I think that it is a way in which emotions are expressed cathartically, like laughter. Children cry so much but people usually cry less when they adults and how much they cry varies from person to person. I wonder how much is about social learning and even the gain from crying from sadness being communicated to others in this way..Also, we could question whether men cry less, or i If there is any intrinsic difference between the pattern of crying it could point to the role of biology. Perhaps testosterone suppresses tears and turns tears to anger. However, it may partly be about stereotypes and how women feel more able to cry openly while men are encouraged to hide their emotions.

I think that one idea of relevance to this is Jung's idea of synchronicity, which he developed in response to his own premonitions. However, he does suggest that it is about seeing patterns in things rather than about causality outrightly. But, some other thinkers have developed this idea a little differently, as for example, Deepak Chopra in, 'Synchrodestiny'. It is a question of whether what happens in life is mere chance?

Personally, I have wondered about this issue a lot because I had a number of really horrible premonitions as a teenager, especially of people dying and, then they died shortly after. This included my headmaster and several other people I only knew by sight. In one instance, I remember being in the school library and seeing a boy whose name I didn't know and the thought coming through my head, 'he has not got as many problems as me but his dad is going to die.' About a week later, I found out that his father really had died. My various experiences almost made me become unwell mentally because I began to wonder if it was my fault that the people were dying. But, fortunately, I found Jung's autobiography and read about his struggle to understand his premonitions. I have experienced some strange premonitions in adulthood but not to the extent as I did during adolescence.

As for coincidence, personally, I am not convinced that anything in life is pure chance. Of course, it all comes down to a question of meanings but I think that meaning is so central to life that it affects what becomes manifest in the events within our lives.

We had better remember to eat our carrots and, at least they are cheaper than psychedelics, and legal too.

I think that it partly depends how you think about the nature of psychedelic reality, and I understand the word to be about mind expansion. I think that your idea that we are all tripping through seeing colours probably points to the way in which we take such vision for granted. I don't really because I do have some underlying vision problems, and my biggest fear is of going blind oneday. So, I try to be grateful for the amazing nature of vision, including the spectrum of colours.

I think that it comes down to the way in which we experience and think about perception and this is linked to art as a way of exploration. For most of my life I used to draw regularly and paint on occasions. However, I have barely done this at all for the last couple of years, partly due to being in the right state of mind and not having the right place to do it. I am aware that this may have had a negative impact on my appreciate of life and even contributed to my eyesight becoming blurry recently. I think visual perception and its appreciation is somehow central to our existence and brain functioning because the retina is part of the brain ultimately.

Going back to your way of thinking about colour there is the dichotomy about making art in black and white or in colour. Often I draw in black and white, but I do experiment in colours and find using a vast array of watercolour pencils is one way of doing this with a view to capturing the full colour spectrum. At one point in the past, people photography was usually done in black and white, and television was in that way, whereas we expect to view coloured pictures most of the time. But, it is an aspect of mind expanding perception really, or the perception of multidimensional reality.

I think that I notice that colours become brighter when I am feeling more cheerful than when I am feeling miserable. Of course, we do all have a certain amount of psychoactive brain chemicals naturally than without recourse to hallucinogenics.

One thing which I found strange was that I was using hallucinogenics on a regular basis was that I used to see hues of pastel shades of colour and coloured shadows, and some auras. I used to also see reflections in non reflective surfaces.

But, I think that some people are more trippy than others. I almost always saw visual images when I used to smoke dope. I used to see cathedral ceilings and images like in Hindu art. I wanted to sketch them, but the only thing substances which I felt able to use and draw the images I was seeing while using it was morning glory seeds. But, I don't recommend it because it gave me bad stomach ache because the seed manufacturers coat them poison to deter people from using them for this purposes.

Apart from colours, another interesting aspect of psychedelia is synthesaesia. I have a few instances of that without any substances, in which I found that sounds triggered visual images when my eyes were closed. Apparently, the reason why some people experience this is because the eyes and the ears develop from the same nodule.

I think that an underlying problem of many perspectives on the psychology and philosophy of mind, is the vague and elastic nature of the concept. We could ask what is 'mind' exactly?

I agree that reading the importance philosophers is important and I do wish to put Spinoza on my agenda. You also ask about the framing of the mind and body problem and one aspect which I am thinking of is how dualism made it easier to think of life after death because it gives a division between the physical and material, with a view to the non material element being able to survive. I am not saying that I agree with this division and way of thinking, but I do believe that it has been prevalent in many Western philosophical approaches to life and death.

