joined by something I called interfaces (2017). Accordingly, everything in the end may be physical – or not. I thought this eventuality was very interesting.
Plan B is to investigate this possibility and see where it may lead. One thing is established, though, and that is that the mind can be a substance of its own. Providing that there can be interfaces between ontological domains. 2022-01-14 Johan Gamper
Causal Closure and Science
In Berber and Đorđević (Philosophia 2021) there is a concern that Gamper’s (Philosophia 2017) “way of redefining the principle of causal closure is inconsistent with the very reasons why this principle was introduced”.
This actualizes how to categorize Gamper (2017). In it two definitions of the causal closure of the physical are analyzed. This is an argument for categorizing it as belonging to the analytical tradition. Berber and Đorđević‘ observation, as it seems, comes from another tradition.
Gamper (2017) calls for an axiomatic base of science since it shows that the principle of causal closure can be defined so that interfaces between ontological domains either are allowed or are not allowed. This question cannot be solved empirically but axiomatically, as discussed in Gamper (Axiomathes 2019).
The indicated research area, thus, is scientific ontology, a field of study that attempts to answer if it is possible to construct a consistent theory that permits interfaces between ontological domains. If that is impossible the proposed definition of causal closure is of no interest for science. If it is possible, on the other hand, the next step is to construct one such theory.
Gamper (2021) develops a view based on the eventuality of interfaces between ontological domains and presents core ideas as a unique biological energy. The ideas together form what can be named macro psychology. This approach opens up for theoretical studies as well as applied clinical studies. Below is the abstract.
As physical things have mathematical properties we in this paper let mental things have biological properties. The work is based on recent metaphysical findings that shows that there could be interfaces between separate ontological domains. According to this view there could be mathematical objects, physical objects, and also mental objects. The aim of this study is to establish a view of the biological object that allows it to possibly generate the experiencing subject. Based on the notion that energy per se is related to the ability of a system to do some work, biological energy is defined as a biological object’s ability to recover from the load it is exposed to. Introducing the concept of the experiencing subject, the experiencing subject would be the agent experiencing the biological object’s need of recovery from the load it is exposed to. Once established, the experiencing subject may develop non-biological needs. On this basis experiencing subjects have biological properties without being biological in exactly the same manner as physical things have mathematical properties without being mathematical (would that be the case).
The Science/Theology Interface
Without the concept of an interface science is detached from theology. If science assumes monism there is no common ground for science and theology. With the concept of interfaces the first ontological domain can be viewed as an interface. Theology, thus, would concern the first interface and science would concern all other ontological domains.
Mem — The smallest element of the well-ordered set of all ontological domains.
Causal objects omega — the scientific object as a causal sum (combining Gamper 2018 & 2019).
Artificial Non-Simulated Intelligence (ANSI). Macro psychology is a tool for exploring the possibility of ANSI.
A Second Order Ontology is an ontology that allows more than one ontology. Monism, e.g., allows Physicalism and Idealism.
– Ontophronesis, a second order ontology sprung from the basic assumption of monism.
– Impaired Recovery Function. Related to the ability of biological systems to bounce back where a physical system would break under the same level of load.
– The Causal Inequality. Ontologically homogeneous domains do not cause ontologically homogeneous domains.
Ontologically Heterogeneous Domains. May cause and be caused by ontologically homogeneous domains.
Vertical Ontologically Heterogeneous Domains. Cause ontologically homogeneous domains.
Horizontal Ontologically Heterogeneous Domains. Do not cause ontologically homogeneous domains.
– The Intention Method, based on the continental psychologist Franz Ruppert’s empirical research and theory.
– Scientific ontology (Gamper 2019).
– Non-mathematical physical dimensions (implicit in Gamper 2021).
D – the object as such and its dimensionality.
– Macro Psychology. The second step of (Gamper 2021).
– The biological object as a causal sum (an application of the notion of causal objects omega).
– Non-chemical biological energy (Gamper 2021).
– ’My body and my brain’. Ad hoc or redundant?
– Exploring melancholia and psychosis with a mereological approach.
-’If my cat sees me, does that entail that it must be able to know that it sees me.
– ‘Can the psychological horizontal interface emerge without the other?’ (Psychoanalysis)
– Identifying, investigating, and coming to terms with wounds of the mind based on Macro psychology and Continental psychology.
– Macro psychology and Causal objects – the Lacanian word-chain as a link to psychoanalysis.
– Effects of the redefinition of causal closure for the definition of science.