Have you or anyone come across Feynman diagrams showing forward and backward flowing time. My interpretation is physical existence has some duration relative to clock time. It's worth mentioning in a discussion of Monism.

I don't get to deep into the quantum stuff because you should understand the math first before you even have an opinion and, beware, a lot of the people writing about this for mass audiences are clueless.

Maybe just check backgrounds, but even some of the scientists seem a little off.

As Art48 started by pointing out, Monism is reductionist, or you can derive the complex from the simple.

I would question your idea that information is the most fundamental thing but since you gave your references I'll check that out if I can get to it.

My view is information (not the abstract consept definition but as it physically exists as brain state) is on the derived complex end of the spectrum... existing in emergent and well developed biological brains.

I don't mind hearing about one or the other or any alternatives. There will be physical scales associated with any model and all the details need to be addressed like chain of control from the micro to the macro worlds.

I like that you brought up design. Some may not agree, but what is design, if not the manipulation of non-physicals?
The thing itself does not yet exist and isn't the state of neurons alone but the forming of a state of neurons to fulfill a design requirement. The process is best understood as the manipulation of the non-physical or the immaterial.

I'm saying things that do not physically exist (like the past or future) can exist in our brains. Do you or others have an alternative. Physical existence of the subject matter is not required for mental content to exist.
So physical non existence of the subject matter is my use of the word immaterial and it exists as brain state in an entirely physical form. What's the problem?

And identifying this mental ability should lead to the conclusion that mental content is universally immaterial. Identifying this ability gives a better understanding of how information physically exists. So information doesn't need to be defined as an abstract concept. Does that explain it? I'm surprised at the resistance to the idea.

It might be just word problems. For me the immaterial is something brains can assign parameters to but they don't exist other than as brain state.

Sorry for your confusion. Maybe I could explain it this way. Our brains do something like our hands would do to hold an imaginary tennis ball, or rubber duck, or pencil, or dish rag or almost any thing. Not a real thing but a gauging of parameters.

Don't know were the rubber duck came from???
1970's maybe.

Actually I get spread thin so just check in here mostly weekends so I miss a lot. I enjoy the back and forth.

I mostly just follow this forum.

Just interested if you have an occupation or training that gives you some insight on this issue?

my view is mental content is universally immaterial. If I'm physically in the presence of a physical object it would be contained in my brain as an immaterial representation of a physical object.

Maybe the issue you are raising is if the physical form of neuron configuration is all there is or is the subject matter of prime importance and the underlying biology must rise to the task. I take the latter view and it shows we have some very advanced biology by evidence of what our capabilities are.

Because they are immaterial. It's a reasonable development of physical monism that advances things beyond the physical present.

Edit:I mean physically instantiated immaterials. A stand alone immaterial would not exist.

I said the immaterial IS supported by physical processes. The reasoning is because we contain immaterials such as past and future (that physically do not exist) and that is evidence our brains have this ability.

So our brains have this interactive ability to connect past, present and future...and the material and immaterial.

And as 180 Proof pointed out abstract objects really only exist in a physically instantiated form, which I agree with.

If you are a monist I think this could use a little more exploration. You are right in pointing out that abstract objects must be physically instantiatable.
But I'm thinking that once we have this ability to contain the immaterial then we have an environment were the immaterial can affect other immaterial content. Much of our mental activity works this way, not just maths. In some ways this immaterial world can operate independent of the physical world.
(Regarding Platonism)

An example would be how we control the future.

I mostly agree with you on non material and immaterial being the same. Or it could be a matter of different definitions being used.

Monism, materialism, physicalism and presentism all have the limitation of only existing in the physical present. So how do our brains perceive past and future which are physically non existent? An obvious answer is our brains are physically in the present but have the ability to hold the immaterial...our ability to think outside of the present time proves it. So what else do our brains hold that is immaterial? Basically all mental content...it appears me.

And since you referenced information physics I'll just say I don't think it's good science at all. A better view is that information simply exists in the form of physical brains holding immaterial content. This would be at the physical scale of complex neuron groups and not at quantum scales.

Since monism and theories of physical matter are being discussed, my question is how can our brains ability to perceive time be explained by physical matter that only exists momentarily, instant to instant.

If you can't explain this then your theory of monism has failed. I think it can be done but some thought needs to go into how our brains existing in a physical present have this ability to hold subject matter outside of the physical present as well as endless other subject matter.

Actually, it seems that people who use their brains productively have better instincts about this than the philosophers who fail to explain it.

When we recall the past we are thinking about something that is physically nonexistent. So you could say our brains have the ability to contain non-physicals. Similar with the future. And, by reason of similar acting mechanism, when we perceive the present we are containing a non-physical.

If you think about a time line, with past present and future, and consider strict physical monism you should realize that only the present can be addressed because the past and future do not physically exist. So this exposes a fallacy of the monism/dualism question that doesn't get addressed in philosophy.

The best solution I can suggest is to develope our best models of physical matter and biological brains to explain (understand) why we perceive past, present and future.

Thanks, Gnomon. Some of us have varying degrees of technical savvy depending on our circumstance. And for some us financial support is or is not a reality. This really is a good forum. It might come down to marginal utility on a person to person basis. We all have burdens and some serious thought is required to get the best allocation of our resources.

Anyway, the jist of my OP was that images are fundamental to philosophy, and on reflection, not so much a criticism of this forum.

That it can exist as it does should be appreciated by all of us.

