They say that Stalinism resulted in 6-9 million deaths. Perhaps Trump can beat that if reelected. — praxis

That is not what I'm saying. I'm only drawing a parallel between two historical political dynamics. No need to take it any further than that. If it comes to it, how many died as a result of the actions of the old guard? Trump has not started any wars.

If you're in politics, you're a politician regardless of whether you play by the established rules. — Benkei

see my post above.

Can you explain how he's not a real politician? or how his methods are unorthodox? — praxis

It doesn't matter. The point I'm making is that America has been run by the deep state for decades and they have done untold harm to the country. Trump is not one of them, that is why they hate him so much. They want a return to power, tyranny and control. Trump is getting in the way. The same happened with Stalin; he wrenched power from the real communists and created Stalinism. Bad as Stalinism was, the alternative might have been much worse.

Everyone knows Trump... — praxis

Yes but he is a maverick. He is not even a real politician.

Did you watch and understand the video? — praxis

Yes, it doesn't matter. The people whose names you know are not the ones who run America. Politicians are only window dressing, pawns.

Then how do you know the vid I posted is false? — praxis

I'm not saying it is false. I'm saying America has been beaten down for decades and sold out. Trump is preventing these people from doing further damage.

No. Nor do most people. 'Liberal' means nothing. Left and Right are meaningless. These are small words about small things. America, like many modern countries, is run by the deep state. They are the ones who sold you out. This is why Trump complains about the bad deal with China. Just in case you missed the link I posted https://nw-connection.com/?p=7224

By evil I assume that you mean liberal? — praxis

I mean the people, whoever they are, who sold America out and dragged it into wars for far too long.

These people are small fry. See my post above this one.

Very diplomatically put. A bit more thorough investigation would show how the situation is worse as Trump is totally fine when it his family getting the money. — ssu

The main point is that he got them out of the White House. I would forget about the small stuff, like money, accusations of racism etc. This is too big for the small fry. The main issue here is Trump is keeping very dangerous warmongers and evil people out of the White House. That is why they hate him so much.

You haven't bothered with any analysis yourself or presented any thesis — Baden

Ok. My thinking is that the letter will make many religious people vote for Trump if it is widely distributed. In my opinion Trump is hated because he 'drained the swamp'. He is keeping the wicked and unscrupulous people our of the White House. They have been in power for far too long and his main merit is he is blocking them. What is the alternative to Trump? The same old school that destroyed America?

I can't believe it. I asked for comments on the letter and all I get is this pointless argument about nothing. Can people please stay with the subject of the thread?

Yes, science does not explain why reality is what it is. Science is a description of reality: A causes B, if x then y, etc. Like looking at a landscape and describing it. It doesn't really explain any more than primitive relationships between things.

No, that's not a theory. That's a hypothesis, a postulate, a proposal. — Philosophim

Whatever it is called you still can't say that it is established science that brain = mind.

Lets clarify then. First, a "convincing argument" means a rational argument concluded with deduction. Deductions must then be applied and tested against reality to ensure we had the entire picture, and that the deduction holds when faced with other people, or use in reality. — Philosophim

Firstly, 'rational' is much more than primitive scientific/mathematical facts. Science and math. deal with basic, material, primitive things. Rationality is much more than this. Sound arguments that don't prove the point are rational. A deduction may hold but some deductions, for want of a better word, are untestable. How would you test if the brain is conscious? Yet, some people deduce that it is. Any such test would have to ignore the warning that correlation may not be causation.

For example, we could deduce in physics that if X object is applied Y force in a vector, it will accelerate at Z speed. So we go outside, we do that, but it doesn't work. We think about it for a moment and we realize we didn't take into account the wind. So we go indoors without any wind, and it turns out our deduction works. We just forgot to take wind as a factor. — Philosophim

True but neuroscience is far from being in possession of all the factors. That's the problem. It is not easy to reduce it to primitive relationships like in physics.

If you make a claim about reality, you must test it against reality. — Philosophim

This sounds like Logical Positivism to me. You are saying everything must be testable in terms of measurable facts. That looks like L.P.

