GENIUS FORUMS

Isaac wrote:Jehu,

I don't assert that there are two modes of existence, quite the contrary. There is only one mode of existence, physical existence. The mental mode is just a label applied to one aspect of physical existence, namely, the electro-chemical functioning of the human brain. There is no relationship between two separate modes, but only an interrelationship between different parts of the same physical existence.

Yes, I agree, the two modes of existence (mental and physical) are clearly related, nevertheless, I still do not understand why you hold that the physical mode is the primary mode, and not the other way round. While it is clear that there can be no mentation without that there is a brain, it seems equally clear that there cannot be a brain without that there is also mentation. Now, you might say that a dead brain is without mentation, but is a dead brain really still a brain, or is it merely the remains of one. In my view, a brain entails mentation, for this is the function of a brain, and a thing is what it does.

Jehu wrote:is a dead brain really still a brain, or is it merely the remains of one. In my view, a brain entails mentation, for this is the function of a brain, and a thing is what it does.

Is a car that has broken down no longer a car, but only the remains of a car? Does that depend on whether or not it can be fixed? If so, would you not know whether or not you are bringing a car to a mechanic? If you think that you are trying to start a car, but suddenly realize that it might not start, do you suddenly not know whether or not you are in a car?

If you want to consider the world like that, it's up to you. It sounds unnecessarily complicated to me, but as long as you are consistent in your thinking that's fine.

.
I think what Isaac is trying to get across is; if no matter, then never a mind, but if no mind, then matter however is, hence fundamental. Unless one believes that matter (or totality) is absolutely dependant on ones own personal consciousness.

However, it also depends on what one means by “mind”, in which context, and what nature would/could it have in a different context. I’m not well versed with indepth Science or Physics, so I see it but philosophically, but do not discount the Scientific aspect however.

In my opinion, matter cannot sense (= awareness, consciousness) matter unless there is inter-dimensional interaction of matter itself, and that requires movement, which is dependant on the ‘sensing and hence reaction thereof’ of "matter" itself, but is not one and the same thing. That is, ‘matter’ and ‘sense/movement’ are not one and the same thing, but are however interdependently, interactively and inter-creatively interrelated, and both must be “contained” in any one sensed thing for existence to work, and there has to necessarily be more than one thing for existence to be, or anything at all dynamically happening.

So I consider the sensing part (also responsible for the movement, aka, causality, because of its reactionary nature when conditions are ripe) as non-physical, and that which is sensed, as physical; where the ‘sensing and hence reaction’ part is what causes the changes in and off the physical, which has to remain consistent because that depends on the sensing/reaction part (hence consistency seen in Physics), in an utterly interdependent manner. No “external” forces are required for such an inherently existing system, for absolutely nothing could be beyond such a system to begin with, hence infinite in the most fullest sense.

So, in a sense, matter and causality are two different but inter-creatively related mere aspects with absolutely nothing underlying such a inter-creative system, and have and will always remain what they are, otherwise, existence couldn’t or wouldn’t be. We can always choose one aspect over the other through abstract and conceptual personal values, but both aspects will be existent in any which case. And calling such a system “fundamental” would also be a mistake, for there is absolutely nothing that could be compared to it, for it is nature itself, existece itself, and absolutely nothing is hence un-natural, and non-existencce is not logically possible either. (Which is what I think David was pointing to (I take it) earlier… “In the end, trying to reduce everything to materialism, or to consciousness, or even to spirit, is fundamentally flawed and reveals a misunderstanding of the nature of reality.")

Only personally felt values create a sense of awe, be it in that of ‘I have found the Absolute’, ‘God’, ‘Tao’, etc., etc., whereas it is but the system itself that upholds such personal values, and realizing THAT, simply changes the perspective of an individual “I”, (a physical effect has taken place), for it now simply KNOWS the truth of the matter, hence takes on the responsibility of humbly being an essential part of a inter-creative system; for it now KNOWS that reactions create infinite consequential changes, and sentience gives it an active Will than a passive one that already exists in its nature.

