You're still missing the point. Whether or not there are real neural correlates to my hopes, desires, fears, expectations, assumptions and so on; those emotions, dispositions or whatever can never be inter-subjectively determined to be real per se for the simple reason that only I know them, and you must rely on my testimony that I have them. So, they are demonstrably subjectively real only to me.

If something is maladaptive, then by all means we should get rid of it. But what if some of our "illusions" are adaptive? In fact you had said that our meanings and purposes are mostly adaptive illusions.

No, an absolute reality outside of the one accounted for by physics and biology requires a God. — Garrett Travers

That goes without saying. No one speaks about absolutes in the physical world as examined by science (physics, etc.)

Where do you formulate this mysticism? — Garrett Travers

Pardon me? :smile:

I think, that such a absolute state is highly impossible to exist.
— Alkis Piskas
This is a statement of absolute objectivity. — Garrett Travers

... or rather subjectivity? Do nοt "I think" and "highly impossible" sugest subjectivity?

Anyway, all this, besides going in circles, is totally off-topic. ("Reality does not make mistakes and that is why we strive for meaning. A justification for Meaning.") So better get back on rails!

I wasn't making a statement about religion. What I wanted to say was about science. — T Clark

You said "It has always seemed to me that belief in an objective reality requires a belief in God.". Are not beliefs and God related to religion? And, does science deal with either of them?

I think objective reality is a metaphysical entity, not something that exists in the world. — T Clark

Certainly. But I think that the points I brought up reflected or implied that ...

Anyway, as I already mentioned to @Garrett Travers, all this is off-topic. So we might better not go more "off on a tangent" as yourself already pointed out.

If something is maladaptive, then by all means we should get rid of it. But what if some of our "illusions" are adaptive? In fact you had said that our meanings and purposes are mostly adaptive illusions. — Janus

I believe I've already answered this . If we can, we ought to improve upon even our "adaptive illusions" when necessary, no?

You're still missing the point. Whether or not there are real neural correlates to my hopes, desires, fears, expectations, assumptions and so on; those emotions, dispositions or whatever can never be inter-subjectively determined to be real per se for the simple reason that only I know them, and you must rely on my testimony that I have them. So, they are demonstrably subjectively real only to me. — Janus

I am not missing any point. Sensations, such as the ones you are describing, are not real. They are sensations of that which is real; ancillary sensatory effects resulting from brain activity that only the person to which the brain belongs can detect. It is you who are missing the fact that the only thing real in the equation you are trying to assert is the brain and body it is attached to: You. You are real, and your emotions and thoughts cannot be detached from neural activity, which is a material phenomenon.

That goes without saying. No one speaks about absolutes in the physical world as examined by science (physics, etc.)

Where do you formulate this mysticism? — Alkis Piskas

This clears up the opinion you asserted that sounded like mysticism. My apologies.

highly impossible — Alkis Piskas

This is a statement objectivity, not subjectivity on Clark's part.

Reality does not make mistakes and that is why we strive for meaning. A justification for Meaning. — Alkis Piskas

This is a statement of self evident fact. For reality to make mistakes, there would have to be two things established: 1. that there was a mind behind reality that could be responsible for making mistakes. 2. even a singular instances of the laws of nature being suspended for even a moment. No such phenomena have ever been shown.

This clears up the opinion you asserted that sounded like mysticism. My apologies. — Garrett Travers

OK. Thanks.

Reality does not make mistakes and that is why we strive for meaning. A justification for Meaning.
— Alkis Piskas
This is a statement of self evident fact. — Garrett Travers

Again, these are not my words. It's the title of this discussion! :smile: (Just scroll up to the top of the page to verify.)
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? :grin:

Again, these are not my words. It's the title of this discussion! :smile: (Just scroll up to the top of the page to verify.)
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? :grin: — Alkis Piskas

I don't, the manner in which you post isn't clear.

Certainly. But I think that the points I brought up reflected or implied that ... — Alkis Piskas

I don't think you and I have any beef. Unless I've misunderstood what you're saying, we're agreeing with each other.

