jorndoe mentioning Iran reminded me of the Shaw of Iran being deposed and the Iran hostage crisis.

I was in a college dorm at the time and about 6 Iranian students were moved in mid year. When we asked why they moved they said they couldn't talk about it but had the help of the US government and if they returned they would be killed. I think it was a relocation program for entire families.

Reading the history now, I'm not sure which side they were on as the CIA was playing both sides.

Maybe listing some guesses at how body/mind exist would show what the problem is.

1) All is physical and body and mind are the same thing.
-problem- How do ideas transfer person to person without a physical transfer of matter? Fail.

2) Brains have the ability to hold non-physicals or mental content. This seems to be consistent with a common view. I'll call it the best option.
Ideas transfer by encoding physical matter by the sender and decoding by the receiver.

3) Brains are physical and mind is something extra-physical that can exist regardless of a physical brain.
-problem-. This would require physically unsupported non-physicals to exist and requires a means of how that could be. Fail.

My point is the best option is the brain holds mental content and at a fundamental level this state is not reducible...or separable.

If you want to argue with scientific precision, you have to separate the neuronal, i.e. physiological, level from the philosophical or psychological. — Wolfgang

This is why I asked.

Sorry you are leaving. It isn't a bad post and we wouldn't leave comments if we weren't interested. Looks like you are new here so don't let the negativity upset you. If you are here for excitement then pick a fight with Banno or some of the math and science guys or formal logic guys when they are around.

Alright, we agree neurons generate mental content. But I see a problem with any attempt to separate brain and mental content because mental content cannot exist in a separated form.
I guess it could if you designate it as an abstraction and not a physical state but the abstraction still exists as [brain (abstraction)] and if you want to stay 'scientific' you must limit it to the form that can physically exist.

Really there is no established science if you have a mix of physical/non-physicals as science is physical only as far as the scientific method. The solution is to apply the best mental process you can to the problem.

I wouldn't consider academic psychology a science. How would any scientific precision be claimed for psychology when it can be just about anything from person to person. You would just be applying statistics to abstract ideas.
.

I'm not arguing that non-physicals exists. Non-physical means physically non existent. But the real state of things is that non-physicals (mental content, our thoughts, ideas, our psychology) can only exist in a biologically supported state.

Can you or anyone suggest an equation or process or notation that fits with physical matter as we know it. I wrote some on a Y(o) notation representing large numbers of neurons supporting mental content and this seem consistent with what we observe.

Ok, I was almost there but needed to check. Another question that follows is if the biology is strictly biology only... or...biology with the emergent abilities to contain non-physicals such as idea, thoughts, mental images and so on. The need for this will become apparent when one consciousness communicates with another but no biological material is transfered.

What I see is the people in power play a zero sum game but they need to control the means of production of their own populations or base. So if we are the producers we should hold our governments to account to not exploit their populations unnecessarily. Seems like a lot of bungled wars on the US side in recent history.

Also we should be aware that weaponized central banking can be a driver in leading to wars.

Yes, Isaac, who needs Hersh when you have the logic of your item #4.

I was not familiar with Hersh or his writing until it came up here. So Hersh might have a history of being anti US military so just asking others what his political orientation might be.

Why, at the start, do you write mind-body dualism- solved and then give an equation that makes no sense?

I give anyone a hard time that claims inanimates are stand alone non-physicals so could you comment on how you think inanimates can exist.

Never mind...the White House is denying it. Who can you believe?

So...Nord Stream bombing, Biden...Flight MH17, Putin...they are telling each other's secrets...

I would try a relations approach instead of an equation approach:

X is the physical universe
x is all physical matter we access
Y are are all the neurons and peripherals that interact with physical matter (x) and support mental content (o)
(o) is mental content

That is the entirety of the basic components.

So our mental experience is the relation,

x <----> Y(o) And this relation exists within the
limits of the physical universe (X).

Mental content should be identified as dynamic
existing only in the physical present.

This Y(o) term acknowledges the emergent nature of mental content in relation to biological brains. Breaking it down this way avoids the pitfalls of the monism/dualism question.

Information always exists in the form Y(o).
Consciousness always exists in the form Y(o).
Hint, hint...they are the same thing at the fundamental level.

Thanks for mentioning dual aspect theory. I've never run across the term before. I looked it up and am trying to understand it. I'm okay with it up until the part that the underlying reality is neither mental or physical. That just leaves me hanging...so what is it? Can anyone familiar with it give a little insight?

It's looks like a theory that's been around since 1902 but I missed it and haven't seen it before on this forum.

Because your neurons are connected to your fingers, your tongue, your eyes, your ears, your nose. And more.

Shouldn't have called you a nihilist.

Yes, no shortage of dumb at every human level. How do we avoid it? We are tiny specks in an endless ocean of matter that is oblivious to us. Maybe I'm a nihilist in some ways.

You might be a nihilist. However, it seems worth while to send up trial balloons to see what flies and what gets shot down and try again. That's what some of us do here.

If you are of the opinion that information exists outside our minds I'll tell you that is in error.

The correct view is that information exists as our neurons containing and manipulating mental content. This two part form is the physical reality of how information can exist.

