Substances

[ManTimeForgot]

You are discussing metaphysical notions as if they were real, as in ‘Infinite Reality’ (your capitals), rather than mere speculation. And one doesn’t need to be a died-in-the-wool materialist to speak of experience in terms of the material world, since it from this world all arguments begin. If there are, supposedly, other-worldly experiences I’ll wager that those experiences will be expressed in terms compounded from general experience, i.e. what we understand to be the empirical world.

I’m afraid your second paragraph isn’t intelligible to me

I can't make heads or tails of his second paragraph either... I suspect he was trying to point out that in an infinite reality any cosmological form you can postulate will tend to be real, and you can postulate the form of a cosmos which was "composed" entirely of subjective experience (vis-a-vis the Matrix) and that a finite yet godlike being would seek to master this by learning the ultimate extent of that subjective world and then ultimately realizing what it was a transposition of in the "objective" world that it is tied too (you can't have something from nothing; so your subjective world has to be based on something).

But any notion of a finite being attempting to realize an infinity is nonsensical to me, so I don't know if that is even close to what he was attempting to say.

MTF

 

[Willamena]

Why are you putting words in my mouth? This isn't what I said.

The words are mine. It's an interpretation of what was read, nothing more.

 

[atanu]

Here's my point. If the mind could exist and operate independently of brains, then why do we have brains? .

Obviously to experience existence in many varied ways.

 

[PolyHedral]

Obviously to experience existence in many varied ways.

But having something other than a brain would be more varied still.

 

[atanu]

Now Occam's Razor (which is a probabilistic assessment when used in practical matters) tells us to use the explanation which adds the least amount of unknowns. So the "radio hypothesis" loses out to the "gross materialism," -----

Not really. How many kinds of material you will need to explain one product, the human consciousness?

And if science eventually captures one single material (or whatever) that is the source of all things including consciousness, then that material's basic property will be consciousness. If this is not accepted then there are many thousands of materials that will need to be explained -- violating the razor. I take this opportunity to point out that in ancient nyAyA logic system, the principle of parsimony is used to arrive at a singular cause of the varied conglomeration of objects that universe appears to be.

 

[atanu]

But having something other than a brain would be more varied still.

How do you know?

Deep sleep is the state of man that is devoid of conceptualisation and hence devoid of variety. It is rejuvenating yet it is devoid of variety. OTOH, the world full of variety is draining. One needs to go to the homogeneous state everyday to recoup. Consciousness can exist varietyless but variety depends on particularisation of consciousness.

 

[idav]

We don't actually have any evidence about consciousness itself. We have evidence about brain chemistry and nerve cells, but we don't actually know what to look for when it comes to looking for consciousness. The best we can do is look and see "Do we have consciousness or don't we?" This is a far cry from being able to identify what leads to creating consciousness or even what consciousness entails/is made out of.


When anything is possible, then you have zero knowledge. When you have zero knowledge, you by definition do not have enough to commit to a strong belief.

MTF

We have other things to go by besides brain chemistry but those things are telling enough. We just excite the right part of the brain and get you to feel happy, sad, angry or whatever with the right chemical composition. This isn't hard to understand. What we also have is plenty of other less complex multicellular organisms to compare to and we can see a clear emergence of concsiousness complexity in stages of various lifeforms. We do know plenty and it is all leading towards complexity being the determining factor for sentience.

Despite complexity the problem we have is we don't know basic awareness comes from and can't even answer if a plant is aware or not. That doesn't mean we don't know anything about awareness and we can easily see that it is our complexity that gives us sentience. The only thing we don't know exactly is how basic reaction to chemicals can give awareness and if we could answer that we'd answer the plant awareness question. I have an idea of how that's possible but it is philosophical at this point as you pointed out there is still more to learn.

 

[PolyHedral]

Not really. How many kinds of material you will need to explain one product, the human consciousness?

18, and shrinking. I can name all of them, if you like.

And if science eventually captures one single material (or whatever) that is the source of all things including consciousness, then that material's basic property will be consciousness

No it won't; the One True Interaction would simply be the combination of the existing four, (possibly five) and none of the four include conciousness.

 

[atanu]

18, and shrinking. I can name all of them, if you like.

No it won't; the One True Interaction would simply be the combination of the existing four, (possibly five) and none of the four include conciousness.

How does that abide by the Razor?

Stout trees will break. You hypothesize about the four or five basic material with one consciousness, however. You are sort of killing off the mother, though you are so deluded that you refuse to acknowledge that.

