Very well said! :up:

When someone is pointing out on the the possible misuse or unclarity of the concept in use, they are not necessarily seeking for help. They were looking for your opinion on the point supported by reasoning and evidence. But your replies seem lacking the rational explanations, and trying to rely on the pointless denials and even making up as if the questioner was needing help. — Corvus

You already mentioned what you mean with coherence and I mentioned that that is not what I mean by coherence.

Sure, you can use the concept under whatever definition you set up, but it would sound too subjective and unclear which lacks objectivity in the meaning. — Corvus

Well, I already defined and gave examples of what I mean by coherence. None of that helped you. I also asked whether you could give an example of an incoherent experience that you ignored. So I cannot help you further.

Anyhow as said, I have exited from this thread, so will not be progressing any further in this thread. — Corvus

As you wish.

Refer to
1) The Oxford Companion To Philosophy Edited by Ted Honderich
2) Philosophical Logic by Silbil Wolfram

for coherence concepts. Bye~~ — Corvus

Thanks for the references. I don't need them though since I know what I mean by coherence.

Same here! All the best.

I already gave examples so it should be clear to you by now what I mean by coherence.

I asked for example. Can you give an example of something which is incoherent, excluding our thoughts?

I have already given you a clear explanation on coherence here. — Corvus

I asked for examples.

Your way of argument is just keep denying everything blindly. You don't accept or see the rational points. — Corvus

You just repeating yourself not seeing the truth. Why Don't you open a thread on the topic that our experience could be incoherent?

I don't need help. You do need help. :D — Corvus

I don't think so. You should at least have a doubt when the majority of people agree on something. Having doubt is a useful practice. :D

Your seeing a cup in a location is a subjective visual experience. It has no truth value. It is just a perception. When you make up a statement "I see a cup.", it can be true or false, depending on the fact there is someone else witnessing the cup, heard your statement and agreeing with your statement. It is only true on that instance. Otherwise, it is a meaningless self talk or monologue, with no value of truth or falsity. — Corvus

Could you give an example of something coherent or incoherent?

Just keep denying blindly whatever has been countered, forwarded or pointed out, is not philosophical argument. — Corvus

Huh?

So whatever the majority believes is the truth? :roll: — Corvus

Why don't you ask people for help? Why don't you open a thread on "our experiences are incoherent"? We have been through this in this thread and your thread to a good degree. I don't see a point in repeating myself.

P!nk - Try

That's a false dichotomy. Here's a link to an article that has many references to current physical theories on emergent spacetime. — jkop

The fundamental entities from which time emerges are either dynamic or static. In the first case, we are dealing with my argument. In the second case, we are dealing with strong emergence and I have to say a big no to it.

P!NK - U + Ur Hand



P!NK - Don't Let Me Get Me

Time is the fundamental variable of any physical theory therefore time cannot be an emergent property of such a physical theory since time cannot be the fundamental variable and emergent property at the same time.

That's what I read from the philosophical text books. Not making it up from the thin air.
Clarification on the concepts is part of the philosophical investigation and analysis. — Corvus

I mean if X, my cup of tea has a location, is the case that only X is the case and Y, Z, etc. which refer to my cup of tea having other locations are not the case.

I wasn't asking for help. You seem to be distorting the facts. — Corvus

I don't think that I am distorting the facts.

I was just pointing out on the wrong use of the concepts. — Corvus

People apparently understand what I mean by the coherence in the experience so I don't think that I am using the concept wrongly.

Then you are contradicting yourself. Since before you had said that the brain, the subject, the experience made of what the senses give us something coherent. — JuanZu

I didn't intend to argue for the brain in this thread since that is the third substance and I don't have any argument for it now. I just commented on the brain since people asked for the mind and body interaction. The picture including the brain is simple: We have the brain, the object, and the mind. The brain in the case of perception receives sensory input and processes it. The object and the brain are interacting with each other so the object is affected by processes in the brain. The mind then perceives the object and experiences the content of the object namely Qualia.

And you did so by denying that you were talking about a tabula rasa. — JuanZu

I don't understand why you are talking about tabula rasa. Our experience of course has texture so-called Qualia.

Not sure if your account on coherence is correct or not. My understanding of coherence is that when P is true, Q cannot be untrue, and vice versa. In this relation, P and Q are coherent. — Corvus

No, I don't mean that.

From the point of view, your use of coherence seems to be wrong, and misleading, which directed you to the misunderstanding. — Corvus

You are the only person who is trapped in P1. Other people understood P1 and asked other questions. To be honest I don't know how I can help you. Perhaps others can help you.