We have not discovered any application of "deduction or rational argument" that consciousness exists apart from the brain. — Philosophim

I disagree. I think there are plenty of rational arguments that hold up.

Finally, I am not a logical positivist. I am not accusing you of holding any particular philosophy, — Philosophim

I'm not saying you are. I am saying that your way of reasoning with this particular issue seems to be an attempt to define what is rational and what is real within L.P. parameters.

You ask for an argument for non material mind. Here is a reasonable argument that neuroscientists are looking at analogues rather than real thought. Analogues, metaphors and images arise naturally in the physical world. Take for example the function $x^2$. This is a concept involving real numbers. But it is possible to make a graph of $x^2$ on a sheet of paper. The graph is an analogue or image of the idea of $x^2$. In fact all graphs involving statistics etc, are images or analogues of the real thing.

Another analogue is a hydrogen atom. There is no material substance per se, in the way our senses naively convince us. The substance of the atom is energy and there is no 'physical' substance to it; it is only a physical image of an energy field. The whole physical universe is an analogue of something else. People are now saying that the universe is really information/mathematics and the physical universe is an analogue of 'mathematical' truth. (I'm putting the word in inverted commas because mathematics, in its entirety, is way beyond anything we currently understand mathematics to be.)

Another image is body language. We speak, subconsciously, about our emotional state by way of body language. In this way body language is an image of something beyond what is visible in terms of physical perception. All languages are images or analogues of something deeper.

If the physical world is really just an analogue of other things then it would be no surprise that physical systems, including the brain, are images of the real thing. We live in a world of images. Philosophers should be careful to distinguish between the image and the reality.

You absolutely may offer an alternative theory, but it must have evidence to compete with another theory that has evidence. — Philosophim

What I am saying is that the theory that brain = mind is a default position, a theory, not a proven fact.
You ask for evidence but the problem here is with the word 'evidence'. Evidence can be data, physical facts or convincing argument. But in your world view - if I understand you correctly - only physical facts are admissible as evidence. Argument is not acceptable to you without physical facts. So you get to define what is and what is not evidence and the dice are loaded in your favour.

But reducing everything to physical facts is a philosophy known as Logical Positivism which is a failed philosophy. You may read up on why this philosophy has failed. Do a search for 'Why did logical positivism fail?' It is a complex question but here is a start https://tribune.com.pk/story/967286/the-rise-and-fall-of-logical-positivism

So you are relying on a dead philosophy - as people like Richard Dawkins and many others are - to make assertions about 'proof' and what science has shown and you are confusing theory with fact. Given the failure of this philosophy it cannot be asserted that brain = mind is established science, it is only a default position and defaults can be challenged, especially if they are built on a failed philosophy.

The question that I will keep asking, and no one has offered anything is, "If the mind is not produced from the brain, what is it?" Without evidence, all your saying is, "It could be something else". — Philosophim

I can put the same question to you; what evidence is there that the brain is conscious? All scientists are doing is looking at a physical analogue. Suppose a scientist looks at the workings of a television and discovers many analogues of what is happening in terms of sound and vision and then concludes that the television is creating the film on screen and therefore must be conscious. But none of these physical analogues mean that the television wrote the script for the film or wrote the music score or created the actors on screen or any of that. If the scientist insists that correlation is causation you can see where he went wrong. The television processes information, it does not create it. Information is broadcast to the television from a remote source. Science does not show that the brain is conscious (how could you show something is conscious?) it only interprets the evidence according to a materialistic dogma that does not allow for the existence of mind separate from matter. The instance that correlation is causation is dogma. All scientists can say is 'The only evidence we can find is that the brain is the mind' but they cannot insist that it is. It is only a theory, not an established fact. So why can't someone offer an alternative theory?

Provide some evidence of a mind existing apart from the brain — Philosophim

It doesn't work like that. Besides evidence there is the interpretation of the evidence. These are not the same thing. Scientists interpret physical analogues to argue that brain = mind. Others choose to interpret different things to argue that mind is non material. They are both interpretations of the facts we have. Nothing has been rigorously established. I ask again, how do you show that a physical object is conscious, over and above a theory that it is?