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? :grin:
— Alkis Piskas
I don't, the manner in which you post isn't clear. — Garrett Travers

You mean, you can't see that the title of this topic is "Reality does not make mistakes and that is why we strive for meaning. A justification for Meaning." and that these are not my words? What about the quotation marks and highlighting that I use? Don't they mean anything to you? How more clear can it be?

These are all rhetorical questions. They show my great astonishment. You don't have to reply.

I don't think you and I have any beef. Unless I've misunderstood what you're saying, we're agreeing with each other. — T Clark

Right, we don't. And I don't think that you have misunderstood what I said.

You mean, you can't see that the title of this topic is "Reality does not make mistakes and that is why we strive for meaning. A justification for Meaning." and that these are not my words? What about the quotation marks and highlighting that I use? Don't they mean anything to you? How more clear can it be?

These are all rhetorical questions. They show my great astonishment. You don't have to reply. — Alkis Piskas

Seeing isn't the issue. Determining what it is you are saying is the problem. Again, the manner in which you've been posting is not clear.

I believe I've already answered this ↪180 Proof
. If we can, we ought to improve upon even our "adaptive illusions" when necessary, no? — 180 Proof

Yes, I agree with that. However, there may be some "illusions" which, even though they might seem to be contraindicated from a rigorous "third person" perspective, are nonetheless essentially adaptive and indispensable to human flourishing.

I am not missing any point. Sensations, such as the ones you are describing, are not real. They are sensations of that which is real; ancillary sensatory effects resulting from brain activity that only the person to which the brain belongs can detect. It is you who are missing the fact that the only thing real in the equation you are trying to assert is the brain and body it is attached to: You. You are real, and your emotions and thoughts cannot be detached from neural activity, which is a material phenomenon. — Garrett Travers

You are assuming what you need to show; that is that anything which cannot be objectively (inter-subjectively) shown to exist cannot be real. I agree that such things cannot be objectively real, because the criteria for that is inter-subjective demonstrability.

You are missing that fact that subjective feelings as they are experienced, as opposed to being thought to be some third person observable processes, are real, and in fact the most real phenomena, to the experiencer.

Such subjective feelings might be considered to be illusions from a third person perspective just because they cannot be demonstrated to be objectively real: a point which I have already acknowledged. That's why I say that what is real should not be thought to be exhausted by the objective.

You are assuming what you need to show; that is that anything which cannot be objectively (inter-subjectively) shown to exist cannot be real. I agree that such things cannot be objectively real, because the criteria for that is inter-subjective demonstrability. — Janus

I do not need to show to you what you are already proving you understand by typing words into your computer to send to me. It is YOU who must demonstrated what YOU are claiming to be real that cannot be observed as evidence. This is unbelievable that you subjectivists think this nonsense works on people. Reality does not need to be demonstrated to the person making the claim that their feelings are real, and that something other than what phycisists have shown or discovered to be what constitutes reality, is somehow a part of the equation of what is in reality. That onus is on you, not the whole of already established science.

You are missing that fact that subjective feelings as they are experienced, as opposed to being thought to be some third person observable processes, are real, and in fact the most real phenomena, to the experience. — Janus

No, Janus. That is something you've still yet to explain the reality of. Whereas I have only asserted that which we know scientifically: that your emotional states have a neurological explantion, which is to say, a material one.

That's why I say that what is real should not be thought to be exhausted by the objective. — Janus

This is a conclusion that violates all known observable metrics to date. If you experience thoughts and feelings as the result of chemical processes in the brain, you are not experiencing something outside of the objective. When your dead, you don't experience anything, because your material brain is no longer operating. That's all there is to that.

It is YOU who must demonstrated what YOU are claiming to be real that cannot be observed as evidence. — Garrett Travers

If you carefully observed your own experience I believe you would see that there are many phenomena therein which you could not possibly demonstrate to be real. Of these it should be said that they are not objectively, but subjectively, real. It you want to call them illusions despite the fact that you know you have experienced them, then go for it; I just don't think 'illusion' is the best word to define something which has undoubtedly been experienced.

