User talk:Shimon Yanowitz/My Test Page

Back to my talk page

Back to my Special:MyTalk

Psychophysical Paradox
The Psychophysical Paradox is a historic paradox, but as yet unresolved problem, pertaining to the study of philosophy as well as sciences such as biology and physics.

Origin
The term Psychophysical was first introduced by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who discussed "Psychophysical Parallelism" in his book "La Monadologie" (Monadology), published in 1714.

There was, most likely, no one better-suited than Leibniz to comprehend the vastness and enormity of this multidisciplinary problem. In addition to his notable contributions to Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy, Leibniz also practiced many other disciplines (in all of which. he excelled). Among others, his multidisciplinary skills extended to biology, medicine, geology, probability theory, psychology, linguistics, and information science.

Overview
The problem emanates from the failure of these multiple disciplines, to explain the very existence of a concious 'self', or psyche, which is capable of cognition and perception (particularly human cognition and perception). It follows, obviously, that these disciplines fail to neither explain nor even address the relationship of this psychic cognitive perception to the real-world as conceived in science and philosophy, essentially through this amorphic, scientifically undefined human perception and cognition-capable concious self. This failure constitutes a violation (and a paradox) on the parts of science and philosophy, of the prerequisites that they must meet, which are the existence, recognition, understanding and formulation, within them, of this human perception and cognition-capable concious self, upon which, both science and philosophy fundamentally rely.

The Problem Caused by the Psychophysical Paradox
There is a major problem for science in this paradox. Basically, whenever science refers to the real-world, it assumes at the outset the role of human psychic recognition and perception in it, particularly the role (and existence) of a concious self, as the unique and only channel available to science, through which to refer to the real-world. However, the question of the existence of a concious self is subject to a plethora of debate, but there is as yet no satisfactory explanation in science (such as physics) for it. Therefore, science seems to take the effect for granted, without neither addressing nor explaining the cause, as expected of it. The absence of a proper scientific model, and formulation of this elusive, amorphic concious self, may give rise to religious and spirituality claims that science is limited, or worse - is nonsense.

The Psychophysical Paradox in Art
Famous for its inscription Ceci n'est pas une pipe, French for "This is not a pipe", René Magritte's The Treachery of Images (La trahison des images) (1928–1929), (see image above) is an outstaning and renowned depiction of the Psychophysical Paradox.

This depiction of the Psychophysical Paradox gives rise to yet another paradox, which is that both statements, "This is not a pipe", and - "This is a pipe", which are Logically and Linguistically mutually contradictory, and thus cannot be neither simultaneously false nor simultaneously true, can, in fact, be conceived, or perceived to be either simultaneously true or simultaneously false.

This is not all, however. The Psychophysical Paradox is demonstrated here by the plethora of seemingly most simple, but profoundly most complex, perhaps even unanswerable questions that it raises, such as: What is Pipe?, Where is Pipe?, What is Painting of Pipe?, How can Painting show Pipe? What is show?, How can I see Pipe in Painting?, How can I see Pipe?, How can I see?, What is see?, What is "I" ?, etc.

The Challenge
It remains a challenge to various disciplines of science to achieve a proper scientific model, and formulation of the as yet elusive and amorphic entities of concious self, psyche, cognition and perception, as well as the relation between them and the real-world. Some of the difficulty to achieve this stems from the multidisciplinary nature of this major problem, and the very question of which disciplines are (or should be) actually involved in addressing it.