Whereas the system itself does not KNOW, because unlike the system that however has a passive Will in and of its ‘sensing and limited reactionary capability’ (passive Will), only a complex enough THING (such as us) can KNOW (sentient consciousness, resulting in an active Will) and hold such knowledge in and off a complex enough memory as per its sensed dimensional thing-ness, and react with knowable intent.

The sensing and hence reacting part of matter makes changes to the material world, (As Elizabeth also so puts it), but BOTH are an emergent property of the other, that are inter-creatively interdependent however, (that is, things cause causality, calusality causes things, and neither came first), in and off what already eternally IS; Existence.

This can be viewed in a different sense too, as in how James sees it (I take it, although expresses in a much more complex manner); as in TWO dynamically inter-affecting forces, (that change nature, or kind of switch sides when approaching almost a critical breakpoint in an everlasting tug-of-war), that create a sense of existence at every POINT of interaction, (which is real nonetheless), and since there is absolutely nothing underlying such a dynamic system, all that remains are but two interactive forces; where the expansion and contraction of such force affects the other, and the point of interaction is where all existence is, and at EVERY conceivable point in and off totality; with neither mind nor matter having inherently tangible properties at its deepest core, but simply a result of a felt reality nonetheless, due to the interactive relationship felt as per the dimensional thing to a thing relationship; that being, the expansion and contraction relationship that lies not out and beyond any one thing, but is the nature of each and every thing one can think or imagine, in and off that point of two interacting forces within and without a felt thing-ness, absolutely any where and when that it may be. However, all this still remains a personal point of view, but ‘points of VIEW’ are all that there is, in and of these two interactive forces.

Basically, know thy self to know the world, is what it all ultimately boils down to. What is without, is all within too, but there is a without and a within, otherwise knowing cannot exist, and them both, do not really depend on just the sentient knowing itself. Existence simply IS. I guess, when no more questions remain as far as existence is concerned, a Self fells liberated from self-questioning, but not before traveling a tedious path of self-inquiry.

The only two things necessary for existence to be is, awareness and thing-ness; sentient knowing comes and goes too, so there is no reason for being proud in ones own knowing or realizations. Well, good luck to us all.

This is just off hand, so please pardon any mistakes. See you'll in about two weeks time :)

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Jehu wrote:is a dead brain really still a brain, or is it merely the remains of one. In my view, a brain entails mentation, for this is the function of a brain, and a thing is what it does.

Is a car that has broken down no longer a car, but only the remains of a car? Does that depend on whether or not it can be fixed? If so, would you not know whether or not you are bringing a car to a mechanic? If you think that you are trying to start a car, but suddenly realize that it might not start, do you suddenly not know whether or not you are in a car?

If you want to consider the world like that, it's up to you. It sounds unnecessarily complicated to me, but as long as you are consistent in your thinking that's fine.

We must not be misled by our careless manner of speaking, for there is much that is implied in a name. For example, when we order a car from the dealership, it is implied that the car will be fully functional, and if it is not, we would consider ourselves to have be cheated. In fact, if one looks at the definition of the term 'car', one will find that among its essential characteristics is that it is a vehicle, and a ‘vehicle’ is defined as “a conveyance for transporting people, goods, ect.”. Therefore, to be a ‘car’, a thing must have the capacity to fulfil its function as a vehicle. Now just because we do not have a specific word for the various piles of scrap metal, glass and rubber that fill our salvage yards, we must not be fooled in to thinking that they are the equivalent of ‘cars’. Likewise, when a person has died, we make reference to their remains, corps, body, etc., for it is understood that something that was essential to their being a person is no longer present.

Dan Rowden,

Dan Rowden wrote: If you artificially replace the environment of a central nervous system there's no necessary reason that it won't function like the standard organic system. My point was that environment is necessary and that I can see no boundary to that environment other than that which we arbitrarily construct.

I disagree with you here, the physical separation of the human body from the rest of the environment is a clear boundary. One is a living biological organism, the other is an inert substrate, how is that arbitrary?

Dan Rowden wrote: As to qualia: where is "red" in your perspective? A bunch of neural pathways and synapses that light up when a person says they see "red" isn't "red" - is it?

You answered your own question nearly perfectly:

It's a bunch of brain activity that we associate with the subjective experience of "red".

The only thing that I would add is that the brain activity is dependent on the incoming sensory stimulation, so "red" is the brain activity in response to wavelengths of visible light of a certain wavelength.

Dan Rowden wrote: The physicalist perspective of consciousness doesn't deal with epiphenomena very effectively.
It basically just says the physical state is that experience, which is unsatisfactory.

How is it unsatisfactory? If experience is not just the physical state, what else is it? I have yet to see a convincing argument that it is anything else.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Isaac wrote:

Dan wrote:The brain, whilst being a necessary cause of consciousness is not a sufficient cause.

What are the other cause(s) of consciousness then besides the brain? When I say the brain, I include all aspect of the nervous system such as the spinal cord and sensory nerves.

If you slap a brain and its associated central nervous system on a table, you still won't get much consciousness. That system requires various aspects of its environment to function. Deprive a brain of oxygen and see what happens. And I'm not sure the view you're taking, as I intimated regarding the physicalist position, accounts properly for qualia.

Why does it matter if we can't fully account for the nuts and bolts of consciousness at this stage, when we know that consciousness is an attribute of brains/CNS, and that we have no evidence of consciousness being able to function independently?

Isaac wrote:What I'm saying is that consciousness is not caused by something other than what it already is. Consciousness, in my view, is equivalent to a subset of physical brain activity, that exists by itself. It's not caused by anything other than physical forces that shape molecules and chemical reactions, etc.

I disagree with that. The "physical forces that shape molecules and chemical reactions, etc." permit consciousness to exist in that location.

DavidHenry wrote:Why does it matter if we can't fully account for the nuts and bolts of consciousness at this stage, when we know that consciousness is an attribute of brains/CNS, and that we have no evidence of consciousness being able to function independently?

I am not mystical-minded in the least, but I am not convinced of this.

Let me give you an example. A few years ago, there was a serial rapist on Long Island near New York City. His MO was to mix a powdered animal tranquilizer with cocaine, go to a club, and offer a girl "lines of coke." As she started to pass out, he would escort her to his car, blow some more of the drug into her nose, and drive her to a motel, where he would check in, carry his victim in, then rape her. He would go through her pocketbook and find out where she lived, then he would drive her there, still comatose, and dump her on her front lawn. She would then wake up knowing she had been raped, but remembering nothing. He would have gotten away with the rapes except for one girl who happened to have drunk cranberry juice before she went to the bar. That acted as a partial antidote. She did not remember going to the motel. She remembered being inside the motel and having an out-of-body-experience. She saw herself being raped. She also "drifted" outside and saw the motel's neon sign.

As it happened, her brother was a police sergeant and was able to locate the hotel and catch the bastard.

Human conciousness clearly depends on neurological activity, but it appears to be something more. How could her consciousness leave the room and see the motel's neon sign? She definitely stated she was first aware that something was happening when she had the out-of-body experience; she did not remember arriving at the motel.

brokenhead wrote: I am not mystical-minded in the least, but I am not convinced of this.

What does it mean for someone to be mystical minded? How do you define 'mystical mindedness'?

DavidHenry wrote:Why does it matter if we can't fully account for the nuts and bolts of consciousness at this stage, when we know that consciousness is an attribute of brains/CNS, and that we have no evidence of consciousness being able to function independently?

Do we know that consciousness is an attribute of brains/CNS? Earlier we accepted a definition of "mind" like that, but there has been an assumption since Dan's first response in this thread that there is a link between "mind" and "consciousness" - which is now dangerously dipping into the territory of equating "mind" with "consciousness." Individual minds and individual consciousnesses may or may not be the same thing, depending on how you define them. Universal consciousness does function independently, but there is only a universal mind in the poetic sense.

Brains are a manifestation of how this universal consciousness is; but if there were not any brains anywhere, there would still be a universal consciousness. It would just be different. If there were nothing at all, there would be nothing for the universal consciousness to be aware of, so even then by default the universal consciousness would be aware of Reality because Reality would be nothing.

Philosophy of mind is just about the most interesting subject in philosophy,in my view.And it seems to me, in the time I've been coming to Genius forum at least, the one area that QSR never seem to really tackle head on.Neither David nor Kevin has said anything meaningful about it other than mumbling something about 'spirituality' ,but not really saying anything.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Brains are a manifestation of how this universal consciousness is; but if there were not any brains anywhere, there would still be a universal consciousness. It would just be different. If there were nothing at all, there would be nothing for the universal consciousness to be aware of, so even then by default the universal consciousness would be aware of Reality because Reality would be nothing.

Elizabeth;

Are you saying "universal consciousness" is a thing-itself? If there was "nothing at all"(am I right in thinking you mean nothing physical?) are you saying there would still be a "universal consciousness"?

Ataraxia wrote:Are you saying "universal consciousness" is a thing-itself?

Really close but not exactly (like the difference between 1 and 0.999999...). Poetically speaking, universal consciousness could be considered the core of Ultimate Reality.

One has to be conscious of something in order for consciousness to be consciousness. For an individual to be conscious, that individual must be aware of how things really are. When one is more conscious than another, then the one has a greater quantity of accurate information, or more accurate information, or something of that nature, than the other.

For an individual to be conscious, the individual must have a particular intellectual functioning called "awareness." Universal awareness is not an intellectual function; it is the product of the natural laws (such as laws of physics). Humans have intelligence as evidenced by the human ability to figure out how Reality works (at least in part, but we're working on it). Ultimate Reality doesn't have to do any figuring because it just is what it is. It is only how much we can reflect Ultimate Reality that makes us conscious. Ultimate Reality doesn't have to reflect anything, except maybe itself and only if it wants to ("wants" is being used poetically in this sentence).

This is where "intelligent design" is like a dog chasing its tail. Intelligence is the mere reflection of Reality, so of course the reflection would be designed by that which is reflected.

Ataraxia wrote:If there was "nothing at all"(am I right in thinking you mean nothing physical?)

No, by "nothing at all" I meant "nothing at all" - not even an empty set because that would be a set of emptiness. Not even a void. I meant the ineffable nothing since "nothing" could be considered something if one were to argue that nothing is a concept.

Ataraxia wrote:If there was "nothing at all"(am I right in thinking you mean nothing physical?) are you saying there would still be a "universal consciousness"?

I was pointing out the paradox that shows universal consciousness as the core of Ultimate Reality as well as indicating the non-intellectual key aspect of universal consciousness versus individual consciousness.

If there was nothing at all, there could not be a universal consciousness because that would be something; nevertheless since universal consciousness is essentially the experience of Ultimate Reality, if Ultimate Reality did not exist, then the ineffable nothingness would still be the experience of that (hypothetical) Ultimate Reality. Hence the paradox.

Ataraxia wrote:Philosophy of mind is just about the most interesting subject in philosophy,in my view.And it seems to me, in the time I've been coming to Genius forum at least, the one area that QSR never seem to really tackle head on.Neither David nor Kevin has said anything meaningful about it other than mumbling something about 'spirituality' ,but not really saying anything.

We have spoken about the subject quite a bit over the years. It's all there in my Wisdom of the Infinite ebook too.

What do you wanna know?

-

David Quinn wrote:
What do you wanna know?

-

What is "mind"?

What is "consciousness", and is it different to "mind"?

In light of your answer to what is mind,how does it make your arm move?

I'm going to jump out on a limb here just because I always wanted to know how monkeys feel when they do that and it breaks and they go hurtling towards the ground:

Ataraxia wrote:What is "mind"? What is "consciousness", and is it different to "mind"?

At bottom, mind is what we define it to be. Since language has more than enough useless synonyms I'm going to resist saying that mind and consciousness are the same thing, but I'm happy if others want to do that. Instead I'll say that "mind" is that dimension within consciousness comprised of the intricate web of abstract "thought stuff" (ok, just thoughts if that's too poetic for you). Consciousness, on the other hand, is the seatless, sourceless, selfless set of all differentiated things (i.e. existence). In short, to me, consciousness is its content, not a thing that engages content from some aforementioned source. When you consider the world of phenomena, empirical and abstract, and then try and relate this back to a source whence such things are experienced, the source becomes just another phenomenon.

In light of your answer to what is mind, how does it make your arm move?

A hamster in a roll cage does it. There really is no free will.

Dang it Dan, I can't believe you missed this opportunity:

Ataraxia wrote:In light of your answer to what is mind,how does it make your arm move?

That would be an example of mind over matter.

j/k Dan. Yours was more enlightening. Mine was funnier.

Ataraxia wrote:

David Quinn wrote:
What do you wanna know?

What is "mind"?

What Dan said. It can mean whatever we want it to mean. It can mean pure awareness, or the sum total of all conscious experience in the Universe, or the sum total of one's own perceptions, or the decision-making processes within the brain - whatever.

What is "consciousness", and is it different to "mind"?

It rather depends on my mood.

In light of your answer to what is mind,how does it make your arm move?

If I consciously move my arm, then my own individual awareness of the environment and the decision-making processes in my brain seem to be a couple of factors, among countless other factors, which cause my arm to move.

-

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

DavidHenry wrote:Why does it matter if we can't fully account for the nuts and bolts of consciousness at this stage, when we know that consciousness is an attribute of brains/CNS, and that we have no evidence of consciousness being able to function independently?

Do we know that consciousness is an attribute of brains/CNS? .

Sure we do, if I cut your arm off, you're still aware, but if you're beheaded, then it's lights out.
Universal consciousness sounds like a concept that's being reified....very poor form....!!

David Quinn wrote:

What is "consciousness", and is it different to "mind"?

It rather depends on my mood.

This is how mystics are able to adopt their leap of faith, ie, by ignoring the objective link between definitions and reality.

DavidHenry wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

What is "consciousness", and is it different to "mind"?

It rather depends on my mood.

This is how mystics are able to adopt their leap of faith, ie, by ignoring the objective link between definitions and reality.

Or it might refer to their flexibility of mind and their understanding that all definitions are fluid and subjective.

What is an example of an objective link between definitions and reality?

-

David Quinn wrote:What is an example of an objective link between definitions and reality?

Consider the difference between a car and the prime mover of a semi-trailer, both can do some of the same things at times, but there is a clear difference between the two, mainly size and shape, so it's the objective characteristics of each that define and differentiate them.

DavidHenry wrote:

David Quinn wrote:What is an example of an objective link between definitions and reality?

Consider the difference between a car and the prime mover of a semi-trailer, both can do some of the same things at times, but there is a clear difference between the two, mainly size and shape, so it's the objective characteristics of each that define and differentiate them.

While that is true enough, how we choose to define and label these things remains subjective. Sometimes it suits our purposes not to distinguish between them at all and simply refer to both of them as "vehicles" or "lumps of matter".

Even our choice to divide these vehicles up into "cars" and "semi-trailers" is subjective and depends on our perspective and purpose. After all, what is to stop us from continuing this differentiation process and going on to distinguish between various kinds of semi-trailers, or even between each and every semi-trailer in existence, thereby doing away with the "semi-trailer" category altogether?

Clearly, dividing a group of vehicles into two simple categories - car and semi-trailer - is a subjective decision on our parts.

-

David Quinn wrote:

DavidHenry wrote: Clearly, dividing a group of vehicles into two simple categories - car and semi-trailer - is a subjective decision on our parts.

-

What's so subjective about what a vehicle does....?

DavidHenry wrote:

David Quinn wrote: Clearly, dividing a group of vehicles into two simple categories - car and semi-trailer - is a subjective decision on our parts.

What's so subjective about what a vehicle does....?

You mean, the way they act as status symbols for people?

-

David Quinn wrote:

DavidHenry wrote:

David Quinn wrote: Clearly, dividing a group of vehicles into two simple categories - car and semi-trailer - is a subjective decision on our parts.

What's so subjective about what a vehicle does....?

You mean, the way they act as status symbols for people?

-

No I mean the category of vehicle....it's also objective in that you can't lump any old thing in there, it must relate to its definition.

DavidHenry wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

What's so subjective about what a vehicle does....?

You mean, the way they act as status symbols for people?

No I mean the category of vehicle....it's also objective in that you can't lump any old thing in there, it must relate to its definition.

That's true. Once you subjectively create the definition, you have a template by which to sort things. However, it remains a debatable question as to whether the sorting of things through a subjective template can be considered an objective process.

-