If you want to say you don't experience such things, then I can only pity you on account of the poverty of your subjective experience.

If you observed your own experience you would see that there are many phenomena therein which you could not possibly demonstrate to be real. — Janus

Then they are not real. Luckily, everything that happens to me has a material explanation in association with my cognition, which is produced by my brain. So, no, you're wrong.

Of these it should be said that they are not objectively, but subjectively, real. — Janus

No such thing. Thoughts are produced by an objective brain. No way around it.

I just don't think 'illusion' is the best word to define something which has undoubtedly been experienced. — Janus

Me neither. The illusion is not the sensation. The illusion is thinking the sensation does not have a material explanation. It does, and it's called: the brain.

Luckily, everything that happens to me has a material explanation in association with my cognition, which is produced by my brain. So, no, you're wrong. — Garrett Travers

:rofl: No I was right; you apparently do suffer from a terrible poverty of subjective experience.

No such thing. Thoughts are produced by an objective brain. No way around it. — Garrett Travers

I haven't claimed that subjectively real phenomena could not be produced by objectively real phenomena; so you are attacking a strawman.

The illusion is thinking the sensation does not have a material explanation. It does, and it's called: the brain. — Garrett Travers

Again I haven't said that sensations don't have material causes. I think your focus on the brain is too narrow, though. The genesis of sensation is the living embrained body/ world.

No I was right; you apparently do suffer from a terrible poverty of subjective experience. — Janus

(laughs in response to data computed by brain emoji)

I haven't claimed that subjectively real phenomena could not be produced by objectively real phenomena; so you are attacking a strawman. — Janus

This is a contradictory statement. You have made a strawman for yourself. There is no subjectively real.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. The only real aspect of these sensations, is the brain producing them. (laughing crying emoji)

Again I haven't said that sensations don't have material causes. I think your focus on the brain is too narrow, though. The genesis of sensation is the living embrained body/ world. — Janus

I'm glad to see you're finally understanding. Yes, this has been specifically my assertion this entire time. (laughing crying emoji)

There is no subjectively real. — Garrett Travers

You seem to think there is an objective matter of fact concerning whether or not subjective experiences are real. It;s really just a matter of the definition of the term 'real'. Of course if you restrict it to mean 'objectively real, then you are tautologously correct.

So...

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. — Garrett Travers

So where does the term 'real' figure in that definition? Also, the sense of "subjective" there is different because it refers to opinions or judgements, not experiences themselves. Subjective feelings, tastes and opinions are not based on subjective feelings, tastes and opinions, they are subjective feelings, tastes and opinions.

The only real aspect of these sensations, is the brain producing them

According to your hermetically sealed, self-serving definition of 'real', yes of course; but can you empirically demonstrate the truth of that claim?

I'm glad to see you're finally understanding. Yes, this has been specifically my assertion this entire time. — Garrett Travers

:lol: It's not that I have been misunderstanding what you have been saying; it's that you have been thinking I have been saying something other than what I have been saying. The only point we disagree on, as far as I can tell, is about what the proper range of the term 'real' should be.

I was just looking out of my kitchen window at a leaf that caught my eye. And I thought this is a great, simple example; I could show you the leaf (if you were here), but I could never show you my view of the leaf. And you could never show me a very specific neural process which was my view of the leaf. So both your opinion that my view of the leaf is a very specific neural process and my view of the leaf itself are subjective phenomena. And yet, both your subjective opinion and my view of the leaf are real to each of us, respectively. That is why I think your restriction of the use of term 'real' to objective phenomena is wrong-headed.

You seem to think there is an objective matter of fact concerning whether or not subjective experiences are real. It;s really just a matter of the definition of the term 'real'. Of course if you restrict it to mean 'objectively real, then you are tautologously correct. — Janus

All valid arguments and facts of identity are tautological in nature. It's you're first clue something is correct, or complete fabrications of the mind.

So where does the term 'real' figure in that definition? — Janus

It doesn't that was the point.

Also, the sense of subjective their is different because ti refers to opinions or judgements, not experiences themselves. Subjective feelings, tastes and opinions are not based on subjective feelings, tastes and opinions, they are subjective feelings, tastes and opinions. — Janus

I don't know what this means, looks like word salad. Completely incoherent.

According to your hermetically sealed, self-serving definition of 'real', yes of course; but can you empirically demonstrate the truth of that claim? — Janus

Sure, I'd start with cognitive neuroscience. Here's a nice article to get you going with a bunch of references: https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2016.00016#:~:text=A%20network%20of%20brain%20regions,the%20basal%20ganglia%20%5B3%5D.

'real' — Janus

This is the only thing I mean when I say real:

actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

Literally nothing other than the definition of the word.

All valid arguments and facts of identity are tautological in nature. It's you're first clue something is correct, or complete fabrications of the mind. — Garrett Travers

Tautologies tell us nothing about what is the case. You are committing a rookie category error.

It doesn't that was the point. — Garrett Travers

Not a very good point then since you seemed to be claiming that the definition had some bearing on the term 'real'

actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed. — Garrett Travers

Yes, just like any subjective experience as such. No need to think of them as being nothing but neural processes (of course they may also be correlated with neural process in addition to being subjective experiences).

I don't know what this means, looks like word salad. Completely incoherent. — Garrett Travers

Try using yourself (i.e. your brain in your terms) a little more and you might get it.

BTW, I have read a decent amount of cognitive neuroscience and I don't have an issue with its findings. The third person approach is one way of understanding ourselves, and if you were familiar with my postings you would know that I have argued against those who reject, for prime example, Daniel Dennett's work.

I have read a good deal of and respect his work even though I don't agree with all his conclusions. Of course scientific studies of the brain have things to tell us that we could not discover any other way. But there is an alternative approach; namely phenomenology, which I think your narrowly limited focus could be remedied by an open-minded study off, and which enables other perspectives on human life and experience which could not be discovered any other way. Both have their place; what deserves no place in my view, is the kind of reductive, narrow-minded, nothing-but-ism you seem to be espousing.

Tautologies tell us nothing about what is the case. You are committing a rookie category error. — Janus

If you don't understand the law of identity A=A is a tautology, or that valid propositions when arranged in truth tables are tautological, you are not in the right place, and are not talking to the right person.

Not a very good point then since you seemed to be claiming that the definition had some bearing on the term 'real' — Janus

No, it has no bearing, because the two do not relate. Which was the point that I've been making since the beginning of this poor attempt of yours to argue this position.

Yes, just like any subjective experience as such. — Janus

No, that falls into the "imagined" category.

No need to think of them as being nothing but neural processes — Janus

They are, quite literally, nothing else.

Try using yourself (i.e. your brain in your terms) a little more and you might get it. — Janus

Try writing it in a complete sentence, and I think we'll get somewhere quicker.

OK, well have a happy life (even though your happiness will be according to you not real except insofar as it is a neural process), I don't persist with those who show themselves to be, as you have, a dogmatic ideologue, for long.

I don't persist with those who show themselves to be, as you have, a dogmatic ideologue, for long. — Janus

Reality is real, Janus. Not accepting the facts of science is what is dogmatic.

Reality is real, Janus. — Garrett Travers

:rofl:

Not accepting the facts of science is what is dogmatic. — Garrett Travers

Science consists in observation and hypothesis, prediction, experiment and the adoption of provisional theories, not merely in facts (the bare facts of observation). I think a little reading in the philosophy of science as well as phenomenology may help you gain a more comprehensive understanding.

Science consists in observation and theory, prediction and experiment, not merely in facts (the bare facts of observation). I think a little reading in the philosophy of science as well as phenomenology may help you gain a more comprehensive understanding. — Janus

You poor fool... I'm the only one of the two of us that has said anything scientific all day long. But, you go ahead and keep insulting me because your position is a bullshit fairytale that helps you feel better. In the meantime, take your own advice, you're very far behind.

