Same reason, I suspect, falling into holes distresses folks. — 180 Proof

Matchless wit!

Esse est percipi (To be is to be perceived) — George Berkeley

First off, this is a tautology because existence is defined as that perceived and "to be is to be perceived" is actually the statement, to exist (to be) is to exist (be perceived). Basically, the tautology boils down to the circular definition: existence is existence. We haven't made an inch of progress.

Secondly, it leads to a paradox vis-à-vis God, a necessary component of Berkeley's idealism I'm told for reasons you can Google. Since theism is part of idealism, it must include an act of creation - the universe and everything in it must come into being through God's perception as it were. That means, there's a point in time when God is alone. God, if esse est percipi, can exist because God perceives faerself. However, to perceive, God must first exist but to exist, God must first perceive. Round and round in a circle we go. God can't exist. If so, idealism collapses like a house of cards!

Should we discuss brain chemistry here? :chin: — DrOlsnesLea

Yes, I thought about it but it falls under the organic category and psychiatric disorders are inorganic. Mind you, I'm probably using some outmoded ideas in psychiatry. If you read my abstracts in quotes, you'll get an idea of what I mean.

Not entirely true — Cheshire

Mind you, I'm not saying other, alternative methods of treating psychiatric illnesses don't exist. All I'm saying is they're usually adjuncts to treatment with a host of brain-affecting drugs. — TheMadFool

That's right. My understanding of this issue is that on the one hand, if you have something physically wrong with your brain, you need a neurologist; and if you are having emotional difficulties adapting to life, you need a therapist. If you want to run a rat through a maze or convince a population to go to war or smoke cigarettes (think Edward Bernays, who realized that these two were the same problem) you need a psychologist.

In no case do you ever need a psychiatrist, and it's unclear exactly what they do.

Paging Doctor Freud! — fishfry

Does everything have to be a psychological disorder these days? — Old Lady

... "for nothing" surely. — 180 Proof

:sad: but hey, nothing is better than sex! :lol:

I'm having a Zen moment here. Just a second! Why do some people get excited/anxious about nothing? Any ideas? Is it because nothing is better/worse than sex/torture? Something worth pondering upon, yes/no?

You lost me again. — 180 Proof

Who wants to be a millionaire?

Lifelines:

1. 50:50 (Fifty-Fifty)
2. Ask a friend
3. Ask the audience OR Wisdom of the crowd OR POLL: Is morality - objective, subjective, or relative? :point: Look at the poll results and what you said,

Morality is objective — 180 Proof

They match - the % of people who believe morality is objective is highest (comparatively).

Gives me goosebumps but that's probably just me getting all excited for nothing!

The nub of the issue is you need good people to speak but for that to happen you need to let bad people speak (free speech) and, conversely, if you don't want bad people to speak, you can't let good people speak as well (cenorship).

The choices are, it's a classic dilemma (lose-lose), either let bad people speak (free speech) or stop good people from speaking (censorship). Like Protagoras did long ago in ancient Greece, we can offer a counter, more agreeable dilemma (win-win), either let good people speak (free speech) or stop bad people from speaking (censorship). It appears all that's needed is to change one's point of view and all is well...that ends well!

To All

There seems to be 3 states of consciousness we need to be cognizant of:

1. Awake
2. Asleep
3. Dead

They all differ from each other in terms of physical activity and consciousness. Allow me to expand a bit more and let objective EEG activity stand for brain on/off and subjective conscious experience represent mind on/off

1. Awake.
Brain on 1 (EEG reports activity E) and mind on i.e
conscious (you're aware of the environment & yourself)

2. Asleep.
a) REM sleep: Brain on 1 (EEG reports activity E) and mind on i.e. conscious (you're dreaming but unless you're woken up, no memories)
b) NREM sleep: Brain on 2 (EEG reports activity F) and mind is off i.e. unconscious (you're not dreaming)

3. Dead.
Brain off (EEG activity reports NIL) and mind off i.e. unconscious (you're dead)

Now, Khaled seems to be fixated on 2 b) NREM sleep: Brain on 2 (EEG reports activity F) ajd mind off i.e. unconscious (you're not dreaming) but fae doesn't seem to realize that the on state of the brain in NREM sleep is indistinguishable from the off state in death. NREM sleep is as good as being dead insofar as consciousness is concerned.

