GENIUS FORUMS

Laird: What do you find deficient in the everyday idea that there is an external reality that mental appearances correspond to?

Dan: Where's the demarcation? Where does the mental appearance end and the referent begin? What's the difference between them? Are you thinking in terms of the division between the abstract and the empirical here?

However I define it (well, excluding the new paradoxical definition that you have alerted me to), mind itself, as a medium of subjective experience, is distinct from the rest of reality. It is a phenomenon of experiential subjectivity which is distinct from that in which it exists/from which it arises, being a domain of matter, energy, dimensions and time. So the mental appearance is contained by this phenomenon "the mind" whereas the thing that it refers to exists in physical reality. We might identify processes and lead-ins from the senses that contribute to the experience of the appearance, but as to the appearance itself, that is an entirely different and distinct phenomenon, being a subjective experience.

Laird: The whole issue of mind is one that baffles me, but I am consoled that over the full course of humanity's existence no one else has yet been able to provide a complete, satisfying and generally accepted explanation either.

Dan: You mean that you know of or recognise as such.

I'm confident that I would be aware of a generally accepted explanation. I'm not that much of a hermit.

Laird: I take no firm position, but I like to collect possibilities. You and Kevin have just alerted me to a third one - the possibility of the paradox that mind is everything and that it simultaneously exists within everything.

Dan: See, this is really the problem you're having here. You're operating within a false duality and unconsciously inserting that duality into all your considerations.

Physician, heal thyself. Your position contains the duality of mind versus the Reality that causes it and in which it has a beginning and end.

Laird: The other two I have alluded to already - that mind is an emergent property of energy/matter, and that mind is an inherent force of will that requires some level of physical structure (e.g. neurons in the brain) by which to affect reality. These two possibilities of course rely on the idea of a physical/energetic reality separate from mind.

Dan: Yes, that paradigm doesn't work, one reason being is that it sets energy/matter outside mind and yet such things only exist because they appear within mind. i.e. the difference between energy and matter requires mind to exist. If you don't accept this then try demonstrating where anything begins and ends.

You've lost me with this argument. At first I thought that you might have been making some statement of a quantum nature about the dependency of certain events involving energy and matter on the observation of consciousness. But it seems that you are instead reiterating an implication of your position that "everything is in the mind", that implication being that matter and energy as part of everything must likewise be contained in the mind. I find that hard to accept, and I don't see how the interdependency of the components of physical reality should cause me to become more accepting, because as I've already explained I view the phenomenon of mind as distinct from the rest of physical reality anyway.

Laird: I am most attached to the idea that mind is inherent, because of my gut feeling that to explain the subjectivity of the experience of consciousness as emergent is going to prove to be an impossible task.

Dan: This is the basic reason that physicalist explanations of mind (consciousness) don't really work. They can't deal with qualia.

Yup, that's pretty much what I'm saying too.

Dan Rowden wrote:My perspective gets rid of the mind/body duality per se, and therefore the problem.

Yes it does have that advantage, but as I've already noted it has the disadvantage that mind must be caused by that which is contained by mind.

Here's another problem: there is more than one mind in reality (before continuing: do you support this statement?). So all things exist in the mind, but in which mind?

Laird: I am consoled that over the full course of humanity's existence no one else has yet been able to provide a complete, satisfying and generally accepted explanation either.

Kevin: The first arrogance is that you assume that whatever is true will be satisfying and "generally accepted". This is an arrogance because it is a claim that you are not at all qualified to make.

It's a belief that "the cream will rise to the top". What's arrogant about forming beliefs that help me to discriminate reality?

Kevin Solway wrote:The second arrogance is that you imply that in the whole course of humanity's existence no one has provided a complete and true explanation of mind, etc. This is also a claim that you are not at all qualified to make - and which makes it arrogance.

I implied that if someone has provided such an explanation, they have not simultaneously had/exercised the skill/fortune to make it generally accepted. I'm quite open to the possibility that such an explanation has been known or is known by people.

Kevin Solway wrote:Thirdly, you seem more concerned with whether you appear arrogant to others, rather than whether you actually are arrogant. And that it is a third kind of arrogance.

I respect other people's judgement enough to allow that they might be able to help me to identify/monitor things in myself of which I'm initially unaware. If anything that's humility, not arrogance.

