That means there is a finite amount of possible brain states, which would entail a finite amount of possible thoughts. However, math is infinite, and any number can be conceived, so there are an infinite number of possible thoughts — RogueAI

Every possible thought must be thought at some point in time (otherwise would not be a possible one). This would require that things that think and that are able to count exist forever and ever (since there are an infinite number of possible thoughts). I don't think that things that think and can count will exist forever nor do I think that a thing that thinks and counts will be able to conceive an infinitely large number.

Note: I just read Coben's comment and it says basically the same. Anyways... that numbers are infinite does not mean that every number can be thought, I think.

we have somehow the ability to compare different phenomena and we label it change. — leo

The ability to compare between two different phenomena.

Before we can compare the two different phenomena, we must perceive them. To perceive, what's perceived must travel some distance between the object that produces it and the object that perceives it; that is, (1) the signal which will be an object of perception, when emanates from its source, although it has not been perceived, it is able to undergo displacement; and (2) before perception is able to detect change, a signal different from the one before must reach the object that perceives it; that is, there is a period which intervals do not necessarily need to be equal. Thus, the space between the object that produces the signal and the one that perceives it has a non-uniform distribution of the signal, and this distribution, independent of either object, varies with time. This variation of the signal distribution in space, time, and periodicity is what I call change which, again, is independent of the object that perceives it (off course I am giving it a name, but its existence does not depende on me naming it). The terms creation and destruction, on the other hand, are names given to the change in the spatial and temporal distributions of signals emanating from a given object by the object (in this case humans) that perceive them. Change will exist independently of me naming it or not, whereas destruction and creation (good and evil, moral and immoral, beautiful and ugly) are relative to human perception; they are subjective terms (I would say they are terms that depend on social interaction).

Why do you assume change would exist but not creation or destruction? Why do you give a special status to change? — leo

Because creation and destruction are terms relative to human perception. That is, we say something is created when its parts, previously separated, gather into something we recognize as being a composite; similarly, we say something is destroyed when its parts become separate, and the shape we recognized as a unity is no more. Creation and destruction are thus human terms given to what we perceive as two different phenomena; but as you said, these phenomena (creation and destruction) are just continuous change. Creation and destruction are dependent on perception; change is not.

we wouldn't detect change. — leo

That we could not detect change does not mean it would not exist. Electrons existed before being detected. The Earth existed before human perception existed.

Why would it mean for there to be change without the experience of change? — leo

Why not?

Edit: by that I am asking you what's a reason change could not exist independently of consciousness?

To answer your question, if I understand it correctly, it would mean nothing. Change in itself means nothing in the absence or presence of experience; it is just change (the meaning that it is given by human perception only affects human experience - relative to planet Earth, a hurricane is not a bad or a good thing). Change is just a thing that happens. That something exists does not mean which it has a purpose (other than the purpose of existing - so that what co-exists with it can keep on existing); and that something that exists is given the quality of existent by human perception certainly does not mean that it has a purpose.

Change is both a creation and a destruction — leo

Change is change, nothing else. Creation and destruction are forms given to change by human perception, as you said here:

We talk of creation when we focus on what comes to be, and we talk of destruction when we focus on what ceases to be. — leo

In the same way, good is a term given by human perception to agreeable things.

There would not be a creation or a destruction, or good and evil, if there were no human perception. However, there would be change in the absence of human perception.

From a developmental point of view, I'd say we appear to our bodies, first [no nervous impulses without neurons and no cognition without a developed brain AND experience/sensation (the self is formed from sensations) - the body comes before the self); then, our bodies appear to us (or as StreetlightX said, the body appears to itself]. There must be something that is capable of being aware before one realizes his own body, but there must be a body before there is something capable of being aware.

Genesis: Soda Stereo cover (Vox Dei)

100 % recommended. Try it even if you don't speak the language.