This implies, being as charitable as possible to physicalism, the part of the brain that's associated with consciousness is off in NREM sleep i.e. it's in precisely the state it would be if the entire brain were off as in death.

Therefore, NREM sleep, even if the brain were on during that time, can't be used as a counterpoint against my claim that the brain is off insofar as the part responsible for consciousness is concerned.

In other words, NREM sleep can be treated as a brain off state and thus I italicized situation 2 b) above.

What do we have here then? To reiterate after making the necessary corrections,


1. Awake.
Brain on (EEG reports activity E) and mind on i.e
conscious (you're aware of the environment & yourself)

2. Asleep.
a) REM sleep: Brain on (EEG reports activity E) and mind on i.e. conscious (you're dreaming but unless you're woken up, no memories)
b) NREM sleep: Brain off (EEG reports activity NIL ) and mind is off i.e. unconscious (you're not dreaming)

3. Dead.
Brain off (EEG reports activity NIL) and mind off i.e. unconscious (you're dead)


Now, take a look at what Mu is,

4. Mu.
Brain on (EEG reports activity E) and mind is off i.e. practically unconscious

If phsyicalism is true, brain on must correlate with mind on and brain off must correlate with mind off (a positive binary correlation if memory serves).

However, in the Mu mind state, the brain is on and the mind is off.

This is a major setback for physicalism because it claims

5. Brain on means mind on

but, the Mu mind state demonstrates,

6. Brain on doesn't mean mind on

Where does the mind go when in Mu?

Philosophical Zombie

I leave it to the reader to connect the dots!

Yes this is precisely the non sequitor. — khaled

This is you going around in circles. It looked like it was fun and I joined in. Not any more. Sorry, you'll have to go on alone from here. Good bye!

Then you typing this post about your thought of Aphrodite isnt a physical action? What about the statues and paintings of Aphrodite? Those were not produced by physical actions? How can one produce a statue or hit keys on a keyboard spelling out Aphrodite without first having the thought of Aphrodite? — Harry Hindu

I did consider that side to the issue but it doesn't work like that. If my thought about Aphrodite is energy then that energy should be able to move something of the right mass but that's something that's not been observed.

Non sequitor. First off, I think consciousness is a neurological state. It's not an independent existence that "has neurological correlates", no it's a pattern of neurological states. Mind is to a brain what an algorithm is to a computer. — khaled

Non sequitur?! You said "...the brain is always on." Consciousness is assuredly not always on. Ergo, the brain state and consciousness correlation coefficient is ZERO. Stop moving the goal post!

If you don't believe that then brain not off. Brain always on. — khaled

Let's not get bogged down. I hope to extricate the two of us from this bog ASAP.

First, if the brain is always on, what happens to consciousness between awake states and sleep states? There's, if some experts are to be believed, a definite change occurs in the level of consciousness between being awake and being asleep. You sleep, surely! I do too and I can say with a certainty unbecoming of a skeptic like myself that consciousness is altered between these two states (awake/asleep).

Second, if physicalism is true and if the brain is always on whether one's awake, sleeping, daydreaming, dreaming, whathaveyou, then consciousness doesn't have physical correlates. Is that what you want to say?

Morality is objective — 180 Proof

Look at the poll results. :point: Wisdom Of The Crowd.

Wisdom Of The Crowd from our previous discussion in the The Twilight Of Reason thread.

Do you actually think there is no brain activity while you sleep? If so I can't very much help you — khaled

Of course I don't believe that! However,

1. NREM sleep -> Brain off/Mind off -> Sleep/Unconscious
2. REm sleep -> Brain on/Mind on -> Sleep/Conscious but no memory
3. Awake -> Brain on/Mind on -> Awake/Conscious with memory
4. Mu -> Brain on/Mind off -> Awake/Unconscious

If physicalism were true, Brain on/Mind on and Brain off/Mind off is how it should be. The Mu state contradicts that directly!