Perhaps the arrogance in my statement is that I am comparing myself to a hypothetical scenario as though I had some hope of fulfilling it myself (on the other hand that could be viewed as a healthy respect for the potential of my own mind). I might have been more receptive if you'd said something like that, but the three arrogances that you cited just don't ring true.

Laird wrote:

Kevin: The first arrogance is that you assume that whatever is true will be satisfying and "generally accepted". This is an arrogance because it is a claim that you are not at all qualified to make.

It's a belief that "the cream will rise to the top". What's arrogant about forming beliefs that help me to discriminate reality?

If the statement "the cream will rise to the top" means that "people will recognize the truth", then it is an arrogant, unfounded statement. You are not qualified to know whether the general population can recognize the truth so that it will be "generally accepted".

The belief you have in truths being "generally accepted" will not even slightly help you to discriminate reality.

Kevin Solway wrote:The second arrogance is that you imply that in the whole course of humanity's existence no one has provided a complete and true explanation of mind, etc. This is also a claim that you are not at all qualified to make - and which makes it arrogance.

I implied that if someone has provided such an explanation, they have not simultaneously had/exercised the skill/fortune to make it generally accepted.

Whether something is "generally accepted" is completely irrelevant as to whether something is true or not.

I am comparing myself to a hypothetical scenario

The best thing is to just be yourself.

Kevin Solway wrote:Whether something is "generally accepted" is completely irrelevant as to whether something is true or not.

There isn't a perfect correspondence, but the generally accepted truths over the course of human evolution seem to have generally improved and sophisticated themselves. For example, I would trust far more that I am being taught better scientific truths in a modern school than in a medieval one.

Kev, I wonder whether the reason that you perceive me as arrogant is that I continue our debates to the point that you no longer have any justifications to give, so that you resort to asserting that I am incapable of understanding, and that even then I continue to press you for justifications. In other words, do you perceive me as arrogant because I treat you as a philosophical equal rather than deferring to you on the basis of your supposedly superior wisdom?

Because actually, I think that it would be disrespectful for me to take the latter course of action, being that I've lived long enough to have come to the conclusion that we're all basically fumbling around in the dark when it comes to ultimate explanations, and I include both of us in that conclusion. It's more respectful to try to help both of us to improve our understanding, and one good way to do that is to critique each other's thoughts. At this point though, I'm not sure how receptive you are to critique - when you write in to this forum you seem to take the attitude that your thoughts are beyond critique (you have claimed 100% certainty in your definitions and in the conclusions that you have arrived at), and yet in person you are more human than that. I find it very interesting that people can appear to be so different in person and on the forums. I wonder if I'm also different in that way.

Laird wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Whether something is "generally accepted" is completely irrelevant as to whether something is true or not.

There isn't a perfect correspondence

In a great many cases there is no correspondence whatsoever.

In many places in the U.S, it is generally accepted that the world was created by God 6000 years ago, in 6 days.

In many places in the modern Islamic world, it is generally accepted that a person should die if they belittle Mohammed.

but the generally accepted truths over the course of human evolution seem to have generally improved and sophisticated themselves.

Even if this is true, it is irrelevant.

For example, I would trust far more that I am being taught better scientific truths in a modern school than in a medieval one.

Not if you went to a modern Christian school in the U.S, or a modern Islamic school, etc.

Kev, I wonder whether the reason that you perceive me as arrogant is that I continue our debates to the point that you no longer have any justifications to give,

I've given you the reason why I think you are arrogant - because you make unending claims about things you are completely unqualified to make. That's what arrogance is.

do you perceive me as arrogant because I treat you as a philosophical equal rather than deferring to you on the basis of your supposedly superior wisdom?

No two people are philosophical equals, so to treat other people as philosophical equals is an act of arrogance.

we're all basically fumbling around in the dark when it comes to ultimate explanations

That's yet another extremely arrogant remark, which you are totally unqualified to make.

The worst thing is, you're unable to know when you're being arrogant, so you can't stop yourself.

You are projecting your own faults onto others, and have no conscience about it.

Kevin Solway wrote:I've given you the reason why I think you are arrogant - because you make unending claims about things you are completely unqualified to make.

I'm human and I think. Those are qualifications enough to discuss philosophy.