You have probably written so much in the last few days that you could almost have written a book. I have only been writing on this thread in the last few days but in the last year I have written so many, and I am trying to slow down a bit.

I think that my own thread is intended to open up questions of the mind, including quantum fields and the widest spectrum of possible considerations of mind and body.

I amazed at the amount of comments and threads you have created in the last few days. So, in connection with my thread, I am interested in further elaboration on the spectrum of naturalism and supernature, with regard to the mind and body problem. I hope that I am not setting an impossible area of questioning but I am a bit taken aback by the nature of your interaction on the site in the last few days.

Yes, I have probably created a tough thread question and it will probably be not particularly popular, but I am grateful that I have a few people engaging. I do believe that thinking about the individual problems in philosophy does require some kind of way of viewing them alongside others. I am not saying that I am concerned with building a system or world picture, but, on the other hand, I cannot make much sense of seeing the individual problems of philosophy in isolation, which is why I am trying to connect the mind and body problem with the idea of metaphysics.

I think that phenomenology is an important way of connecting metaphysics with the philosophy of the mind/body problem. Also, I think that emotions are important because while they lie at the core of psychology, they do represent an important interface between mind and body.

The whole question of what is 'real' does come into the picture, including the issue of binary logic. In some ways, naturalism comes into play the picture in some ways. Thinking of the matter from an arts based point of view, I have an affinity with the movement of superrealism, which is about magnifying the elements of the real world as an aspect of perception. Translating this into philosophy, it would probably be about a kind of zooming as a way of analysing. I think that that many philosophers, including Shopenhauer, Nietzsche, Spinoza and others probably went down this pathway. Perhaps, the problem is that many of us see philosophy as a sideline pursuit, rather than as a central aspect of human existence.

I definitely don't believe that consciousness is an illusion. Perhaps, I may have created more interest if I had created a thread on whether consciousness is an illusion. We could even ask what is an illusion, throwing the question about what is real. I am certainly not opposed to naturalism, and not looking to the view about abstractions, and I do believe that the idea of the supernatural often gets in the way. I am just looking for the deepest analysis of the mind within philosophy rather than just psychological theories, which draw upon philosophy in some respects.

I think that the question of the metaphysics underlying philosophies of mind is inevitably connected with those about whether consciousness is an illusion. The way of seeing it as an illusion stems from B F Skinner and the philosophy of Dennett. It is also interconnected to the whole question of will and free will, and in the most reductive philosophies human beings are often seen as mere robots. Also, I believe that an underlying rhetoric of such philosophies is a belief that the individual person does not matter, and that we are mere numbers and insignificant. So, on one hand, dualism may support the concerns of the individual ego, but the argument against it can be used to say that we do not have any intrinsic worth at all.

I have to admit that I probably need to read Descartes again as he had such insights which probably go far beyond the Cartesian picture that developed after him.

I think that sometimes the focus in philosophy of mind is more upon labels rather than the intricate relationship of mind and body. I am not trying to say that it is simply mysterious, but it probably should not be put into boxes, with clear, neat categories and labels.

I may be wrong but I do think that many people do see the physical as far more real than mind. Of course, the two are interconnected in a very complex way and I do believe that embodied existence is central. If anything, I just believe that we may be going in a direction in which neuroscientists have all the answers, almost making philosophical thinking an aspect of the past. I believe that we still need to interpret, reflect and think deeply about all of these areas as part of our quest for knowledge and understanding.

I suppose in some ways we could ask what is a body or matter exactly? While it can be perceived by the senses and measured, in some ways it could be perceived as something which has an impermanent nature, and while it can be viewed as more 'real' than the mind in some ways, the record and interpretation of the material in memories gives a certain sense of reality over and above matter itself.

I think that Descartes would probably be rather distraught by all the debate on dualism he started. I think that his own thinking has been stretched out of shape. Strangely the aspect which is not considered much is how he saw the importance connection between the mind and body as involving the pineal gland, which is known to regulate the chemical melatonin, which is important for the regulation of sleep. Perhaps, this is a link because REM dream sleep and dreaming may be an important interface between mind and body.

I think that consciousness does imply sentience, although some people seem to believe that machines can be conscious, but that doesn't quite make sense to me. I am not sure that the ideas of panpsychism really but I do think that it may be about energy fields. This would explain the experience of phantom limbs after amputations.I think that part of the issue about consciousness here is whether it involves self identity. That is what constitutes the 'I' of consciousness, although I would assume that animals don't have a sense of ego identity but have some continuity of memories. The apparent experience of 'dualism' seems to me to be bound up with ego identity and it is possible that the practice of mindfulness is important here in enabling people to understand embodiment through greater sensory awareness.