Okay,. Who is who is important..
I sometimes do a 180 like today.
I'll look into your suggestions on images.

Your points are well taken and I will come back another day.

Overall this is a well managed site and I really don't know who is who but you must be a principal so please, please no offense. You have your perspective that I don't have but I will understand if you explain it.

Yes, you are right, I missed some of the protocol in starting my post. A mental lapse on my part.
Some of us have chaotic days that terminate here for better or worse.

Just saying, that even on my mager cell phone plan, an occasional photograph wouldn't be an extravagance....what am I missing?

Thanks for the heads up, Banno.

And to management...that is just shit.
You can rebuttle of course... enlightening us.

Hi Banno, I'm lost. Not addressing you.

Just wondering how to post photos on this forum... wouldn't that be progressive?

Something I remember about my undergrad macro economics class was that our professor was prohibited from answering certain questions about central banking (I'm guessing department policy, about 1982). Also, our state university economics department regarded the University of Chicago economics department as an econ policy mecca. I seem to remember this trivia as more important than the content of the course.

Also I've picked up a long the way that institutions such as George Washington University and U of Pennsylvania's Wharton school have close ties with covert US Federal economics policies and personal.

I've found reading your own notes can be very enlightening.

It's ok. I like the thought process on display.

Ha Ha, I only got to the marbles part....

In the physical world your three marbles in a box analogy can never exist so we are looking at past, present and future in terms of mental images that can only exist in the physical present...is that fair to say? A lot of paradoxes will show up if it isn't specified.

You are right. That's maybe why it seemed incomplete to me. It needs specific context.

I came across some notes on philosophy while house cleaning that read:

"My notes,

If an object exists physically then it is affected by physical matter.

And if an object is physical matter then it can affect physical matter.

By observation, thought can affect physical matter and be affected by physical matter so thought is physical matter."


It seems to present a logic problem but it might not be air tight. However, if there is an alternative what is it? My view is that consciousness is a special case of physical matter that has evolved or emerged.

So we do agree that ideas can be transfered brain to brain and no biological material is being transfered, right? That is a valid observation.

There is the logic that biology alone fails in any explanation of consciousness. We communicate ideas but no biology is transfered brain to brain in the process. That points away from reductionism and suggests something emergent is necessary in understanding consciousness.

This is the science of the problem. Observable and repeatable.

I might personally be inclined to be a reductionist however that dead ends because everything in philosophy is in the category of mind. So pragmatism forces some form of dualism. Mind emerging from the matter of brains is the best I can do but there might be better ways. I'm always looking.

Computers certainly have a unique set of parameters compared with biology...much faster and they feel no pain.

This category error problem could use some sorting. The primary category is physical matter.
That expands to matter/brain, mind and continues branching for various subject matter.

I got sidetracked looking up amoebas as background for early/primitive life forms.
They are single cell, have no central nervous system and seem to be controlled by direct connection to their DNA. A completely different mechanism from our consciousness.

Are you saying mind is separate from brain or a relation of brain -> mind -> information?

Why not computer -> mind -> information?

Try stating what you disagree with and not agree then add an addendum because that confuses the issues especially when Dfpolis is just starting a new post.

Mind/body should be examined together with the 'what is information' question..

Brain information is in the brain only.
Genetic information...I don't think it exists other than a shorthand for the people who study it and a pop culture concept.
Signal information...of the Claude Shannon type seems to reduce to physical matter only.
Physical information...such as distant galaxies, stars and planets having physical information associated with them...shorthand by practitioners but migrated to pop culture.

Dictionary definition of information is an abstract concept. Not very helpful if you are a physicalist.

I'm not trying to get too focused on information other than observing that brain information and consciousness are inseparable.

So my view is brain information is the only information that should be relevant to mind.

I'm not convinced that psychology does describe consciousness or that it is a final authority or even a science.

If I stick to what I can observe then biological brains support consciousness, consciousness doesn't exist without brains and shouldn't be speculated on in a form separated from the brain.
The category error notion will just detour you from the fundamental relations between brain and mind you should be focusing on.

In theory you could be able to to describe consciousness biologically but we can't now and may never. Sometimes, with difficult problems a method used to find a solution is to use place holders or end points or intermediate results. I probably take those approaches to mind/body to be pragmatic because a biology only method isn't attainable. It might be usable utility verses theoretical perfection.

I still see a problem that everything we experience can't be explained by biology or even the broader category of physical matter. What is information? Does it show up on the periodic table of elements? So you need some way to explain it.

You can be complacent and say information is just an abstraction but we can do better. I'm actually on your side here by pointing out that information exists only as our biological brains holding mental content. Brain(mental content).

Information is biology and a contained non-physical component... so information is brain biology only and not all physical matter. We also have limits on the what mental content we can contain. Aptitude, access, environment, time constraints are all limiting how much information we can process and retain.

Actually language itself such as the English language we share is an example of a hierarchy of rule making our brains support that goes beyond biology. To communicate we need brains with the capability to hold content, a common language and a two way physical connection. Agree?

You use the word ideas and other words associated with mind so I suspect you subconsciously do think in terms of mind/body as most of us do. But I agree it is ultimately based on an evolved state of physical matter.

Some of the confusion may be language like do our brains hold ideas or are ideas the exact configuration of our brains? I think they are the same but you have two ways to state it. I don't see the problem, thinking in terms of held content, if we can get back to an understanding of the physical basis.