Kevin Solway wrote:That's what arrogance is.

My preferred definition of arrogance is the unjustified belief that oneself is superior to others.

Kevin Solway wrote:No two people are philosophical equals, so to treat other people as philosophical equals is an act of arrogance.

I prefer to view it as respectful.

Laird: we're all basically fumbling around in the dark when it comes to ultimate explanations

Kevin: That's yet another extremely arrogant remark, which you are totally unqualified to make.

I've lived for thirty years and had many discussions with many different people, read many different books, watched many different movies and generally been open to new ideas. In all of that time I've never encountered anyone who came close to having an ultimate explanation. Plenty of good ways to live, but ultimate explanations, nix. I think that those are qualifications enough and I don't think that it's arrogant to make inferences based on experience.

Kevin Solway wrote:The worst thing is, you're unable to know when you're being arrogant, so you can't stop yourself.

Yes, that is the worst thing, which I try to overcome with self-monitoring and advice from other people. The problem is that I don't know whether I can trust your judgement, because I have a suspicion that you are simply resentful that I'm questioning your beliefs too unrelentingly, that I have implied the same fault in you, and I also suspect that you are confusing confident assertion with arrogance. Who knows? I do like your earlier advice on this subject though: "The best thing is to just be yourself."

Laird wrote:Those are qualifications enough to discuss philosophy.

There's a huge difference between discussing something and making arrogant claims.

My preferred definition of arrogance is the unjustified belief that oneself is superior to others.

In other words you're simply defining arrogance such a way that you escape fault. That is also arrogant.

It is also arrogant for you to think that no-one is superior to yourself, and that no-one has access to knowledge that you are incapable of understanding.

Kevin Solway wrote:No two people are philosophical equals, so to treat other people as philosophical equals is an act of arrogance.

I prefer to view it as respectful.

Other people view it as arrogant, and doubly arrogant by the fact that you interpret your arrogance is such glowing terms as to call it "respect".

In all of that time I've never encountered anyone who came close to having an ultimate explanation.

You are not qualified to judge. It is precisely arrogance that makes you believe that you are qualified to judge.

Kevin Solway wrote:There's a huge difference between discussing something and making arrogant claims.

Such as, say, "I am in possession of absolute truth and if you disagree with me then you're deluded"?

Laird: My preferred definition of arrogance is the unjustified belief that oneself is superior to others.

Kevin: In other words you're simply defining arrogance such a way that you escape fault.

I don't escape fault. When I was a kid I used to taunt my (younger) sister about her supposed intellectual inferiority - that was pretty arrogant by this definition. I grew out of that though and now we treat each other as equals. I also excelled academically at school and at university (although I never completed my degree) so I have had to constantly battle against the possibility of developing a superiority complex out of that. In some ways I haven't been successful, although I try as much as I can to channel that energy into confidence instead of arrogance. That's why I'm sensitive to the accusation and I don't appreciate people throwing it willy-nilly at me as you seem overly eager to do.

Kevin: No two people are philosophical equals, so to treat other people as philosophical equals is an act of arrogance.

Laird: I prefer to view it as respectful.

Kevin: Other people view it as arrogant.

Which people other than you? Specifically.

Laird: In all of that time I've never encountered anyone who came close to having an ultimate explanation.

Kevin: You are not qualified to judge. It is precisely arrogance that makes you believe that you are qualified to judge.

Implication being that you are qualified? So then how do you escape a self-indictment of arrogance?

Kevin Solway wrote:"I am in possession of absolute truth and if you disagree with me then you're deluded"?

Arrogance is only when you make claims that you aren't qualified to make.

Other people view it as arrogant.

Which people other than you? Specifically.

Anyone who doesn't like being falsely judged and lumped into a false category.

In all of that time I've never encountered anyone who came close to having an ultimate explanation.
Kevin: You are not qualified to judge. It is precisely arrogance that makes you believe that you are qualified to judge.

Implication being that you are qualified?

Yes, I believe I am qualified.

But you and any other beginner in the realms of thinking are not qualified to judge whether other people have come close to having an ultimate explanation of reality. Until you realize this, you won't be going any further than the beginner status.

But it must be said, that since all you've really been doing so far is experimenting and toying with ideas, it can't truly be said that you've entered the ranks of the beginner.