I do agree that the mechanical basis of the body has collapsed. I think that our own language of explaining it has broken down too. I am not sure really whether it makes any more sense to say that the physical or the material are more real. They could be seen like two sides of the same coin and, ultimately, it could be about not simply going beyond dualism but about going beyond duality. Opposites exist, but within the scheme of an underlying larger duality.

I do agree that the 'I' is hard to explain as an entity rather than us being a mass of experience. I believe that it is this which lead to the idea of dualism in the first place, because even if it is illusory, it involves a certain sense of distance or separation from the body and experience itself, and it is this 'I' of consciousness which many believed to be an inner aspect of consciousness which could even survive death potentially. It may be that the 'I' has an inflated sense of ego consciousness, but the I sees itself as having some independent existence in many ways.

It is not that I really mind how the mind and body relationship is described and I do think that it is emergent. I am just not convinced that it is as clear cut as some philosophers have tried to explain it and I don't rule out the possibility of panpsychism because it may be that consciousness is not exclusive to sentient beings. For all we know, the stars may have some kind of consciousness. As human beings we judge the idea of consciousness with reference to our human experiences and it may be that presents a limitation. But, getting back to the metaphysical, I think that there is probably so much that is beyond our understanding. Science is taking us there, but if humanity exists, it may be that in several centuries time, our current conceptions will be seen as outdated.

I think that it is impossible to know the full extent of the larger whole because it is so large. We have to draw on anthropology and history. But the idea of knowledge of other minds is limited. We may draw upon shared assumption, but the question is to what extent are there similarities or differences, and, for this reason, I have always seen Kant's idea of the categorical imperative as a little bit problematic. We don't all want the same thing in life. So, it may come down to understand of the universal and the unique, but we can never know all these individual unique subjectivities.

Yes, I think that the idea of the 'I' does convey some focus on the isolated individual. But, we do exist as aspects of a larger whole and as separate beings. Even the understanding of 'I' consciousness is constructed in the shared language of social meaning through language. We live in a world of other minds and we could ask to what extent an individual mind exist because minds operate on shared cultural meanings and discourse?

It is interesting to think of the possibility of metaphysics being replaced by images. I am wondering where language would fit into this and whether it would involve a new way of mental processing.

As far as metaphysics being seen as obsolete, I think that since the time of Wittgenstein, we have been moving into a direction of it being seen as make it up as you go along speculative nonsense. However, while metaphysics as a focus may be fading, it is implicit in philosophies of mind and as assumptions underlying all psychological perspectives. In that sense, I think that it is important for it to be seen as worth discussing.

I have to admit that I find Spinoza's writings a bit difficult to come to grips with, but at the same time I do think that in many ways, mind can be seen as a process. I think that such a perspective is probably compatible with the ideas of quantum physics and, probably, the neuroscientists. I guess what I am trying to argue against is a philosophy of mind which is too reductive.

In this respect, I do believe that Bergson's idea of the 'mind at large', which was drawn upon by Huxley, is useful. I am not necessarily trying to say that there is a hidden reality as such, although I do believe in the collective unconscious as an underlying source, even though I know that this concept is seen as outdated by many psychologists and philosophers. I think that they frame the idea a bit wrongly by seeing it as abstract and 'supernatural'. I see it more as an underlying aspect, or as Sheldrake suggests in his idea of morphic resonance, a memory inherent in nature, including mind itself.

I think that disembodied consciousness is not possible. The closest one could get to that is 'out of body experiences' but I am not saying that the separation between mind and body which is felt can be assumed in a literal sense. The experience can be seen as a state of dreaming consciousness, which is, of course, going into the realm of imagination.

Today, I have been reading, 'A Revolutionary Way of Thinking,' by Charles Kreb, which looks at the mind, body, spirit perspective of Chinese thought.It draws upon the Eastern perspective of there being 'subtle' bodies, and this makes sense to me, but I am sure that many people on this forum would not embrace such a view. This is an approach which underlies some thinking about healing, including the existence of meridian points in the energy body. It also involves a picture in which the subconscious pattern of thoughts are seen as interconnected to the physical body, as a complex feedback loop. In such a view thoughts can affect the body and vice versa. I am not saying that I am sure of this viewpoint, but I think that it is worth thinking about, even though I am aware that such a way of understanding is likely to be extremely unpopular by many within the Western philosophy tradition and on this site.