The brain is very much on. Or you'd be dead. That's the point...... — khaled

The brain is very much off. Or you'd be awake. That's the point...

Anyway, as @180 Proof likes to say, I'm paraphrasing, Death is the true religion and Sleep is her prophet.

So, yeah, there are inorganic treatment modalities for psychiatric disorders like life experiences that have a lesson in them.

Also, a bullseye regarding how delusions could be managed by introducing the ill to philosophy. :point: Descartes treats Cotard Delusion

This is to imply that your idea about "mind off brain on" is not very difficult to a physicalist to deal with. Physicalism wouldn't have gotten off the ground if it couldn't explain what sleeping was. Even though in sleeping it's also "mind off brain on". Outside of dreams anyways. — khaled

Oh! I see what you mean. You're taking sleep as a case of brain on but mind off. Sleep isn't some kind of uniform state that we can talk about it as a whole. Let's focus on REM and NREM sleep. The latter (NREM sleep) is not problematic because the brain is off and the mind is off. The former (REM sleep), oddly, isn't problematic either, the brain is on and the mind is on. :chin:

What's the difference between someone who is dead and someone who is sleeping do you think? When the brain shuts down what keeps the heart going? Cmon mate you could figure this one out with a bit of thinking or a quick google search. — khaled

Let me get this straight, what you're saying is the Mu state is identical to sleeping? Doesn't seem likely, Mu is a state of consciousness but sleep is a state of unconsciousness. When in Mu state, the EEG reads: conscisous. When asleep, the EEG reads: unconscious.

↪TheMadFoolIt was a reference to Monty Python. I was actually trying to support the OP with reference to Western philosophical rationalism and the argument from reason. So best to stop talking now, lest I mistake you for a philosophical zombie. — Wayfarer

Indeed! Indeed!

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent — Ludwig Wittegenstein

Speech is silver, silence is golden — Proverb

Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know — Laozi

@Wayfarer

Absent-mindedness (Zoning out) & Philosophical Zombie

I don't know why and how but these two ideas seem connected at some level.

That probably explains what my hovercraft is full of eels. — Wayfarer

That's my Zen moment right there!

Also note, an expression that has gained currency and traction in the fast-paced modern world of sensory overload, drugs, wild parties, overworked and underpaid people stressed to breaking point viz. "zone out" defined as "to stop paying attention and not hear or see what is around you for a short period of time." Zoning out is precisely what Mu is!

You might find it interesting that zoning out sounds very much like Petit Mal (Absence Seizures) but the latter has physical correlates which can be picked up by EEG I believe.

Anyway, zoning out definitely isn't a petit mal seizure.

Guess physicalists can't explain sleep either :roll: — khaled

The brain shuts down for the night or the day, if you're napping. :chin:

@Wayfarer

Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon are clearly devoid of inherent meaning. By themselves they are simply meaningless patterns of electrochemical activity. Yet our thoughts do have inherent meaning – that’s how they are able to impart it to otherwise meaningless ink marks, sound waves, etc. In that case, though, it seems that our thoughts cannot possibly be identified with any physical processes in the brain. In short: Thoughts and the like possess inherent meaning or intentionality; brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, and the like, are utterly devoid of any inherent meaning or intentionality; so thoughts and the like cannot be identified with brain processes. — Feser

This is a critical point and coming from a scholar in Buddhism, makes that much more significant. Meaning, as I understand it, is apart frome a sign-referent schema, the usual, also includes coherence aka that which can be made sense of.

Do recall our previous discussions on the so-called Mu (Negative) and Mushin (the mind without mind)? These are mind states attained when we're asked to, let's just say, parse the irrational/meaningless in whatever form or shape.

I've had a lot of experience with the Mu mind state but they were of a quality that left much to be desired. Can't complain though, it was the best available in the market in a manner of speaking.

So, in a way, meaning ain't what's important. Au contraire, the key to realizing what the mind really is, in Buddhist terms, is the meaningless (koans) but, my hunch is, it'll eventually circle back to meaning at some point.