Would you guys like a bowl of milk? You must be thirsty after this long of a cat fight.

Ouch, Elizabeth. OK, perhaps I should have left this at my post attempting humour and not responded to Kev's three-point arrogance post. In any case, I'll drop it now at your prompting - it has after all only peripheral bearing on philosophy. But it does have some bearing, because I believe that on the path to enlightenment (the subject of this forum) one should strive to drop one's arrogance, and that's what Kevin and I are (hopefully) helping each other to do... or are we merely increasing it?? Others might be the best judge of that one.

Let's get back to stricter philosophy then, Kev. Dan's input has alerted me that your view of mind is paradoxical: mind is created by that which it contains. Do you acknowledge this paradox?

Laird wrote:mind is created by that which it contains. Do you acknowledge this paradox?

Firstly, I've never said that mind contains anything.

Secondly, I've stated a number of times that mind is caused by that which is not mind. So it is obvious that mind does not contain that which causes mind. You have a mental block which prevents you from hearing this, so I won't continue repeating it.

Your "paradoxes" are your own creation, and come out of your own illogical ideas.

Laird,

Damn, you really have a thing for paradox! Who needs women when we can have love affairs like that! Anyway, the paradox doesn't really exist (much like the virtues of women -they're all in your head). You said I said that: "mind is created by that which it contains." I didn't say that. I said mind is created by Reality. It's not the same thing. What I was hoping to get you to think about was the problem of where mind begins and ends - i.e. if we think of mind in a subject-object manner, where the former becomes the latter or, if you prefer, what distinguishes them. Where is the boundary between mind and its objects? And furthermore, how do they manage to relate?

I think you should contemplate those matters for a while.

Dan Rowden wrote:much like the virtues of women -they're all in your head

Yes, I am going to snag those ev-er-y sin-gle time. How are you defining women in that sentence?

It's irrelevant how I'm defining it. However, I'll re-word it slightly: much of the virtues of women are inside your head. That is, most of what we think of as virtuous of women is actually imaginary (based in Woman ideations).

Anyway, let's not derail this convo with that discussion. A new thread would be fine if you want to go there...

Nah. I just pick them one at a time wherever they crop up, like weeds.

Well, ok, but you'd need to pull them out by the roots to really stop them growing back; the question is whether you want to get your hands that dirty! And it's funny that I spoke about not derailing this thread. I just looked up and noticed what the actual thread title is! It's been long since derailed!

Dan Rowden wrote:Damn, you really have a thing for paradox! Who needs women when we can have love affairs like that!

Yeah, they're both pretty darn alluring - women and paradox have a certain mystique. I don't know about needing women (although I wouldn't be here if one hadn't given birth to me) but they sure are nice to be around (nice is an understatement).

Dan Rowden wrote:Anyway, the paradox doesn't really exist (much like the virtues of women -they're all in your head).

In good conscience I can't let your jab at women go without comment (and given that this thread started as a discussion of femininity, it seems appropriate). Dan, I have no idea (well, OK, I have some vague speculations but nothing that I'm confident enough in to share) where you formed this derogatory attitude, and the fact that you nevertheless live with a woman must be testament to your romantic powers of poetic expression (or maybe you're just well hung). The fact that self-respecting women participate on this forum at all is testament to human tolerance, and the unfortunate fact that some women participating on this forum swallow your rhetoric is testament that the syndrome of abused spouses defending their abuser is alive and well.

Women are WONDERFULLY virtuous! Where do you get off suggesting otherwise? I have met some women who are so wonderful that they just blow my mind - smart women who see through bullshit but are compassionate enough to share it with me in a way that I can understand. I know several women who are smart doctors, who are quick-witted and ferocious debaters. Would that you had put your views on femininity to Susan Blackmore - you would have been promptly but good-naturedly sat down on your arse! But wait, I know what's coming: "Smart is not the same as conscious". "Despite it all a woman would prefer to put on make-up and go shopping". "The great achievements throughout the ages have all been men's".

Before getting to those, let's consider your main thesis: that "women are largely unconscious whereas men are far more conscious". I don't even want to argue this, it's so patently ridiculous. But I suppose I need to put on some sort of showing, so here goes. Consciousness in its crudest form is self-awareness and in more sophisticated versions involves intelligence and understanding. If you want to start talking about scales of consciousness then it's very hard to dissociate from scales of intelligence. Accepting women's relatively equal intelligence with men's, their relatively equal consciousness is undeniable.

Now we come to value judgements. Your value judgement is that a person should "seek ultimate truth" and "become fully conscious" where "fully conscious" means aware of and acting on the principle of cause and effect. The dubious claim that you have already found ultimate truth implies that a person should seek to become like you. So what you're really saying is, if a woman doesn't value what I value, then she has no value. Here is the problem with that view: it is self-focussed and ungenerous - it doesn't recognise that other people, in this instance, women, have the right to make their own value judgements, and that their value judgements are no less valid than your own. For example, my main value judgement is that to the extent possible I should live a life that minimises suffering and maximises happiness (for not only myself but for other people too). By this judgement, many women are remarkable creatures indeed, for they are highly empathetic and capable of responding sensitively to those who are suffering. Likewise many mature women are well aware of their powers of physical and romantic attraction and use them to bolster less confident members of the opposite sex. This relates to my starting thesis in this thread, so we're finally back on topic. I'm not saying that men don't do these things too, but I'm focussing on women because they are the topic at hand.

But let's for argument's sake accept that the highest value that a woman should hold is the attainment of absolute truth. I personally have come to the conclusion that it's likely that such a goal is unattainable, at least whilst I am in human form, and I don't find it implausible that many if not most women have come to the same conclusion. Therefore they shift their focus from "uselessly comtemplating my navel" to "doing something more productive with my time", where what's "productive" is a personal choice. For you to deny the virtues possible in this personal choice is an injustice.

Now to the apparent fact that the marvels of modernity and the ages have been produced by masculine hands. I'm not going to argue against that, because it seems to be largely incontrovertible (but not completely true - there are recognised women in these "masculine" domains - women such as Marie Curie). What I will argue against though is the presumption that this is a blight on women. What it really means in my opinion is that women are biologically (genetically) predisposed to adopt values that discourage them from engaging in such intellectual/mechanical/artistic pursuits. I don't think that it's beyond a woman, though, to harbour the genius of a Mozart or a Michaelangelo, just that it's less likely that she will be drawn to pursue it. In our modern world we are starting to encourage women to pursue the same venues as men, so perhaps we will start to see more historically recognised women, but if not, it doesn't matter. Women contribute in genius ways to other aspects of life that are not recognised. For one thing, the nurturing of a child takes an incredible amount of skill. For another, some of the other women who are historically recognised are recognised for very altruistic and noble acts - and here I refer to women such as Mother Theresa and Florence Nightingale.

To summarise: the problem isn't that the virtues of women are all in my head, it's that they're not in your head.

Dan Rowden wrote:You said I said that: "mind is created by that which it contains." I didn't say that. I said mind is created by Reality. It's not the same thing. What I was hoping to get you to think about was the problem of where mind begins and ends - i.e. if we think of mind in a subject-object manner, where the former becomes the latter or, if you prefer, what distinguishes them. Where is the boundary between mind and its objects? And furthermore, how do they manage to relate?

OK, Dan, I think I see where you're going with this. I think that you're able to avoid paradox, but only when there's one mind. How do you explain that there are multiple minds, and yet that everything is contained by mind at the same time. Is my mind only in your mind, and your mind only in mine? If so then we have a new paradox.

Dan,

On the prosilver screen, the topic shows up with each post. I noted that, and suspected you were making a joke, as the "derailing" actually was putting it back on topic. I didn't realize your irony was rusty.

There was no irony intended on my part so it's not that it's rusty. I have just long since stopped looking at/for post titles because they're normally missing. My brain basically excludes them these days.

Laird,

I'll get to you soon. There's a lot to rectify in your post.

Secondly, I've stated a number of times that mind is caused by that which is not mind. So it is obvious that mind does not contain that which causes mind. You have a mental block which prevents you from hearing this, so I won't continue repeating it.

The mind must contain that which causes the mind [as a physical entity], however consciousness does not contain that which causes consciousness. The mind is a physical thing of forces, consciousness is merely the top level pattern of these causes. Consciousness is a Whole and does not consist of parts, whereas the mind or brain does. Consciousness is the interrelationship of these causes but not the actual underlying causes. All things are the same (just patterns) and that is why all things are empty of being - mentally dissect these things - as in seek causal understandings - and the whole becomes non-existent.

