Could you please continue this discussion in another thread?

Me, you, etc.

Experience is a word of empty shell when it is said with no information on the owner and content i.e. whose experience it is, and what the experience is about. — Corvus

Of course, I am not an Idealist so by experiencing I mean that there is an agent who experiences something.

It is the same thing. When I watch movie, I am having visual and auditory perception. — Corvus

But visual and auditory perception are sorts of experiences.

Experience is an abstract mental state, which is a concept. It is not sensation or perception. — Corvus

Experience is a conscious event that contains information, whether it is perception, recalling memory, having emotion, etc.

It is just feeling the pain, not experiencing it. Experience happens when I conceptualise the pain from the memory, and tell someone about it. I experienced the pain of getting kicked. You seem to confusing between feelings and concepts. — Corvus

Feeling pain is a sort of experience and I am not talking about concept here.

So do you agree that experience cannot be said to exist? You either have it, or don't have it. You can only have experience of something if you had perceived something from the empirical world. You can only be aware of your own experience. No one else's. I don't have a single scooby clue what experience you have. I just know of my own. — Corvus

I think I was clear with what I said. If you are not in Australia then you cannot experience Australia.

It is not experience. It becomes only experience, if I conceptualise it. If I decided not to conceptualise, then it is not an experience. It is just a perception.

Not true. If and only if it could be conceptulaised into knowledge. You have experience or don't have it. Experience cannot be said to exist or changed. — Corvus

If you are not happy with this example then think of moving around while seeing things, watching a movie, etc.

It would be nice of you if you discuss this topic in another thread

I have no experience ever visiting Australia. Australia is both physical in its land, but also abstract for the country, and it seems to exists (I presume). Why my experience of visiting Australia doesn't exist? — Corvus

Because you have never been there.

From this case, can we say all experiences exist? — Corvus

Sure not.

Isn't it the case, some experience exist, but some don't. — Corvus

Yes.

In that case, it is correct to say experience exist? — Corvus

Yes, certain experience exists.

I have experience of seeing the sky. My experience of seeing the sky was it was blue when there was no clouds, and sunny. Why don't my experience of seeing the sky has not changed the colour of the sky at all? From this does all experience change the state of physical? — Corvus

That is not what I mean. Let me give you an example: Suppose someone kicks you, and you say, Ouch. Kicking is the cause of experiencing pain and Ouch is the result of experiencing pain.

Does experience exist? — Corvus

Sure experience exists. You are reading my answer now and have a certain experience.

Whose experience are you talking about here, and what experience? — Corvus

Human experience for example and whatever she/he experiences.

Does experience change? From what to what does it change? — Corvus

Experience changes. For example, your experience changes from not knowing to knowing after reading a book.

I certainly did, you're asserting that the mind has no affect on the physical that's simply not true, from my position, as the mind incites physical production within the body.

Mind and Body are parallel heterogeneous productions born of the same cause: the CNS. That doesn't equate to monism. — DifferentiatingEgg

But to you, the mind is simply the arrangement of physical. That certainly is monism. And I didn't talk about the mind and its role in the body but the experience.

Patterns of neural activity occur when the brain processes input/information, whatever we wanna call it, from the mind and or the external world. Patterns of neural activity are specific arrangements and sequences of electrochemical signals that occur within the brain's network. — DifferentiatingEgg

It seems to me that you didn't read my post carefully.

Experience is encoded and processed by the brain through a complex biological network. — DifferentiatingEgg

Yes, the experience is encoded in the brain. I am saying something different though: How the experience can cause a change in the brain knowing that it is not a substance? Let me give you an example: We are discussing a topic right now. Let's focus on me for the sake of simplicity. I read your post and have a sort of experience. This experience, then is encoded into my brain for further analysis. I am interested to know what causes the change in my brain to allow the experience to be encoded in my brain. I am arguing that that thing cannot be the experience itself since the experience is not a substance so we need a substance that can cause a change in my brain.

Not trying to deny it's existence. Experience affects the brain through things like neuroplasticity. Which is pretty much a self referential and self affirming as experience even reinforces it's own self through the genesis of neuroplasticity, which makes it more and more likely something will be utilized. — DifferentiatingEgg

But experience is not a substance so how it could affect the brain?

Please find my argument here.

What it is saying is that what we experience in the external world affects even our internal world. But also that what we experience in our internal world affects our external world also. As in, it's a two-way street. — DifferentiatingEgg

I agree with that.

Experience isn't just a "physical" phenomenon... — DifferentiatingEgg

But you cannot deny its existence and the fact that it affects the physical such as the brain. My question is how experience can affect the brain?

I am not sure what "uncaused cause" means. Shouldn't you prove or demonstrate what uncaused cause means before progressing into the argument? — Corvus

It means that it is not caused and it is the cause of everything else.

I can understand "unknown cause", but "uncaused cause" sounds like a contradiction to me. — Corvus

It is not contrary at all. I have my own argument for it.

I am not a philosopher. I am a scientist. We make voluntary choices but our choices are never free from determinants, constraints and consequences. The so-called Hard Problem of Consciousness is not actually all that hard. It's a philosophical construct, nothing more. You could claim that I am a Philosophical Zombie. It would be impossible for me to prove to you that I am a conscious being. Just because it is impossible to prove to others that I am conscious, it does not mean I am a Philosophical Zombie. Philosophical Zombie is yet another philosophical construct, nothing more. — Truth Seeker

Let's say that we disagree and put an end to this discussion. Thanks for your time.

Sorry, made a late edit: — DifferentiatingEgg

No problem.

"Quidquid luce fuit, tenebris agit [What occurred in the light, goes on in the dark]: but the other way around, too." — DifferentiatingEgg

I don't understand what you mean by that and how that could be relevant to the discussion.

Experience is something we can gain from both our internal and external world. — DifferentiatingEgg

That is very ambiguous to me. To me, that is a definition of knowledge. Do you mind elaborating?

It doesn't "work on it's own" it is a dynamic model created from inputs from our internal and external world. — DifferentiatingEgg

So again, if we accept that the mind is the software and the brain is the hardware then the brain can work on its own. What is the role of experience here?

You want to remain ignorant instead of learning something new. How fascinating! I am not blaming you or crediting you. If I or another organism had your genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, I or another organism would have the same thoughts as you because we would be identical to you. — Truth Seeker

I am not ignorant of the topic. I have no time to read a book that denies the reality of free will. Philosophers of mind still struggle with the Hard Problem of consciousness. I am wondering how then could address free will when they are unsure what consciousness is!

Exactly the point... the mind doesn't exist as a thing by itself. — DifferentiatingEgg

To you, but not to me. I have an argument for it, the OP.

By the way, could you please answer my other question as well: What is an experience to you, and why it is relevant if the brain is merely software and hardware and can work on its own?

No, doubt is not special. Just because you claim it to be special does not make it so. Have you read the two books I recommended? — Truth Seeker

I know enough about the philosophy of the mind and I don't need to read another book on the topic.

We can think of it like this: the software and hardware of the body both grow out of the FIRMWARE of the body. — DifferentiatingEgg

Software is nothing but an arrangement of bytes of memory in a hardware. So it is not a thing by itself.

Mind is emergent cognition (software) that arises out of the CNS (firmware), shaped by body (hardware) and experience. — DifferentiatingEgg

So to you, the mind is an arrangement of physical? What is an experience to you and why it is relevant if the brain is merely software and hardware and can work on its own?

No, doubting is not special. — Truth Seeker

The doubt is special as I argued.

You clearly don't understand how the brain works. Please read "Being You: A New Science of Consciousness" by Anil Seth and "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M. Sapolsky. If you have any questions while reading these books, please ask here and I will do my best to answer them. — Truth Seeker

I have been working and reading on the philosophy of the mind for several years. Well, it seems to me that is an end to the discussion.

Not quite — DifferentiatingEgg

No.

Because the two have generally been perceived as existing through the antithesis of values rather than growing out of the body through fractal emergence. — DifferentiatingEgg

How do you distinguish between the mind and the brain? What is your definition of the mind?

In fractal emergence, one shouldn't consider the mind as something that isnt fundamentally "the body." They are in essence one and the same. — DifferentiatingEgg

The Mind is not the brain. The brain is physical, by physical I mean it is a sort of substance. Accepting that the brain and the mind are the same one commits monism. If they are the same thing then why use different words?

The mental state of experiencing doubt is not something special that sets it apart from other mental states. — Truth Seeker

It is special. If we accept the mental phenomenon of doubt, we can conclude that options are real.

We experience many sensory perceptions, thoughts and emotions. They are all produced by our brain activities. — Truth Seeker

Yes, brain states are subject to change and are deterministic. The question is how doubt can arise from the brain, considering that it is a deterministic object.

I'm of the mind that one wouldn't classify experience as emergent just because the mind is? — DifferentiatingEgg

I am saying two things here: 1) Accepting that experience is an emergent property then we deal with epiphenomenalism and 2) Experience is not a substance so it has no causal power so it cannot cause a change in physical.

Non sequiturs ... Whatever. — 180 Proof

What is non sequiturs here?

Are you familiar with Emergent Properties? For example, it's possible to show things exist between dimensions like 2d and 3d...

Our most current models suggest Consciousness is an emergent property of our fractally nested biology. — DifferentiatingEgg

Yes, I am aware of the emergence concept. Accepting that experience is an emergent property leads to epiphenomenalism in which experience does not have any causal power. This is however against intuition since we experience a fantastic correlation between experience and change in physical.

Metaphysical theories can be established only via the refutations and arguments against their critics, not by avoidance of the critics. Keep arguing rationally and logically until the sound conclusions are reached is the way of the establishment. — Corvus

Here is the argument from Change for God by Aquinas:

1. Some things in the world change.
2. Everything that changes is caused to do so.
3. Nothing is its own cause.
4. Therefore, things that change are caused to do so by something else.
5. There cannot be an infinite regress of such causes.
6. Therefore, there is an ultimate, unchanging cause of change.
7. God is the ultimate, changeless cause of change
8. Therefore, God exists.

There are two objections here: a) 3 is not necessarily true and b) there is a jump from 6 to 7. Accepting b) is a correct objection the argument looks like this:

1. Some things in the world change.
2. Everything that changes is caused to do so.
3. Nothing is its own cause.
4. Therefore, things that change are caused to do so by something else.
5. There cannot be an infinite regress of such causes.
6. Therefore, there is an ultimate, unchanging cause of change.

This argument is valid and sound if we accept that objection a) is not valid or there is a way to answer this objection. This is an argument for the existence of uncaused cause though. All I am saying is that people falsely equate God, who is the creator of the creation from nothing, by uncaused cause. I argue that God, given His definition, is subject to change therefore God cannot be the uncaused cause since the uncaused cause is changeless.

I already change the argument to include your objection:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes

perhaps I may be confused by the way it's worded, but are you suggesting that experience is due to physicality with an event? — DifferentiatingEgg

I am saying that experience is due to physical. Physical is a substance, like the brain, without it experience is not possible.

Nonsense. Abstractions do not "exist" (A. Meinong) and are not "subject to change". Thus your conclusions are not valid. — 180 Proof

I am not talking about the abstract objects here. I am talking about experience. Are you denying that you experience and your experience is not subject to change?

Also, "mind" is what sufficiently complex brains do – activity / process (i.e. mind-ing) – and is not a concrete thing. "Mind(ing)" causes brains no more than 'walking causes legs' or 'digesting causes intestines'. — 180 Proof

Saying that the mind is the brain's activity or process does not add anything informative. Please read the rest of the argument.

Lastly, in nature "uncaused cause" is not unique since (e.g.) random – "uncaused" – radioactive decay causes EM static (i.e. radiation). — 180 Proof

I believe in De Broglie–Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics, so no Schrodinger cat paradox, no particle-wave duality, Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment is explained well, etc.

What do you mean?

When the subconscious physical neurological analysis completes, consciousness experiences the result, which experience becomes an input to the physical neurological, updating (changing) its state, qualia-wise, as well as already having an updated state from producing a result, then more analysis happens, and so forth. — PoeticUniverse

How that could be done without the Mind?

The physical also directly understands what goes into the experience, in its own terms, since it is what made it, which suffices, in case of there being no qualia experience global broadcast to it. — PoeticUniverse

The physical cannot possibly understand what goes into the experience.

Rather, each is the cause of the other, in turn, sequentially. — PoeticUniverse

Experience is due to matter and change in matter is due to experience. However, The experience is not the cause of change in the matter and vice versa.

Conscious experience comes too late in the process to be causing anything directly, but, it seems that indirectly it could be used for future input to what subconscious analysis comes next, or it should simpler be that the subconscious analysis just keeps on going forward, for it depends on what the internal language of the brain is (such as if qualia are a kind of short-cut language). — PoeticUniverse

We need the conscious mind for learning without it no automatic task like riding a bicycle is possible. I also think the conscious mind is much faster than the subconscious mind.

In either case, all the happenings would seem to be physical, although there is still the Hard Problem to figure out, yet we still know that the physical is always followed by the experiential of it, as if information always exists in those two ways, and so it is already a feat accomplished by the brain. — PoeticUniverse

There is no solution to the Hard Problem of consciousness. Matter lacks experience whether it is in the brain or a rock.

Or some believers have Invisibility Disorder of imaginary friends. — PoeticUniverse

Maybe!

The eternal God already has OldTimer's disease, for He can't recall His earliest memory! — PoeticUniverse

Probably! Who knows!?

Let me give you an example to help you understand. The selection of lottery numbers is entirely deterministic. I doubt I can predict them with 100% accuracy every time. My inability to predict which lottery numbers will be drawn at each draw has to do with my lack of omniscience and the large number of possibilities. — Truth Seeker

I am talking about mental state doubt.

Ok, and thanks.