Another idea, again of Japanese origin, is Shoshin (Beginner's mind) described as the trio of,

1. Openness
2. Eagerness
3. Free of preconceptions

A Zen master might, in order to instill shoshin in faer students, ask them to meditate on a koan (essentially meaningless/irrational from a conventionally logical point of view), the objective being to break decades of well-practiced but stymying thinking habits that students find impossible to see past until they encounter Mu.

Insofar as this post is concerned, Zen in particular & Buddhism in general attacks physicalism by inverting the problem as it were. A Mu state is basically the brain on but the mind off - something impossible if the mind were physical, right? A physicalist can't have the cake and eat it too - physicalism "explains" both brain on & mind on (normal consciousness) on AND ALSO brain on & mind off (Mu).

:snicker: :rofl:

Because when you make it so that there is something that doesn't have mass that does all the thinking at best you're going to end up with epiphenomenalism, or at worst you're going to try to go against the science (conservation of energy, momentum), and no one likes that. — khaled

I'm not trying to please anybody although, I would wanna "tread softly" because "you (I) tread on my (other's) dreams".

Frankly, I have no clue how big a role QM plays in the human brain — khaled

:ok:

First, physicalism is a methodology and not a scientific theory (explanation). — 180 Proof

[quote=www.rit.edu]So the physicalist view is that we can reduce any mental state so that it is completely described as events in neurons that are made up entirely of matter and energy.[/quote]

:chin:

Second, it's demonstrably more useful than any non/anti-physicalist alternative. — 180 Proof

Noble, nevertheless a lie

Third, apparently you don't understand physicalism well enough not a pose such a nonsensical question. — 180 Proof

Like I said,

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. — Robert J. Halon

However, you've not said anything with regard to the deductive nature of my argument (OP) and the fact that Alzheimer's disease is based on induction.

Also, I gave 'a conceptual description of thoughts' and not 'an argument for or against thoughts', so your characterization of "inductive" is a non sequitur. Are you stoned? drunk? off your prescribed meds, Fool? Something physical distorting your "non-physical
mind"? :sweat: — 180 Proof

:rofl: Possible, very possible but probably not.

Why is it a non sequitur? You brought up Alzheimer's as evidence for physicalism and I, with full warrant, pointed to the fact that the correlation between brain plaques and mind functions is not a 100% i.e. some with Alzheimer's don't have brain plaques and some with brain plaques don't have Alzheimer's. Anyone claiming causation between brain plauqes and mind function must, logically speaking, have an explanation for these exceptions in terms of physical correlates if physicalism is true. None exist!

A better option for you would've been to look at the correlation between complete traumatic brain injury (gunshots, vehicular/industrial accidents, etc.) and mind function. In this case the correlation is 100% - complete traumatic brain injury is always associated with loss of mind function.

However, total loss of mind function caused by complete traumatic brain injury doesn't seem to square with the fact that while the brain is functioning normally, as described in the OP, the mind seems to be neither matter (no increase in brain mass/volume, mass/volume of a thought =0) nor energy (E = 0 × c², since m = 0). Also, a thought can't do physical work, you can't, for example, lift a paper clip by thinking.

Dude. You quote me but clearly you don't read what I write for comprehension, only to score points in your head it seems. From now on I won't repeat myself since that doesn't clarify my meanings for you. — 180 Proof

All I can say is, it isn't deliberate.

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. — Robert J. Halon

aka Hanlon's Razor

Okay, with that out of the way, account for Alzheimer's adverse affects on "nonphysical thoughts". :brow: — 180 Proof

Truth be told, Alzheimer's or any other organic brain disorder and their correlation with altered brain function is not a 100%. Not all brains with plaques develop Alzheimer's and not all those who have Alzheimer's have brain plauqes. I'm afraid the ball is still in your court!

Alzheimer's, for instance, consists, in part, in plaque deposits in the brain that inhibit thinking as well as memory andwhich can only happen if thoughts-memories are physical systems that physically process thinking & memorizing. — 180 Proof

Missed that part. Good point! Physical changes can affect the mind, to be precise its functions. There seems to be a correlation between brain plaques and thinking cum memory. In short there are physical correlates to mind function.