What do you mean by "coherent"? Can you explain "coherence" and "being coherent"? — Corvus

By coherent I mean that our experiences when we are awake are consistent. Take the example of my experience of the cup of tea. It is where I expect it. It does not appear or disappear. Etc. Quite oppositely, our dreamy experiences are not always coherent. Things appear and disappear. Etc.

The vagueness of "substance" is apparent in the discussion in this thread. — Banno

I already defined the substance in several posts. By substance, I mean something that exists and has a set of properties or abilities.

There's the Bundle theory to dal with - if substance is what "holds" properties, what difference is there between substance and a bundle of properties? — Banno

The bundle theory suffers from the problem of compresence of the properties.

What is it that makes one substance different from another - and again, if it's just the properties they accept, why not just deal in terms of those properties? — Banno

Because those are the substances that interact with each other. This interaction is due to the properties of the substances.

And the problem I focused on, how is it that different substances are able to interact? — Banno

The substances interact with each other through the forces.

You say that experience is coherent because the object is coherent, but at the same time you accept that coherence is given from the subject. Which implies redundancy. Object coherence is no longer a criterion for inferring dualism of subtances, since that criterion is found in both subject and object don't You think? — JuanZu

My argument has two parts: 1) In the first part I argue in favor of the object that carries information and is coherent from the experience and 2) In the second part I argue in favor of the mind given the fact that the object cannot directly perceive its content, the information which is coherent. I am not arguing that coherence is given from the mind. The mind just perceives coherence in the experience.

As far as 'substance dualism' is concerned, for Descartes, mind (res cogitans) and matter (res extensa) are of completely different kinds. The soul, res cogitans, is immaterial and lacking in extension (physical dimensions) but is capable of reasoning and thinking. — Wayfarer

To me, the mind is the substance with the ability to experience and cause the object only. The mind has the ability to freely decide as well when it faces options too. The mind does not have the ability to reason or think. It perceives the content of the object. The content of the object however is very rich in the case of humans, it could be a form of perceptions, feelings, thoughts, etc. Perception, feelings, thoughts, etc. are due to physical processes in the brain. The mind does not have direct access to the neural processes in the brain but the object. The object and brain are directly interacting. It is through this interaction that the object can mediate between the brain and the mind. The mind is mainly an observer but it can intervene when it is necessary, for example when there is a conflict of interest between thoughts, feelings, etc.

Matter occupies space but is devoid of intelligence. — Wayfarer

Matter occupies space but what we call intelligence is due to neural processes in the brain.

The problem for substance dualism is explaining how non-extended incorporeal intelligence interacts with non-intelligent corporeal matter. Descartes suggest that this was via the pineal gland, but it is generally agreed that this is unsatisfactory and it remains an outstanding problem for substance dualism. — Wayfarer

The mind does not have any physical extension but to my understanding can present in different locations of the brain by moving very fast. The mind directly perceives and causes the object. The object either is affected by the brain or affects the brain. It is through these interactions that the mind can indirectly affect the brain or be affected. As I mentioned before the object is a very light substance so it can only affect the brain very slightly. This affection however can lead to a significant change in neural processes when there are options or in other words the brain is in an undecided state.

I'm sorry to say that you're not demonstrating a clear understanding of the questions you're raising, and so I have nothing further to add at this time. — Wayfarer

I tried my best to explain things to the best of my understanding. Please let me know what you think.

Psychological state or personal experience cannot be ground for objective knowledge. — Corvus

Personal experience can be a solid ground to conclude that the experience is coherent. Our experiences when we are dreaming are mostly incoherent while they are always coherent when we are awake.

That is an idea of absolute idealist and solipsism. Problem with these ideas is that they cannot appeal to or share objective knowledge. — Corvus

I don't have an argument against solipsism and I am not endorsing it either. I have faith that other beings exist though. All I am saying is that we only have access to things through our private experiences.

Illusions are possibility in daily life of humans. Your seeing a cup in a location could have been an illusion. There is no proof you were seeing a cup. — Corvus

Here, I am not talking about the cup of tea but my experience of the cup of tea only.

The physical just has existed since the beginning of time. It is absurd to ask what was before the beginning of time hence it is also absurd to ask what caused the physical before the beginning of time.

The point is not about living in a reality, but private experience is not objective ground for coherence. — Corvus

The private experience is an objective ground for coherence. We don't have any other tools except our private experience anyway!

Again, not the whole experience is illusion, but there are parts of experience which could be illusion. — Corvus

Can you give me an example of something you experienced in the past that was an illusion?

Seeing a cup in a location is your private perception. It lacks objective ground for anything being coherent. — Corvus

We couldn't possibly live in a reality that is not coherent.

It makes more crucial and important part of your experience is excluded from your premise, while relying on your personal subjective seeing a cup as ground for your belief on the contents of your experience being coherent. There is always possibility what you are seeing could be illusions. — Corvus

We couldn't possibly depend on our experiences if what we experience is a mere illusion.

When something is coherent, it is meaningful. demonstrable, provable and verifiable. — Corvus

None of these. Something is coherent when it is consistent.

Can you prove your seeing a cup is coherent? — Corvus

I don't need to prove it. It is a brute fact.

Beliefs and thoughts of people are part of the world which you experience in daily life. — Corvus

But beliefs and thoughts could be incoherent. That is why I want to exclude them from the discussion. That does not mean that the ultimate understanding of reality is incoherent. The ultimate understanding of reality has to be coherent but we don't have it yet so we have wait for it.

Computers are tools for information storage, retrieval and searches for information. They are also communication tools. They are not coherent or incoherent. — Corvus

Of course, your computer is coherent. Yet get on the screen what you type on the keyboard for example.

I think you refer to experience as a tabula rasa. — JuanZu

I didn't say that the experience is tabula rasa. The experience has a texture and is the result of the mind perceiving the object. The object has a set of properties one of them being Qualia, namely the property that appears to the mind. The object has other properties allowing it to interact with the brain as well.

But haven't you read Kant? — JuanZu

I haven't read Kant.

The subject structures that which provides us with the senses. — JuanZu

That is the duty of the brain to structure what the mind perceives, namely the object.

In that sense "coherence" is not given by the object, but in the interaction between the subject and the object. The subject is also active in the shaping of experience. — JuanZu

Well, excluding thought processes, all the mind perceives is unconditionally coherent and this is the result of the object being coherent. Of course, the object is coherent because it is shaped by brain activity.

On what basis do you say that experience cannot be "coherent"? That requires a demonstration. For it makes much more sense to see experience as composed of forms of sensibility (space and time) and categories of the understanding. Otherwise experience would be chaos of stimuli. — JuanZu

I didn't say that the experience cannot be coherent. I said that it does not have the capacity to be coherent. I think I should have said that the experience does not have the capacity to be coherent on its own (I changed the OP accordingly). That follows from the definition of experience as a conscious event that is informative and coherent. An event is something that happens or takes place so its coherence cannot be due to itself but something else namely the object.

P1 is not about subject and object. It predicates coherence to experience. — Banno

Correct. I however wonder how through existential generalization one can conclude the existence of the object from the experience. This is the first time that I become familiar with existential generalization so I need your help to understand this. Would you mind elaborating?

My question also. — Wayfarer

A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties or abilities. We have at least three substances in the case of the person, namely the mind, the object, and the body/brain. The mind is a substance with the ability to perceive and cause the object. The object is another substance that is perceived and caused by the mind and has its own properties, namely Qualia for example. The last substance is the brain which is a physical substance with properties that everybody knows. I have to say that the object is also a physical substance that interacts with the brain. It is however a very light substance so it cannot affect the brain significantly while it can be affected by the brain.

Subject of experience. Not simply human subjects, but sentient beings, generally. — Wayfarer

Ok, I see, I changed the argument slightly to avoid confusion between the subject that I used as a synonym as experience, and the subject as experiencer.

"I feel happy." (subject verb object) — PoeticUniverse

By the object, I don't mean a mental thing but something physical that exists and has a set of properties.

So, awareness experiences the qualia-form information given from the neural-form information. note that the information has two forms. — PoeticUniverse

There are indeed two substances (apart from the mind), namely the brain and the object, and each has its own properties. The properties of the brain are the location and motion of its parts whereas the properties of the object are Qualia. The mind does not experience the brain but the object.

It does not make sense to say, your seeing a cup with a set of properties in a location is  the ground for the experience being coherent. — Corvus

It makes perfect sense.

You are bound to have plenty of other experiences that are incoherent such as what other people feel, believe and think in their minds, and how they will act, decide or behave in the future etc etc. — Corvus

I am not talking about people's beliefs and thoughts.

You won't quite be sure why you dreamt what you dreamt in your sleep, and you won't know what you will see in your dreams in the future etc etc. — Corvus

I am not talking about dreams here but our experiences when awake. Dreams are an example of incoherent experiences though so it should make sense to you when I speak about coherence in our experiences when we are awake.

Another problem is just saying, your seeing a cup in front of you, cannot be the object ground for your experience being coherent, because no one knows what you are seeing or perceiving in your mind just by listening to your statement or claim on what you were seeing. — Corvus

Then consider your computer. Is your experience of your computer coherent?

There is also possibility that what you were seeing was an illusion, not real perception too. — Corvus

I am talking about my experience to be coherent only.

A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties or abilities. The physical substance has a shape, location, etc. as its properties. The object has the properties of the so-called Qualia. The mind has the ability to perceive and cause the object.

So then the mind is physical? — DifferentiatingEgg

No, the physical substance is another category, such as my body, a cup of tea, etc. so to summarize we have at least three substances, the mind, the object, and the physical.

How do you know they are coherent? What is the ground for your experience being coherent? — Corvus

I already elaborated on the coherence in reality when I discussed my cup of tea here.

Is Mok a substance? He exists and has a set of properties. — Corvus

My body is a substance, it is a physical substance. There are two other substances that are discussed in the OP, namely the mind and the object. The mind is a substance with the ability to perceive and cause the object. The object is another substance with a set of properties so-called Qualia.

Where is the objects then? What does the object denote in actuality? — Corvus

The object is a substance that is perceived by the mind. Please see the last comment.

What is mental substance? — DifferentiatingEgg

Up to here, I introduce two substances, namely the mind, and object. The mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause the object whereas the object is a substance with a set of properties so-called Qualia.

It doesn't—stiumulus happens at the extroceptors (external senesory organs). And moves internally...through physical substances. Perceptions ARE physical realities. — DifferentiatingEgg

Without the mind, we cannot possibly perceive anything.

In other words, the subject consciousness' substance content is qualia, which the object subconscious substance doesn't have, but if the brain's internal language is qualia, then when the qualia is broadcast at large, the brain indirectly learns about the information the object contains. — PoeticUniverse

I think we have three substances when it comes to a person, namely the brain, the object, and the mind. The object has a set of properties so-called Qualia. The mind directly perceives the object and gets informed about the content of the object. The object is subject to change depending on neuronal processes in the brain.

I think I can see what you're trying to prove here, but it's very garbled. — Wayfarer

Thank you very much for your interest and understanding. I am glad that you understand what I am trying to argue here.

The first three terms, 'experience, subject, conscious event' are all very philosophically thick terms that by themselves have been subject to volumes of literature. — Wayfarer

I studied the philosophy of mind to a good extent. I know the literature is very extensive on each of these terms.

Conjoining them in such a dense sentence doesn't do justice to their meaning. — Wayfarer

I am aware of that. I normally try to provide a condensed OP as a base for the discussion and elaborate later when it is necessary.

So, is 'the subject' an 'event'? I would think not, because 'events' exist in time, they have a discrete beginning and end. Subjects of experience are different from events on those grounds in that they are persistent through time and even through changes of state. — Wayfarer

By event, I mean something that happens or takes place. The event could have duration depending on the subject of focus of the conscious mind. Perhaps there is a better term for what I am trying to say.

Experiences are undergone by the subject, and they are coherent insofar as the subject is able to integrate them with their previous experiences, so that we know how to interpret the experience. — Wayfarer

What do you mean by the subject here? Person? If yes, I agree with what you said. I however use subject as a synonym as experience. Please reread my argument given my definition of the subject and tell me what you think.

Notice that 'Substance' in philosophy has a completely different meaning than it does in regular discourse. Generally 'substance' is a 'material with uniform properties' (e.g. a liquid substance, a metal substance etc). In philosophy, the word has a different meaning. It was introduced as the Latin 'substantia' in translation for the Greek 'ousia', which is nearer in meaning to 'being' or 'subject'. — Wayfarer

By substance, I mean something that exists and has a set of properties or abilities.

In many discussions of 'substance' in philosophy, this distinction is lost, leading to the question of what kind of 'substance' the mind might be, which is an absurd question. It is the fatal flaw in Cartesian dualism, one which Descartes himself could never answer. The mind is not a 'thinking thing' in any sense other than the metaphorical. Reducing it to a 'thinking substance' is an absurdity. (This is why Aristotle's matter-form dualism retains a plausibility that Cartesian dualism never exhibited.) — Wayfarer

The mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause another substance, the object. The object is a substance with a set of properties, so-called Qualia.