Has anyone considered that the ability to manipulate information (and information itself) and consciousness are one in the same. Of course they are and why aren't you a proponent of that most obvious state. Information as we know it is never static but always dynamic... Quite clear supporting evidence...and please don't confuse the issue with any more Claude Shannon BS. It's been a done and dismissed....failed....dead end...period.

If you start with a bad theory of information the problem of consciousness will be unsolvable.

By science I mean the instruments that detect physical matter....Not saying we can't go beyond that if we understand the problem.

Any study of consciousness using neuroscience alone will surely fail and here's why. .Our brains contain networks and catalogs and hierarchies of biologically contained non-physicals that will never be detected by any physical means, ever, regardless of the science. Failure to understand this absolute limit of science is not only ignorant but a danger to our collective well-being.

Anyone, here of all places, that cannot grasp this reality will miss the core feature of consciousness and our mental existence.

Who thinks the professors at your state universities using fMRI machines to study psychology are on a fools errand? I'll raise my hand.

Without some basic philosophy of consciousness they are just wasting everyone's time and putting others in life or death situations.

Here in Minnesota the prime example is the Dan Markingson case, who they assumed was suffering from a biological condition and enrolled him in a drug study. A few months later Mr Markingson was dead.

I cycle,
I'm happy, then people annoy me and I get cranky, then they leave me alone and I'm happy. Sometimes I just need to find solutions involving others and can't worry too much about happy.
Not happy all the time but when nothing is too bad I'm happy.

Maybe the unreasonable man is thinking outside the box to find new ideas even if by accident.

My view of psychosis or schizophrenia is it's likely more than a biologic failure but more often information processing anomalies...and missed by the professionals...who have no economic interest in a real cause. But in philosophy we should be looking for the real cause because it is relevant to questions in philosophy like how non-physicals in our minds interact with the physical world.

I.think you mentioned awhile back you had some formal course work in philosophy. I did also some decades ago and it seemed so disjointed and inconsistent that I learned just enough to get through the course.
If they were getting it right then philosophy should reduce to something singular and not multiple opposing theories. A scientific theory. of information should be a prerequisite but is non-existent in formal philosophy. Maybe someone more current knows but the trend in academic philosophy departments seems to be away from basic philosophy towards political philosophy...but depends on the school.

Okay, I don't disagree too much. I'm just saying that where there is a conflict the motivation of both sides/all sides should be understood. Maybe a non-interested party shouldn't take sides at all. You know there is a cost to being in every fight.

Maybe introversion and psychosis are an adaptation to the political ideologies you mentioned. They (ideologies) seem to universally take the form of pyramid schemes and those in the higher levels of the hierarchy are most benefited. Could be denying them some of your patronage is your way of winning. Also applies to financial, religious and social hierarchies.

Deleted.

Uncle Harry, yes, lots of stories. The ship ride over, Sunday visits, the boxes of files...

As for the classical or quantum problem, it's a switches and relays problem. What size are the switches and relays? Neurons and nerves seem to be the correct scale.

And, 180, the fact that you can post shows that you are adept at manipulating the non-physical. Think of your hand grasping a tennis ball. Your brain is like that only it has the ability to grasp a wide range of non-physicals.

Are you looking at all options?

Here is my list:

• Mind is physical matter
• Mind is non-physical
• Mind is physical matter containing non-physicals

I can't think of any others, but of course only option 3 can be correct.

I started using the term non-physical last week and what I mean is if you see a rock then your brain holds the rock as mental content. If you need four rocks for a project, the rocks may or may not exist but you can manipulate the idea of rocks in your brain. You should be able to identify an entire physical process in your relation to rocks. Sight, touch, mental process, decision making, muscle control.

As for communication, if you say brain state is the physical brain with mental content then content is encoded to physical matter, passed to another person as physical matter, and decoded by that person to get mental content.

It should be easier to get closer to what consciousness is if you get information, communication, time perception and theories of physical matter right first. You should also do your best on the monism, dualism question. I just like the idea that mental content emerges from the physical matter of biological brains.

The fact that we have memories of the past is evidence for mental content being a component of consciousness. Neither neurons or micro tubules would have a physical connection to past states of matter.

I am reading your OP for background. The Roger Penrose books were out thirty years ago and I have them so I might dust them off. Also I Googled some of this and now articles are showing up on my Google news.

I'm still on the classical side but maybe looking at the quantum side... don't know yet.

Whether neurons or micro tubules or both produce consciousness, I still think the role of mental content is part of it. Since we deal with things based on a buildup of past experiences and our current beliefs are held as mental content and we study this with our minds then our minds should be included. This can be entirely materialistically based with our minds emerging as a special case of physical matter.

And we do have direct access to our minds so we can test the role of mental content in decision making, model building, thought processes, etc.

"Touche" but I'm not French, I'm Swedish.

Don't know where you are in the world but I'm in the USA and it's Thanksgiving holiday here and I had a good day and few glasses of wine and ...lost my good manners so that's the situation.

I am repeating myself, but the non-physical does not exist. So I do not disagree. What does exist are our brains that have the capacity to deal in the non- physical.

What do you think of the idea that brains can configure physically to represent things that do not physically exist?

Enrique, I think my issue with you is an inability to grasp that brains
have the ability to grasp the non-physical...Take something from nothing and through process of brain and muscle turn the non-physocal into physical form.