I read some but not all of your debate with Hanover. I think that it is relevant, but not sure that it covers my question entirely. However, I will have a look at that thread and see what I think after that.

I am inclined to agree that it is possible to get bogged down by the idea of qualia. Thanks for your recommend reading and 'The Embodied Mind' sounds good, so I will try to find it. I have not read much Aristotle, but I do have his 'Collected Works', so I will have a read of this because I have probably read more of Plato.

Yes, qualia are sight and sound, but I think that while it involves the brain it does raise the question of what is out there. Also, while disembodied consciousness is problematic it is also moving into other dimensions, or the realm of imagination. It is hard to know where mind and matter end or merge here, and which impacts most. The brain can damage experience but we could also ask whether the 'mind' can damage physical organs, on a psychosomatic level.

I agree that Narcissus is interesting and, really, I think it is a good question as to what extent he was self aware. But, mirrors can be a source of joy and horror. Socrates looked within and perhaps that may have been because his reflected mirror image would not have been pleasant. There is also the question of narcissistic image disturbance and disorders, which can include problems with self image and esteem. But, often it is about self consciousness, as reflected in social mirroring. As the psychoanalysts suggest, the he self is fragile and can have problems under the gaze of another, or an inherent brokenness based on poor internal objects.

I think that you raise an interesting question about whether knowledge of self or others comes first, and it is complex because the two are interconnected. We experience life in terms of personal experience, but we grow up in a social context, not in isolation. The individuals who fail to make connections with others are the ones who are diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum, and they are usually diagnosed on the basis of having difficulties. One of the aspects of autism is a problem of understanding other minds.

You present the question of self- awareness vs knowledge of others as a paradox, and in some ways, I think it is comparable with knowledge of inner and outer reality. In some respects, one could argue that we are all interconnected rather than separate persons. However, that is contrary to personal experience and I certainly feel very separate to others. But, I do think that both self-awareness or awareness of others are essential and need to be balanced, so I would argue that neither should be primary and that the two aspects need to be conjoined as a basis for understanding.

Perhaps, I am looking for meanings which aren't there. In saying this, I am probably wondering if some underlying purpose of the game is going to be revealed by @Banno, but it may be that everything is as it is, at face value, and nothing more. So, my next rule is that each person should write at least 50 words in their post.

At the moment I am reading 'The Matter With Us: ' by John Rawles, and he suggests,
'In the beginning was the Big Bang. The Big Bang is, of course, a metaphor. It is a metaphor for the moment when the whole mass of the universe exploded from an infinitesimally small point, whose density was infinitely great, and temperature unimaginably hot. The '"Big" of Big Bang is therefore symbolic, representing not size but important...The Bang, too, is metaphorical, because a Bang is a sound, a pressure wave transmissable through a gas, which can be heard at a distance as a sudden noise.' I think that the idea of the Big Bang being seen as symbolic is worth thinking about rather than seeing at a literal reality in the way which people often thought of the creation story.

Of course, I realise that your question is really looking more at the underlying causation. In his analysis, Rawles is looking at the scientific method is a human construction and he also queries the way we think about causation in itself, and he suggests that cosmology can become too concrete.

My rule is to go beyond the dictionary definitions of words and look at the subtext of written rules rather than the literal words individually. There may be hidden narratives and rhetoric behind what is being stated.

Your words puzzle me. Perhaps we should have a rule of writing invisible words, words which are not spoken and images which vanish, leaving no marks.

We are probably entrenched in layers and layers of rules and even the most disobedient people are obeying some kind of rhetoric of rules. Even writing sentences involves following of certain rules. In order to go beyond rules entirely, we might need to go beyond the spectrum of human meanings entirely.

Rules may exist in order to be broken. They are guidelines but rigid adherence to rules may undermine the principles behind them. Therefore, I refuse to adhere to the rules of your game.

I am sure that most times can be seen as strange, even though I think that ours are particularly strange. As for posting, I saw the earlier message from @Banno saying not to post, and that seemed a contradiction outrightly, and, before I read your reply, it had the effect of making me wish to write something. But, I am confused and don't know if he will see this kind of interaction as useless or useful for whatever he is trying to achieve.

If a God exists, the one question which I would ask is why do some people experience so much more suffering than others? Is it simply unfair? Or, is it that suffering stretches us? Suffering may lead us to draw upon inner resources and develop consciousness in a way which would not occur if our lives were more comfortable.I wonder if my question may stand independently of whether there is a God to answer it.