A society in which every kind of behaviour is allowed without any kind of repercussion other than the immediate risks of performing the behaviour and being in a place where such behaviour is allowed. Such society should provide the physical space (a geographic region in the world) where a given behaviour or set of behaviours are allowed, again, without repercussion. i.e., if you like to kill people, there should be a "country/territory/geographic location" were killing is 100% permitted; the only risk of being in such country is the risk of being killed by other people who also like killing. Variety is the law in the world. So a society that allows the development of variety, I think would be the best society.

Terra
Caetano Veloso

Unless there is an expansionist agenda, of course. In this case, you should have the guts to declare war, invade, conquer, and annex. — Daniel

Or maybe there are better benefits when you expand without annexing?

And for the time being, I think the sovereignty of each country should be respected — Daniel

Unless there is an expansionist agenda, of course. In this case, you should have the guts to declare war, invade, conquer, and annex.

One day I hope that the entire world is a member of NATO — Paul Edwards

And for the time being, I think the sovereignty of each country should be respected. It is the moral obligation of oppressed people to liberate themselves; otherwise, oppression will just change forms but will always be present.

Then I think you should be fighting for a world unified under the same flag.

Nothing gives a government or group of people the moral right to intervene in the internal affairs of another country other than a direct attack or a genuine call for help. Or do u like unwanted "help"?

God is a pussy?

If the future is necessary for there to be a past, there is an origin of time, but there cannot be an end of time.

So we must allow for the logical possibility of a future without a past, and a past without a future, which would represent the beginning and ending of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Past without a future = the ending of time.

The ending of time could be described as a point in time with no future, as you said. However, if there is no future beyond this point, this point cannot ever become past, for it would require a point in time beyond itself to become such a thing. Anything that is past was present at some point in time. Therefore, for something to be present, it would also require the future. This point at the end of time would then not be able to ever be present without a future beyond it; that is, it would never exist. If there is an end of time, any point before that could not exist since there is no "ultimate" future that supports their existence. Therefore, if the future is required for the past to exist, there is an origin of time but there is not an end of time. What do you think?

This is because there must always be a future before there is a past. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nice idea you have here although I am confused about a couple things. Would the proposition above require the existence of an origin to be valid? In other words, would it hold in an always-existing reality (no origin AND no end)? What about cyclic time? Would the proposition hold in a scenario in which what once was will be again?

Eve's diary by Mark Twain. Simply beautiful.

Reality is a wavefront?

Could be. But what still troubles me is the fact (I think it is a fact) that every repetition in a cyclic event varies from the one before or the one after it by succession. So, even if something repeats itself with the highest exactitude (i.e., time), any given repetition would be different from the previous one. They are different relative to each other, and they differ by succession.

TheMadFool makes a good point. In a set of repetitions/cycles, every repetition is different from each other. They differ by succession.

So, the ability to produce a self (to come up with a sense of self) is intrinsic to the individual, but that the individual produces a self is dependent on his social interactions. Would you agree with that statement? is it clear what I mean?

This ‘self’ is not consolidated as a concept until it is successfully communicated to another - until someone deliberately manifests an arbitrary distinction that cannot be interpreted as a socially constructed interaction. — Possibility

Could you give an example of one of such "arbitrary distinctions"?

Could be. Like any good theory, it is only useful if it allows one to make testable predictions. — Roy Davies

Hey, I think that if you want to make testable hypotheses about the evolution of ideas, it'd be required to find a measurable representation of ideas. I mean, an idea must be first measurable by some parameter before you can study how such parameter (an the idea) evolves, how it is transmitted from generation to generation (vertically) and from person to person (horizontally), and how it changes by its interaction with other ideas. You must also be able to quantify variation in order to understand how variation is introduced into ideas. So, the parameter(s) that you choose to measure ideas must be such that you can determine its/their rate(s) of change with respect to time or any other variable that may affect the evolution of an idea (i.e population number, age, generation).

Why is that other guy craving the Gotcha Game experience? — Hippyhead

The same reason you post in this forum. To fulfill their need to express their minds.