However, is this a watertight case for physicalism? No loopholes, no ifs, and, and buts? Somehow the answer that I think of is "no".

At any rate, it seems to be inconsistent with my interpretation, I employed the best science I could muster.

Which would take precedence I wonder? My argument or yours?

Mine is deductive so far as I can tell, yours is inductive.

Parse some more, Fool, the "relationship" is explicitly stated :

So to the point: "thoughts" seem to be series / traces of irreducible electrochemical events occurring in network-like clusters (akin to static discharge bursts) frequently throughout structural pathways of the mammalian cortex (affective bottom-up, fast system 1) and by comparison only occasionally throughout structural pathways of the human neocortex (semiotic top-down, slow system 2).
— 180 Proof

Alzheimer's, for instance, consists, in part, in plaque deposits in the brain that inhibit thinking as well as memory andwhich can only happen if thoughts-memories are physical systems that physically process thinking & memorizing. — 180 Proof

Please take a close look at the underlined bit above viz. "...[irreducible] electrochemical events..." Surely, if what I know about science is true, the "...electrochemical events..." must be expressible in terms of matter and energy but as I've demonstrated, as best as I could, thoughts are neither matter nor energy.

Atheism is not the negation of theism — 180 Proof

:chin: Somehow, I can't say that I didn't see that coming.

This is exactly what Wittgenstein was talking about. A brief glance of the Wikipedia entry on atheism proves that I've got the wrong end of the stick. Atheism is more nuanced than I thought. :up:

Apparently, you didn't take enough time to process what I clearly wrote ... — 180 Proof

I agree, I couldn't parse it well. However, if there's any truth in what I said, you're changing the subject, deliberately or unwittingly dragging that rotting red herring across the scent trail. I'm interested in the relationship between matter, energy and thoughts/mind. Stick to the script, 180 Proof. Your improvisational skills are legendary of course.

Ahem. When you think of Aphrodite, it's not your brain that gains mass.

Couldn't resist. — fishfry

:rofl: I'm experiencing a moment of Zen here. Give me a second. What should've happened didn't happen! :chin:

Clearly you didn't understand my previous analogy. Here's another, Fool:

sodomy : theism :: celibacy : atheism. — 180 Proof

Dirty old man! :rofl:

But, celibacy is not the negation of sodomy. We could be a-sodomy and yet not celibate. Your analogy fails!

Basically, thinking is autonomic processing of environmental and bodily sensory inputs reflexively looped through memory correlations. "Thoughts", thereby, are referential (intentional?) narrative-like abstractions from – interpretive confabulations of – thinking; in other words, they are reflexive sub-vocalizations of which we are more often than not completely unaware (like e.g. breaths or stools) that tend to facilitate adaptively coordinating behaviors with perceptions.

So to the point: "thoughts" seem to be series / traces of irreducible electrochemical events occurring in network-like clusters (akin to static discharge bursts) frequently throughout structural pathways of the mammalian cortex (affective bottom-up, fast system 1) and by comparison only occasionally throughout structural pathways of the human neocortex (semiotic top-down, slow system 2). — 180 Proof

I think I get it now! At best this is a fairly good attempt at descrbing the process of thinking but it contains absolutely zero information about what thinking is, what thoughts are. I can describe the process of urine formation in kidneys but that doesn't necessarily mean I understood what pee is, right? :chin:

I'll take some time to process that!

Try this analogy on for size:

watching "Star Trek" : theism :: not watching tv : atheism. — 180 Proof

I did think along those lines but it doesn't make sense. Here's a more elaborate version of your analogy.

1. Blank paper (the mind)
2. Written on the blank paper: God exists (theism)
3. Written on the blank paper: God doesn't exist (atheism)
4. Written on the blank paper: Don't know if God exists or not (agnosticism)

Clearly the blank paper is what everyone would agree is "lack of belief" - no belief ergo, nothing to write on the blank paper and so, nothing that's truth-apt that needs justification.

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist i.e. there's something written on the blank paper that can be true and so needs to be demonstrated.