We create the spiritual world by conceptualising things as if they were not empty, by considering things as solid Wholes - and in one regard they are not empty. While they are physically bereft of their own-ness, they are not causally empty due to the fact that the flowing ratios of synergistic and non-synergistic causes within the overall pattern, create different observable effects. This allows for the existence of both things and the properties of things. Effects are just different relativities of fundamental forces contained within something observed. The overall pattern, the thing, is finite, the causes are not – if the causes alter their configuration, if the layers of relativities change, the overall thing alters or disappears. With sufficient change in the underlying relativities, consciousness disappears completely, it dies, but with limited change of the parts, consciousness alters properties only – ie deep sleep, dreams, tiredness, altered states and so on.

Laird: mind is created by that which it contains. Do you acknowledge this paradox?

Kevin: Firstly, I've never said that mind contains anything.

On the previous page of this thread can be found the following quote of yours: "All we can say is that the contents of our mind come from somewhere."

OK, so here's a contradiction, but I'm not as concerned about highlighting it as about how you resolve it. Now that you have these two alternatives (the mind does not contain anything vs the mind contains things) which one do you want to ultimately assert? I find the view that the mind contains things more tenable myself, and more in line with the rest of your position, if that's any help.

Kevin Solway wrote:Secondly, I've stated a number of times that mind is caused by that which is not mind. So it is obvious that mind does not contain that which causes mind.

You've stated that thought is (probably) comprised of chemicals. This seems to me to imply that chemicals are a cause of mind. Therefore they must be part of "that which is not mind". Yet chemicals appear to us. To appear is to be a thing (by your definition). All things are part of the mind (your fundamental position). Therefore chemicals are part of mind. So chemicals are part of mind and simultaneously part of that which is not mind. Do you see the paradox now?

Dan seems to be able to resolve the paradox by saying that, rather than being caused by chemicals and other things, mind is caused by "Reality", which is an as-yet (by him) vaguely defined term. That's fine, but he still seems to want to contend that all things are mind. So we have a new paradox: all things (including your mind) are contained in my mind, yet all things (including my mind) are contained in your mind.

So guys, help me out, I'm really trying to make sense of your position here but it seems to reduce in one of two ways to a paradox. That's cool, I dig paradox, but you don't, so naturally you'll find some way of escaping these paradoxes. What intrigues me is to know how you do it.

Jamesh, nice post. Would it be too much for me to relate it to the discussion on identity (A=A) by saying that your argument implies that ultimately identity is an intangible concept?

Laird wrote:On the previous page of this thread can be found the following quote of yours: "All we can say is that the contents of our mind come from somewhere."

The contents of mind are thoughts. Thoughts are caused by something other than thoughts.

Neither thoughts nor what cause them are inherently existent.

You've stated that thought is (probably) comprised of chemicals. This seems to me to imply that chemicals are a cause of mind.

Chemicals may be a cause of mind, but chemicals are not mind. Chemicals are chemicals.

All things are part of the mind (your fundamental position).

No. That which is other than the mind are not part of the mind, except for its parts. Not all things are part of the mind. The cause of the mind is not part of the mind.

Therefore chemicals are part of mind.

The thought of chemicals may be part of the mind, and some chemicals may be part of thought.

So chemicals are part of mind and simultaneously part of that which is not mind.

Some chemicals may be part of the mind, and other chemicals may not be.

Laird: All things are part of the mind (your fundamental position).

Kevin: No.

So then the things that are not part of the mind must exist in an external reality. But several pages back you wrote:

You are assuming that there is a reality independent of thought, and which thought corresponds to. There isn't.

At first you write that thought is the only reality; now you imply that there is another reality. Which is it?

Hi there folks!

Laird: Women contribute in genius ways to other aspects of life that are not recognized.

Only by those who are arrogant enough not to recognize it… reason says otherwise.

Any ways… which part of Reality does not play an integral part that one may consider it inferior (superior) to another? Otherwise… discrimination rocks… of course.

Kevin: Firstly, I've never said that mind contains anything.

Pardon my ignorance, but this discussion would make much more sense to me if “mind” were defined.
If “it” doesn’t contain anything, what exactly is “it” then?