I don't think the United States of America is the most powerful nation in the world anymore; and if it is, it won't be such by much longer. I might be wrong, of course. That said, I think that the "otherwise normal citizens" of the United States of America must start acting not like the most powerful citizens in the world but as citizens of the world if they still want a United States of America. (By the way, that goes to almost every nation in the world).

Is space occupied by an object space?

Try to listen all the way to the end which I think is the best part. I tried to translate the lyrics for those who would be interested, but I think the most beautiful about this song is the way he sings at the end... pure beauty and soul. (I don't believe you need to know what he's saying to enjoy the melody).

The guy was an Argentinian singer and philosopher who got killed in Guatemala city.

Lyrics:

I like those who say nothing, and I like those who sing.
And from spending so much time with myself, I like everything that happens to me.
Things like this happen to me even though it is not important to tell everybody all the things that happen.
Because one does not live alone, and what happens to one is happening to the world, that's the only reason... and cause.
Everything is so perfect because God is perfect that a star will move if I pluck a flower, for this reason if there is one, there is two.

I knew the Devil the night I said no to the hungry, and that same night I knew that the Devil is God's son.
I walk life alone with a tone and dominant, moderately a singer and without pretensions of teaching because if the world is round I do not know what lies ahead.
Walking and walking, always walking, just because.
I did not come to explain to the world, to the world I just came to play (music).
I do not want to judge man, to man I want to tell.
My condition is life, and my path is to sing, to sing and to tell life is my manner of walking.

One day I arrived in Tandil (a city in Argentina) and met an old man that lacking intelligence decided to be wise; one night I asked the beautiful old man about Jesus, and I knew him right away when he reached me a mirror.

I dance with my song and not with the one someone else plays to me.
I am not freedom, but I am who provokes it.
If I know the path already, why would I lay down?
If like freedom, why would I live as a slave?
To choose, I always choose, more than for me, for my brother.
And if I have decided to be an eagle it was out of love for the worm.

I prefer to keep walking than to ride a borrowed horse, someone will always be in debt for an apple.

Always arrives first the one who's traveling light.

The day I die it wont be necessary to use the scale because to say goodbye to a singer with a simple milonga (a type of Argentinian music) is enough.
I face my enemy and I give my back to a compliment because he who accepts a compliment starts to be dominated... man strokes (caresses) the horse to ride it.
I am sorry if I overstep and became too moral, nobody can give advises, there's no man who is that old.
I put the sun on my shoulders, and the world becomes yellow.
I like walking, but i do not follow the path for what's known lacks mystery.
I like to go with the summer far away, but to comeback to my mother in the winter and see the dogs that never forgot me, and the horses, and the hugs of my brothers...

I like it
I like it
I like the sun, Alicia, and doves,
A good cigar and the Spanish guitar
Jumping walls and opening windows
And when a woman cries

I like wine as much as flowers
And rabbits but not tractors
home-made bread, and Dolores' voice
and the sea soaking my feet

I am not from her nor am I from there
I have no home nor do I have a future
and to be happy is my identity colour

I like to lie all the time on the sand
or in a bicycle to follow Manuela
or all the time to see the stars with Maria in the wheat fields

I am not from her nor am I from there
I have no home nor do I have a future
and to be happy is my identity colour

If such observations produce judgements of correspondence, and true propositions, but the propositions display incoherency amongst each other, then why does natural reason demand that we reject them? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think natural reason demands the rejection of incoherent propositions. Incoherent propositions are rejected when proven incoherent. Therefore, it is the action of observing which forms the basis for the rejection of incoherent propositions.

If I say there is only one star in the universe, it is not natural reason which leads me to believe that there is more than one star in the universe; it is the act of experiencing and observing that there is more than one star in the universe which rejects the incoherent proposition.

The rejection of incoherent propositions is only possible by experiencing a phenomenon which after being observed renders them incoherent.

The nature of reality might be that there is inconsistency inherent within it, so that one person's observation might naturally contradict another's, for example. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think that two different, observations about the same thing can be completely contradictory; they might disagree in certain aspects but never contradict each other (they are about the same thing). If they are observations about different things, then they cannot be contradictory, at all.

If our minds are part of the world, then the inconsistencies within our minds are inconsistencies in the world. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'd say that if our minds are part of the world, then the inconsistencies in the world are inconsistencies within the mind (if there are any true inconsistencies in the world), and not the other way around as you stated it (your mind is not the only thing there is).

I don't think it is possible to know to certainty if this is a simulation or not (if it is, respects to whatever is responsible for it; if it isn't, the same); however, even if this was a simulation, it would be contained in some reality which would make such reality the simulation's reality. I'd say the matrix is real because it is contained within the real world (i.e., there is only one existence/one the whole).

I think the difference is that reality is independent of dreams while dreams are not independent of reality. — Daniel

Take away the material world and the world of dreams goes away to but the converse isn't true, at least to the extent that I'm aware. — TheMadFool

That's exactly what I am saying. If the world of dreams is part of the material world, then the former must be as real as the latter. However, they are not the same thing, obviously. Now, if we consider real that which is not imagined then dreams are NOT real, off course. Again, all I wanted to say is that the act of considering the world of dreams as something independent of the material world is erroneous.

another thing is if they represent, reflect or report something real, that happens outside the brain. — David Mo

Have you ever heard your alarm go off in your dreams before noticing that (in reality) it went off in the external world?

Nevertheless, I understand what this discussion is about. I agree that the mental world and the material world are different. Again, all I wanted to say is that I think that to make the world of dreams an entity separate/independent from the material world is bad thinking. I say this because sometimes I get the impression that some people do this, but I might be miss-understanding what they mean.

I perfectly distinguish the mental world from the material world... I think; all I am saying is that if I am part of the material world and dreams (and the mental world) are a part of me then dreams (and the mental world) are part of the material world.

There's a difference between these two worlds. — TheMadFool

Indeed, there is. This world is real, in contrast to dream worlds. — Banno

I think the difference is that reality is independent of dreams while dreams are not independent of reality. The dependancy of dreams on reality makes dreams real. Dreams are a part of ourselves in the same manner we are a part of this world instead of ourselves being a part of (our) dreams; in this way, dream worlds are not something apart/different from reality.

I'd say anything that has the capacity/ability/power to affect the self directly or indirectly is real independently of it being perceivable (by the body or its sense of awareness-not everything that interacts with the self is perceivable).

If a foetus is a person, shouldn't a foetus that absorbs its twin be trialed for manslaughter? or maybe for first degree murder?

Start online live meetings (using zoom or any other platform)... some people here might join the discussions. You could be the moderator or choose one among participants. Live meetings might be easier to control/organize than written threads.

Is there a fundamental unit(s) of thought? is the question clear? better... what are the fundamental blocks of thought (in terms of imagination)?

I posted it here. It wasn't moved.

I think I made a mistake in my last comment where I asked you to describe what you felt when you thought of nostalgia. I think there are mental representations and composites of mental representations; nostalgia would be a composite of mental representations. However, when I think of nostalgia without thinking of the entities that make me feel nostalgic I sigh and I feel all my body go "numb" for like 1s, and I also feel a void in my chest sometimes. Now, I wonder if these feelings are a mental representation, too; so, when I imagine myself feeling nostalgic (which is different to thinking of nostalgia), to that representation of myself I give it the sigh and also the feeling, and I cannot imagine myself feeling nostalgic without feeling my body go numb or without feeling that sensation which I get when I think of nostalgia.

I guess something similar happens in relation to fear, and other feelings.

could the sensation of fear which you feel in your body when you are afraid be a mental representation when given to an object of the imagination? Or are mental representations just images and sounds? When one imagines oneself being afraid without being in an actual fearful situation, would the replica be complete without that body sensation?