Would you mind clarifying what you meant by this? — Philosophim

The Greeks invented geometry to measure the physical world. Their calculations are congruent with the actual world which is why they were able to create their famous architectural pieces. This means that geometry and deduction about the world is very similar, if not identical, to the objective world. So, to a large extent, we are conscious of what is actually there.

The citations I've linked have clearly shown that damage to the brain can affect the consciousness of people's ability to see color, their core personality, and ability to comprehend language. — Philosophim

Of course but that is because the interface/brain has been damaged. If a camera is damaged you can not see through it but that does not mean the camera sees. The body is an interface between the mind and the world. If the interface is damaged then of course information cannot reach the mind. But the mind is also conscious independently of the body. For example, it can think and it can say 'I think therefore I am'. The mind's knowledge is not restricted to the five senses.

No, it has clearly been established. — Philosophim

What has been established is that there is a physical analogue of the mind's interaction with the world via the brain. But this analogue would have to exist if the mind is to engage with the world. Brain activity is an analogue of this engagement. It is not conscious. When you type into a computer there is a physical analogue of what you are thinking in the form of electrical signals that are translated into type. The existence of this analogue does not mean the computer is thinking.

A meterstick is a notched tool that helps us divide physical space. Physical space does not have an underlying grid of meters that we can't see or exist in some other dimension. — Philosophim

If you replace the meter stick with geometry you'll get very close. Geo-metry means 'earth measuring'.

1. Evidence of consciousness existing in a human being with a completely dead brain.
2. Consciousness existing apart from the localized part of your head. For example, having your body walk away while your consciousness stays right here.
3. Evidence of serious brain damage/chemical changes/proper functionality without the slightest change in personality or character. — Philosophim

https://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm

There is no evidence that the brain is conscious. What does exist is a materialistic dogma that insists there is no difference between the brain analogue and the mind. It is simply dogma.

We know that there are certain parts of the brain that allow a person to grasp language. Animals and insects which lack these aspects of the brain are unable to communicate using language.
https://www.headway.org.uk/about-brain-injury/individuals/effects-of-brain-injury/communication-problems/language-impairment-aphasia/

Aphasia is the term for when a person has brain damage that limits their ability to communicate. — Philosophim

Yes, the mind can only engage in the physical world on the same level as brain development. If a person had the brain of an earthworm it would not be possible to write poetry. An analogy is the development of computers. In the beginning they were relatively simple. They could not show graphics or images or do word processing. But as more capabilities were added they became more adept. But from this one does not conclude that computers are conscious or intelligent. It is the computer operator's mind that is intelligent and conscious. The physical systems of the brain are only the tools that enable the mind to consciously engage in the world, they are not the mind, no more than ever more sophisticated computer systems are the mind. The mind can only engage in the physical world on the same level as brain complexity.

What I am temporarily left with is that our perception of our own perception (what he calls transcendental or reflexive perception) will always remain imperfect, partial, because when we reflect on our own perception, when we are theorizing our perception, we are not the one who is perceiving anymore, we take a step back from him. — Olivier5

Care needs to be taken here because perception and reflection on perception are very different things. If I perceive a piece of music and then reflect on that perception the former is perception proper but the latter is a different kind of 'perception' altogether; it is the mind looking at itself. But I don't see this act of self knowledge as another self. It is just the self looking at itself. Self awareness.

No, because the mind is the processing brain. — Philosophim

That has yet to be established.

Further, the pain signal is transmitted to the nerve as well, so its not merely localized in the brain. — Philosophim

The whole body is one entity. It is the means by which the mind experiences the world. But this entity makes experience subjective and this subjectivity is partially determined by the fact that the body contextualizes its experiences. When the mind experiences via the senses, its experiences are in the context of the body because the body is the context. If the mind could experience reality without the context of the body reality might look different but not by a lot. For example, mathematical deduction is not influenced by the body. Math is what it is and is not altered by the body. Eating food is different. It is very much a bodily experience.

The question is; how closely does subjective experience resemble the objective reality that is the source of that experience? It is likely to closely resemble the reality otherwise we must argue that the mind is in an almost constant state of fantasy or delusion or in a dream world. This is unlikely because we are able to coherently respond to the world that we perceive.

The articles I've linked and the arguments I've been given clearly show that consciousness happens within the physical context of the brain. — Philosophim

But that does not mean the physical context is consciousness. Correlation is not necessarily causation. Just because neurons and brain signals are correlated with thought does not mean they cause thought. The argument that the mind is the brain relies heavily on ignoring the dictum: Correlation Is Not Necessarily Causation and assuming that because two things are found together one must be causing the other. This is not always true, as explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

I don't think so. Life is much more than physics. — Olivier5

True, but to the materialist it is all essentially physical. If I say 'I am experiencing red' what do I mean by "I"? It seems to me that a good definition of the 'I' would help things a lot. It is not possible to reconstruct the I from physical systems, information, and experiences so what is it that is having these experiences?

"Physical" does not really work here. The body and brain are biological. Life is already far more than just "physical". It's about information. Your body is made of information, and that's why it can die. — Olivier5

It comes to much the same thing. The body is a context in which experience is framed. But Dennett needs to be more detailed in his analysis. There are different kinds of experience; internal, such as pain, pleasure, thought etc. and experiences that are dependent on external stimulation. These are two different classes of experiences. It is not a good idea to use internal experience to draw general conclusions about consciousness that also involves consciousness of external stimuli.

There is no viable model out there that states consciousness is separate from the brain's function. Any that try to are phlogiston theories at this point. — Philosophim

Suppose you go to the doctor and tell him you have a pain in your foot. He might decide to enlighten you and tell you that the pain is not "really" in your foot. It is really a sensation in your brain.

"But" you object "how can I feel it in my foot if it is in my brain?" whereupon he might expound: "You see, the body is so constructed that it locates the pain in your foot. That is, it contextualizes the pain in the foot area. This is because the body is a physical context in which we have experiences. But the pain is really in your brain, you see, son?"

Whereupon you could answer "If the body is a physical context, then can't we extend this reasoning further and argue that the pain is not really in the brain either, but in the mind? And when professionals like you contend that the pain is really in the brain all you are doing is examining a physical context that is not really pain at all. The pain is beyond the brain. Because if the body is merely a physical context and the brain is part of the body can't the brain be part of the contextualization too?"

If we are locating things in the body can't it also be argued that neuroscience is locating/contextualizing experience in a physical context in the brain but the real conscious experience is outside the physical context altogether? Why stop at the brain? Indeed, can physical matter, no matter how complex, have experiences? Because that is what body is really, a physical context in which experiences are framed.

Dennett is right about some of the things he says*. You give the example of fire as an experience and fire as an actual thing in itself. But Dennett is wrong to extend this to all conscious experience. For example, suppose you listen to a piece of music. The pattern of the music changes, repeats, increases or decreases in tempo and so on. This is what we experience. Is Dennett to argue that there is no corresponding changes, repeats or changes in tempo out there in the objective world? If not, where do these patterns and changes come from? He must be arguing that they are purely internal inventions, which is ridiculous. If there is someone playing a violin and we are listening what is creating the pattern, the violin, or our brain?

Likewise with patterns in language. You are conscious of what I am saying. Are we to argue that the content of this post is purely an invention of your own brain? If it is, communication is impossible, which is clearly not the case.

*But just because some conscious experiences are subjective does not mean all conscious experiences are equally subjective. The degree of subjectivity varies greatly.

Consciousness is so hopelessly defined it is hard to know what a person means by it. Dennett is probably talking about consciousness by way of the five senses. But isn't the mind conscious independently of the senses? People need to agree/disagree on this issue even before the discussion begins. Thereafter the discussion is in terms of physical consciousness or the mind's awareness or both. But if people are to make sense they must agree on the terms of the discussion.

Either wisdom has to be dramatically accelerated somehow, or knowledge had to be slowed down dramatically, or some combination of the two. — Hippyhead

Science by itself won't provide wisdom. Something else is needed.

It is a pity that wisdom is not inherited — Skeptic

So it needs to be found somehow...

As I understand it, we’re really saying “all objects with this structure have these properties”, but that’s technically true whether or not there “really” are any objects with that structure at all. — Pfhorrest

Such as Odd Perfect Numbers https://medium.com/cantors-paradise/eulers-odd-perfect-numbers-theorem-82a393baa883

The only hope is that wisdom will keep pace with scientific knowledge. Wisdom before knowledge and wisdom before power, otherwise there is great danger.

I'd prefer to refer to what you call the "n-dimensional" as non-dimensional. — Metaphysician Undercover

Whatever the case may be, if there are two mathematically different universes then detection is when a trace effect is left on the interface between the two universes. But quantum time must be in the equations somewhere.

There is simply no way back to empirical reality from here. — Jim Baggott

lol. The multiverse is quantum fiction for fantasists.

A mathematical device with an astounding ability to predict experimental outcomes, even at a statistical level, demands explanation. — Kenosha Kid

I agree entirely. But compare it to ordinary statistics. You might argue that, statistically, 11 left-handed bachelors will enter a shop over a period of, say, 3 days. But are left-handed bachelors aligning their activities with your mathematical model? They are effectively acting in a random way.

I presented it as a need for two distinct concepts of space. You present it as a need for two distinct concepts of spacetime. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think it was Niels Bohr that said it is meaningless to say where a particle is before it is detected. But 'where' is referring to a position in physical spacetime. If the particle, before detection, is in quantum spacetime Bohr is answered with 'It is nowhere'. Nowhere in physical spacetime. It is 'elsewhere'.

What is detection? We should have a rigorous definition of detection-

Detection is where an event in quantum spacetime leaves a trace effect on physical spacetime.

A trace effect can be a spot on a photographic plate. This trace effect is located in physical spacetime: you can point to it and say where it is. But where is/was the event that caused it? It is 'elsewhere' but nowhere in physical spacetime.

The salient point here is that the trace effect is necessarily in physical spacetime. Since the detection apparatus is a physical object in physical spacetime it cannot be otherwise.

So, what is happening here is that an n-dimensional event in quantum spacetime is projected onto the surface of a 4-dimensional physical spacetime. Say n = 10. This means 6 dimensions of information are lost because a 10 dimensional event is compressed into 4 dimensions.

This is one of the reasons why the ontological status of the wavefunction is doubted. — Kenosha Kid

The idea that it is a real thing gives rise to all kinds of nonsense involving reality splitting into multiple universes etc. It seems to me to be a convenient mathematical device, nothing more.

Allow me to ask you a question. For the sake of argument let's define time as 'a mathematical description of events in space'. Relativity is such a description that describes macroscopic events in ordinary physical space.
But what about 'quantum time'? If the mathematics that describe change in the quantum world are different from the mathematics of change in the physical world then are there not two (space)times? Quantum time and physical time? Are the mathematics of quantum change sufficiently different from relativity to justify the idea that quantum particles live in a different spacetime?

I just finished reading Carlo Rovelli's book The Order of Time which is an attempt to argue that time is a function of entropy. His arguments are very weak and confused.

Penrose is one of many theorists who have concluded that they are the same arrow of time. — Kenosha Kid

Just because both arrows point in the same direction does not mean they are the same. Time in the physical world has to do with mass and the speed of light. I don't see how heat flow can determine this.

Once you have an infinite number of tiles you can create a non periodic pattern. Working with only 1 and 2 you can have-

121121112111121111121111112...
How many ways can you arrange 1 and 2? You have

1, 2 and 2, 1

How many ways can you arrange 1, 2, (1, 2) and (2, 1)?

you have-

1, 2, (1, 2), (2, 1)
2, 1, (1, 2), (2, 1)
2, (1, 2), 1, (2, 1)
2, (1, 2), (2, 1), 1 etc and the combinations become infinite as you get more ways of combining the new sets that arise out of previous combinations.

To abstract means to 'take from' $abstract \subset concrete$. In this example concrete = mind. I don't see how there can be abstraction without mind. Even the null set cannot be such unless there is a mind to know it.

Shouldn't it be "The barber shaves Everyone who does not shave himself"? At any rate, this is a superficial 'paradox' because the statement is not, and cannot be true. It is a lie. Even in terms of set theory it is superficial because it assumes the is a "set of all sets..." but the entity that contains all sets is not and cannot be a set, yet it exists* so the assumption that this set exists is what causes the paradox. The entity that is 'all sets...' is an infinite set of sets, discussed here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8334/russels-paradox

Lichtenburg: Thinking is occurring. — Tom343

Russell said something similar. But as well as thought there is the knowledge that there is thinking. There is focal point that knows there is thought. Who/What is saying 'Thinking is occurring'?

He is just so logical and mathematical with his arguments, I always try to come with counterarguments to what he says but what he says simply makes a lot of sense — rickyk95

There are many consistent, logical tautologies that make sense but are not truth. Truth and nifty models of the world are not always the same thing. Personally I find his world view monstrous. He even tried to justify torture.

It is not just the fact that the ego wants something of it. "Intrinsic" beauty exists only if the individual - or in the case of the crowd, the individuals - and his ego decides that it has intrinsic value — Gus Lamarch

In that case there is, in your opinion, no objective value in anything. That is what I disagree with.

This vision of yours is tied to the prejudice attributed to egoism, so maybe you see the ego as a cancer, a parasite that destroys everything it touches; the ego is seen as something "evil", dark, which brings disgrace — Gus Lamarch

I don't think ego is always bad. And I do agree that it can be a motivating force but it can become bad. But it is not the only motivating force. I believe values exist beyond the ego and beauty is not something that depends on the ego to exist. Otherwise only ego-centered people could appreciate beauty.

Some of what you say is true. Ego can be a motivating force but so can greed, hatred, love, fear...
You will find many examples that seem to support your view but I can see many examples that support my view; namely that external values can be a motivating force.

The ego is only a point of view of the world. It is not a thing in itself. It is a focal point. And the only values it can be associated with are those values it has appropriated for itself. But those values exist independently of the ego, otherwise it could not appropriate them.

For example a rich and successful man may take great pride in his riches. But he is not rich because he is great although his ego may tell him he is. He is rich because riches exist independently of him. For the most part, he just got lucky. He appropriated riches to himself and imagines he has them because he is great.

A beautiful woman thinks she is beautiful: she thinks she is beautiful. But that is not her. It is natural physical beauty that she is associated with, again by luck and chance and no greatness of her own. But she is vain. Her ego tells her she and her physical beauty are the same thing. This is illusion. All vanities and ego-centered thinking is illusion. And yes, there is something parasitical about it because the ego cannot have value on its own merits. The ego is desire: a desire to possess. The man says "These riches are mine" the woman says "This beauty is mine. It is me." But all that is really happening is that these people are in a fleeting relationship with values, riches and beauty that exist independently of them.

This sentence doesn't make sense because you ignored my argument in a previous answer, that love is also born out of the human ego. — Gus Lamarch

But this ignores my contention that it can easily be verified that there are things that are beautiful and of value and our admiration of them is simply a recognition of their value. You are saying that nothing has intrinsic beauty or value unless the ego can get something out of it. I disagree.

How egoism will be projected depends on the will of each being, however, I agree on the questions of what the monstrous masses are, what I call as "negative-egoists". — Gus Lamarch

I think it is more correct to say that the ego attaches itself to the things we love: this is what possessiveness means: the ego wants to possess what should simply be loved. I don't disagree with you in the sense that the ego insinuates itself and looks for food. But this insinuation is not necessary to appreciate beauty or value.