Alternately, if consciousness is product of five basic material then your so called rational output is just a product of causal determinism and not science. You have no capacity to unravel the truth. In simple words a product cannot unravel its cause.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

How are brains still needed if consciousness can exist independent of a brain?


This presumes that consciousness outside of a brain is localized or can process the linear/causal world we live within. This also presumes that consciousness can act on its own in the absence of a connection to the body; perhaps as in the "radio theory" brains are needed as an antenna.

MTF

 

[atanu]

How are brains still needed if consciousness can exist independent of a brain?


This presumes that consciousness outside of a brain is localized or can process the linear/causal world we live within. This also presumes that consciousness can act on its own in the absence of a connection to the body; perhaps as in the "radio theory" brains are needed as an antenna.

MTF

Yes. A contrast is needed. Else nothing lands.

 

[Photonic]

Does a random number generator set to generate output at random intervals have consciousness because it has "optional interaction?" Does a computer program have consciousness because it has conditional reaction with the environment? (Obviously speaking rhetorically here, but it bares mentioning that problems like these are part of what illustrates just how lacking in definition as in clarity the term consciousness is).

If you are speaking of "volition" or "self-direction," then you also have to define these terms, and also how one might go about looking for them.

MTF

Conditional statements do not mean the computer can chose to pick one. This is not a matter of statistics. The idea that consciousness is reliant on input being optional to react upon is exactly that. If we have no ability to react to a situation to our own choosing, are we conscious?

 

[cottage]

My view. The physical world is identified by extension (or form), and consciousness. Our awareness of the former is dependent upon the latter, but without the former no case can be made for the latter unless we want to deny the external world. The monist view that everything can be understood as a single feature (the term ‘substance’ invites all sorts of controversy), in terms of a physical world, is compelling. Few would argue that mental events are remote from physical events. When something occurs in the physical world it affects the mental world; and similarly, decisions and wishes cause changes in the physical world. And isn’t true that our subjective selves remain obstinately in the physical world with our dreams and desires? While our minds can introspectively wander among so many fantastic concepts, and imagine or believe things that are contrary to normal life, they do so only by having recourse to the physical world. Other worlds there may be, but there are no convincing arguments for them because the advocates just cannot seem to escape their empirical experiences.

 

[atanu]

My view. The physical world is identified by extension (or form), and consciousness. Our awareness of the former is dependent upon the latter, but without the former no case can be made for the latter unless we want to deny the external world. ------

I agree to this, more the bold part.

Without names and forms no case can be made of Consciousness because one needs contrast to KNOW. When one enters a homogeneous realm of deep sleep, one exists, but mind does not see anything because there is no second person; there is no second sound; there is no second smell etc.

The deep sleep is a basic form of ours. That it is dark is the reason that even Hinduism calls it the state of ignorance. Mind knows nothing. But sages tell us that there is a state called Wakeful Sleeping -- wherein there is no subject-object division and the consciousness is whole.

There was a time when i laughed away these teachings. But the situation changes when one oneself experiences the Wakeful Sleep. It cannot be explained just as taste of mango cannot be explained to another mind. But it can be induced by powerful teachers in others.

Take it or leave it.

 

[PolyHedral]

How does that abide by the Razor?

Because no explanation using less has been invented. The razor only applies in the case where you have two equally valid theories. (Although I miscounted originally. There are 17 components to reality that I know of.)

Alternately, if consciousness is product of five basic material then your so called rational output is just a product of causal determinism and not science. You have no capacity to unravel the truth. In simple words a product cannot unravel its cause.

The two bold statements do not follow from each other. More importantly, they are wrong; here is the counterexample. Rational science can and does unravel the truth; no "self" is required.

 

[atanu]

Because no explanation using less has been invented. The razor only applies in the case where you have two equally valid theories. (Although I miscounted originally. There are 17 components to reality that I know of.)

I know of?

:biglaugh:

 

[PolyHedral]

I know of?

:biglaugh:

"I" is a thing in the mathematical view of reality. It just isn't as special as you think it is.

 

[atanu]

"I" is a thing in the mathematical view of reality. It just isn't as special as you think it is.

I see. But your saying the above view must be very special and really real?

(To know the mathematics, a pre-existing "I" is required. To deny the "I", again an "I" is required.)

I think that I should stop this repetitive discussion with you. Pardon me my friend.

 

[PolyHedral]

To know the mathematics, a pre-existing "I" is required.

But you don't need to know the mathematics to use them.

 

[atanu]

But you don't need to know the mathematics to use them.

To know mathematics you need them. To mis-use mathematics you need them.