Atheism can't claim to be the blank paper state of mind because,

1. They'd have to accept that they have no idea about God. They would be like little children who first hear the word God. That's clearly false because a negation (atheism) means that they know what the affirmation (theism) is. They would be contradicting themselves.

2. They would also have to admit that their sales pitch that they're rational, their position justified, is an illusion. There's no proposition on a blank page. What are they justifiying?

I've been pulling my hair out over this issue for a long time with little by way of progress.

What does "lack of belief" mean? Well, theism is a belief (God exists) and, oddly, atheism is too (God doesn't exist). We can set aside theism for the moment and focus our attention on atheism. If atheism is, as some claim, a "lack of belief" then it implies, as per the justified true belief theory of knowledge, that atheism isn't knowledge - it isn't a belief ergo, it doesn't have to be true and nor does it need to be justified. That, no doubt, isn't what the atheist thinks atheism is. Perhaps I'm being too pedantic and "belief" is being used in some other sense by atheists. I'm not sure but from a philosophical perspective, to the extent I'm capable of some rigor, atheism as a "lack of belief" makes zero sense. If belief is lacking, there's nothing that can be true/false and there would be no need for justifications of any kind and yet, atheists are falling over each other to both claim that their position on God is the truth and well-justified. It doesn't add up, does it? :chin:

The death of analytic philosophy has been announced many times — Christoph Schuringa

Sextus Empiricus' death paradox vis-à-vis Socrates! Funny, how ideas can die multiple times, meaning if given the opportunity they come back to life.

On the other hand, so the thought continues [...] — Christoph Schuringa

Exactly!

It also displaces a standard narrative about analytic philosophy, in which its founding act is the so-called ‘linguistic turn’, through which the problem of meaning was made central to philosophy. — Christoph Schuringa

Sextus Empiricus' death paradox begins to take on a greater relevance. Socrates, founding father of Western philosophy, was primarily concerned with meaning. What is piety? What is justice?

Lacking distinctive doctrines or aims, it was no longer really in contest with other approaches: it was really just careful, clever thinking. — Christoph Schuringa

Dialectics, the so-called Socratic method, essentially a process that consists of asking the right questions to expose a rather troubling truth viz. philosophy suffers from a chronic condition, that of poor/bad definitions.


Why analytic philosophy resurrects each time it's executed by its opponents (?) is because the "...just careful, clever thinking" that defines it is too general a quality - every other philosophy must also be "...just careful, clever thinking." Too, that it shares its identity with Socrates' philosophical method ensures that it'll never die, not any time soon at least; at any rate, philosophy only begins after one has defined one's terms.

Assholes definitely exist. — 180 Proof

:rofl: Last I checked, you had a sense of humor. So...

Father Abraham had many sons
Many sons had Father Abraham
I am one of them and so are you
So let's just praise the Lord
Right arm — Father Abraham song

On a more serious note, can you have a look at what I think is going on with the "to be is to be the value of a variable" idea. It's rather simplistic I suppose but it's my best shot.

To be is the value of a variable

There is a big hole in Kimberly (Sounds dirty but that's a topic for another thread)

1. Non-mathematical interpretation

A hole = nothing in (surrounded by) something which I will simplify as hole = nothing and something. This can be treated as a general definition of a hole.

If I define a die as die = red and plastic and then say there is a die then what I mean is there is red and there is plastic.

Does this simple rule work for a hole?

There is a hole = There is nothing and there is something. I detect no issues with there is something but what about there is nothing?

Nothing, I'm told, is also nonexistence i.e. nonbeing as it were. So, to say there is nothing amounts to saying nonexistence exists. Contradiction!

In other words, there is a hole (in Kimberly) is nonsensical for it contains a contradiction viz. nonexistence exists!

2. Mathematical interpretation

I think this point of view is closer to the meaning of to be is to be the value of a variable.

Mathematical variables, most common symbol for them being x, can take on any value mathematically defined, including, this is key, zero which is the numerical version of nothing.

So, there is a hole in Kimberly simply means the variable x = 0 where x is a certain geological feature in Kimberly.

Make sense? Probably not! Well, you can't say I didn't try! :rofl: