This means that consciousness has a causal effect on physical process which created it! — bahman

There is zero evidence or any kind of theory of how so-called material processes (which as of 100 years ago no longer exist), creates consciousness. One can easily say, with equal validity that consciousness causes processes that materialize as the brain - most especially if they are considered equivalent (they are).

Oh bullshit man. The current view of the nature of the universe, even just from the standpoint of physics, has radically changed since the 17th century. — MindForged

What a mess it educational system is in. Like I said, they are still teaching 17thb century physics. You are evidence of it.

Ok, no one is advocating the same sort of materialism as in the 17th century. — MindForged

Yes, it is exactly the same only minor contortionist tweaks like "selfish genes" and "Thermodynamic Imperative". There is no such thing as "material" for 100 years. Materialism doesn't exist (as the Daoists observed).

But academia keeps it alive.

As opposed to Daoism, which is clear and reasonable? — Michael

Absolutely. Daoism is based upon observation by people who are attempting to understand nature and life as it is being experienced, unlike materialism which is goal-oriented. Unbelievable there are still apostles of materialism despite the 100 year history of quantum mechanics. Most people in college are still taught the antiquated 17th century view of physics just to keep materialism alive. Pretty pathetic.

Then what's the difference between materialism and immaterialism; between physicalism and idealism? — Michael

Materialism is not as you understand it or would like to understand it.

My advice is don't try to understand it because it is nonsense and cannot be understood.

consciousness and brain waves are identical is only half the picture. — Michael

No. This is the full picture and the word gymnastics are irrelevant.

If they are identical (they are) then they are identical. The rest is materialist contortionism.

The materialist will say that consciousness is those brain waves. — Michael

Really? Fine. Consciousness is physical and causal. That is what the Daoist say. Consciousness causes the brain waves. You have unified mind and consciousness under materialism. They are one and the same. I'm with you.

However, I think you may find materialists quite in flurry over this.

consciousness is a physical process. — Michael

If consciousness is physical then it is causal. It can create brain waves.

I know what I'm trying to say. The materialist may argue that consciousness is identical to a particular arrangement and behaviour of matter (e.g. the brain and its activity). You seem to have some issue with the term "state" and are saying something about states not being physical. This doesn't make any sense to me, and I'm asking you to clarify it. — Michael

We have a bit of a problem if trying to explain the theory of how consciousness materializes out of a "state" that is continuously changing persistent". Magic? It just happens? The "Thermodynamic Imperative". Or is it just dogma?

There's a bunch of physical matter in a particular state, i.e. arranged in a particular way and behaving a certain way. That's perfectly consistent with materialism. — Michael

Gosh, this is like a slippery eel.

WHAT IS MIND?

Please take a deep breath and instead of taking all sides to all things, figure out what you are trying to say and then say it.

A state isn't an object, it cannot be physical. If one equates brain states with consciousness, one is not saying a "state" is a physical thing nor does it entail your favorite quantum woo. — MindForged

A state isn't physical. Ok. So consciousness isn't physical. Back to the illusion thing.

Materialist contortionism.

What are you talking about? — Michael

The brain is consciousness. You just said it. Fine. So is the gut which is also transmitting signals to the brain. I like it.

material mind. — celebritydiscodave

And it keeps going. The big bugaboo with materialism. That darn mind.

A "state" in this case can be understood as the way the world is, — MindForged

I realize this. So now a state is physical.

I have no problem with this. Everything is physical including consciousness and consciousness can cause, create, and evolve. Fine. Quantum states are consciousness. Beautiful. This is what I believe.

Is there anything at all when the mind isn't perceiving? That is the question I am asking. If your answer is 'probably yes', why do you say that? — PossibleAaran

Two reasons:

During one's life, one is always perceiving new things as one develops skills in perception.

Other life forms are reacting to things we do not perceive.

And the materialist who equates consciousness with brain states ( — Michael

Well now you are calling "states" physical. It's rather amusing to observe the contortions. Always trying to hide consciousness somewhere without admitting to it.

How is it redefining the physical? — Michael

Most people think of physical as something that can be causal in some manner. I would be delighted if biologists (specifically) admitted that consciousness causes things - such as evolution. That would be wonderful.

I believe that there are items which exist — PossibleAaran

The issue here is the word "exist".

Is there something out there in the fabric of the universe? Probably yes.

But what is it until Mind perceives it? That is the question.

It is like sound waves that are simply waves until the Mind hears it.

Why? Can't they say that consciousness is real, just physical in nature? — Michael

Of course they can, simply by redefining the meaning of physical. But at this point, materialism loses all meaning. Instead what we have is a philosophy which I embrace where consciousness is just the fundamental basis for everything and matter is a condensed/deadened form of consciousness. That would be nice if materialists went that route.

Materialism doesn't lead to epiphenomalism. — Michael

The only way around this problem for materialists is by declaring consciousness some sort of illusion, without providing any theory of how or why fundamental quanta would create such illusions. Of course, materialists could even go so far as denying there is any such thing as consciousness but that dog won't hunt.

I give the tree as not designed — Moliere

All life is self-developing. It is real evolution.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

emotions are a result of chemicals, — Lone Wolf

Chemicals would be the manifestation of emotions.

Having no sense of time, and existing outside of time are two different things — Sam26

I have no idea what it means to exist out of time. When we are awake, we feel duration. When we are unconscious or asleep, there is no duration. When we are dreaming, there is duration but of a completely different sort no boundaries on space.

Design (I would use the term creative force)

1) Moves against entropy (organizes)

2) Creates and recognizes repeatable patterns

In essence this is Memory which is recognized through Nature. It is quite clear that creating and recognizing patterns goes far beyond homo sapiens.

Deadened mind (matter) moves with entropy. The difference between the two is quite significant, philosophically and beyond.

can't make any sense of a person having existence in timelessness — Sam26

It happens all the time. When one is asleep or unconscious there is no sense of duration (real time). We feel Dustin in the awake state.

When one goes to sleep or when one enters unconsciousness, all materiality and sense of duration disappears.

When one becomes unconscious, it is no longer accessing memory which is embedded in the fabric of the universe. You can say, one is asleep but the memory is still there if it can be accessed. When one awakens, one again is accessing the memory. How? Via electrical transmissions from the brain. The brain is a transmitter/receiver and accesses memory at particular frequencies which it is attuned to. But, the memories itself lie in the universal fabric. In such a manner, depending upon the state of the mind, the mind can go from an awake state, to a dream state, to a sleep/non-dream states, to an unconscious state (e.g. dehydration or severe injury), and ultimately a death state.

But memory is always there and can be accessed, even within life-death cycles, hence the phenomenon of inherited characteristics and innate skills. Memory is evolving along with consciousness.

If you don't believe that what philosophers write requires deciphering then that explains your tendency towards simplistic interpretations. — Janus

Anyone who understands human nature and agendas will always go to the source, and I don't care what discipline is being discussed?

Peirce is not compatible with what he himself has stated; — Janus

It keeps getting more bizarre. I didn't do any interpretation. It was a direct quote right out of his own article on MIND. You just don't like what he wrote. Sorry, can't help you. Maybe someone else can. Maybe someone who had a greater flare for distorting. As for me, I like it simple.

"scholastic realist", and this is not compatible with the idea that he was simply an idealist or a panpsychist; or that he shared their ways of understanding the notion of mind or considering it to be fundamental. — Janus

For further amplification in his views about Mind and matter being deadened Mind, I would refer you to his article.

Exactly what do you believe should people do? Ignore Peirce's own succinct description and defer to your biased and goal oriented interpretation? Rather bizarre.

Maybe what you might consider is rethinking your own views?

BTW, I am very much a realist when it comes to the Mind. It is very, very, very real.

I see nothing about Mind here. Is this your simplistic idea of quoting Peirce about Mind? You rather ignore his paper? Fine. I'm total ok with you ignoring the paper. Just make up some other word to replace Mind. Whatever works for you.

I read his paper on THE LAW of The MIND.

You wanted the reference, so you got it. Not my problem that you don't like it.

I have a suggestion. Why don't you just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

I just don't believe in making up stuff just because it doesn't fit my agenda. If you don't like what he wrote, then just move on and find someone else who agrees with you.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mind" but I don't believe Peirce intends anything which would suggest panpsychism or idealism as they are usually understood. — Janus

Just read what he wrote. I don't think it needs much deciphering.

Self-awareness is but one other thing that we can do to amuse ourselves. A game of hide-and-seek.

To each his own.

You'll have to explain this further. — Buxtebuddha

Observe the patterns of life, from baby to adult. Observe what everyone is doing from the moment life springs until it is extinguished. Observe what we are all doing and what is guiding it all.

If you wish, extend your pattern observations beyond human life. Keep extending it as far as you wish to go.

Please read my OP. I've given the references. I don't see how there can be a contradiction when time isn't absolute. — TheMadFool

The measurement of the simultaneity of events is not absolute, because it requires the sending of a signal. This is a measurement problem. Thanks to pop science text books, there is a pervasive confusion between the problems of measuring simultaneity (Relativity takes the stance that the speed of light is constant and uses this for transformation), and the actual time experienced in life. Whatever someone else may observe on another planet, when the train hits Freddy he is dead. The only disagreement may be in the clock time (simultaneity instrument) it happened.

Philosophers need to put Relativity in the small confines it belongs and not elevate it to an ontology. Science fiction writers can do as they wish.

Could it be said that science's inability to explain the reason for the seemingly intelligent behavior of subatomic particles and the nature of consciousness supports the idea that there is some sort of ID at work, perhaps one that is still becoming aware of its own nature? The ever-increasing known complexity of the universe seems congruent with elements of biocentrism and quantum mechanics - where things only exist when observed. Did atoms exist before we were able to see them, or is that just the universe's attempt to explain all of the wondrous things it has unwittingly created in a vastly intelligent semi-aware state? — CasKev

This is pretty much it. Daoism in a nutshell.

We are here to create and take joy in our creations. And we share our creations in art galleries, music concert, poetry slam, football games, philosophy forums. The more we learn to observe the more creative we become. Some take it too far though and start identifying themselves in their creations, computers, mathematics, words, etc. It is the mind that is doing the creating.

Then in part, memory also must make us who we are. — Lone Wolf

Fundamentally we are memory. It provides us with the sense of continuity of existence. But there may be a bit more. I'm contemplating the possibility.

If one changes so rapidly, does an individual even exist? Or are we all merely beings without individuality, flowing with whatever chemical changes that occur inside? Which, the existence of a moral code would be hard to ingrain into any human then, as one cannot change from believing that murder is wrong, to murder ought to be promoted overnight. — Lone Wolf

We change but we have memory - of all sorts. Certain aspects of ourselves change more quickly than others.

If the universe has been around for over 14 billion years, why wouldn't it be more than likely that some civilization now has the ability to create realities for us to experience; and that we are also part of that creation process. Moreover, it may be that they even have the ability to move from universe to universe. We couldn't even conceive of how advanced such a civilization could be. To say that there is nothing beyond the physical is just too dogmatic for me. It's similar to religious belief. — Sam26

From a philosophical perspective I try to stay, as much as possible, as close as possible to actual observations.

Life can be of many forms, we know this. We discover new forms of life all the time. There may be forms of the type that we simply cannot recognize or sense at this time in evolution.

We are limited in what we can observe and sense. Other forms of life have different abilities and can sense what we cannot.

As our abilities evolve we learn to observe and sense more - even in line lifetime. Differences in color may be one small example.

I believe excellent training for philosophy is anything that increases or abilities to sense and observe. Who knows where it may lead? But, in moderation. Not everything we can do is necessarily healthful.