I could accept that but I need an example by quoting what I say. Saying "the manner in which you've been posting is not clear" is too general and tells nothing. It also makes the other person waste time to find out where he was not clear!
So, which of us is actually not clear?

Again, this is a rhetorical question, and you don't have to answer it!
It's just to show you what writing in a clear manner actually means and is.

You exist. — vanzhandz

Cogito ergo sum. — Descartes

Alright!

Time exists. If time did not exist then one would not have the ability to discern past from present. — vanzhandz

A circulus in probando. Some don't mind it, but some do.

Reality can not make mistakes. — vanzhandz

&

Reality has a blue print. — vanzhandz

There have been (documented) complaints against Intelligent Design. For example, the recurrent laryngeal nerve which in a giraffe's long neck starts at the base of its brain, descends all the way into its chest and then does a U-turn and extends back up to where it does its thing, the larynx. The assumption here is that an intelligent blueprint would avoid such a roundabout way of innervating an organ (it's equivalent to using your right hand to scratch an itchy left ear).

Staying in the neck region of humans, our ability to speak thousands of languages comes at a price: risk of choking (the food and wind pipes are too close to each other).

Good advice. I'm used to forums that automatically quote replies.

I don't know if and what kind of energy a memory consists of ... But if it is, then it should be really huge, esp. considering the images stored in a computer, even in compressed form! This shows clearly that memory cannot be located/stored in the brain, as scientists try in vain to establish since a long time ago!

I'm not sure about this. For example, companies are already storing digital text and image codes using DNA. A cubic cm of DNA is capable of storing 5 petabits of information. The actual total amount of information for something with the energy of the brain itself would necissarily be far larger than what is coded in ways that are usable for the brain's components, because you'd be talking about the total phase space of the brain, all the possible molecular arrangements that are compatible with the observed macrostate. The amount of potential configurations and permutations is astronomical. This huge amount of entropy is true even for a mole of hydrogen gas sitting in a liter container at room temperature. Just think about how large Avogadro's number is.

storing digital text and image codes using DNA. A cubic cm of DNA is capable of storing 5 petabits of information ... — Count Timothy von Icarus

All this is quite interesting!
I have no idea about geneticism. (Regarding "memory" I have only heard about "genetic memory", ehich is a different thing.)

But, because I am --and always was-- quite interested in the subject of memory, I just searched for memory+DNA+capacity in the present context and found some interesting articles:

- "Are memories stored in DNA?"
(https://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/csl/fellow-dna)
It says "Geoff Faulkner is testing a bold idea— he thinks long-term memory might be stored in our brain’s DNA." Etc. But this is just a "bold idea".

- "DNA can carry memories of traumatic stress down the generations"
(https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/122740-dna-can-carry-memories-of-traumatic-stress-down-the-generations)
It says, "Animal and human investigations indicate that the impact of trauma experienced by mothers affects early offspring development, but new research is also discovering that it is also actually encoded into the DNA of subsequent generations.". We are talking here about memory of sensations (pain, etc.)

- "Memories may be stored on your DNA"
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0262407908629930)
We read, "Experiments in mice suggest that patterns of chemical “caps” on our DNA may be responsible for preserving long and short-term memories" Mice! And most probably memories of sensations again.

- "DNA could store all of the world's data in one room"
(https://www.science.org/content/article/dna-could-store-all-worlds-data-one-room)
Subtitle: "New algorithm delivers the highest-ever density for large-scale data storage"
It talks about what you describe in your post. More precisely, "Now, researchers report that they've come up with a new way to encode digital data in DNA to create the highest-density large-scale data storage scheme ever invented. Capable of storing 215 petabytes (215 million gigabytes) in a single gram of DNA, the system could, in principle, store every bit of datum ever recorded by humans in a container about the size and weight of a couple of pickup trucks. But whether the technology takes off may depend on its cost."
Well, I don't know if by "humans" they mean "all the humans together" or just "any human" ... Because I can't think of a human brain with the size of two pickup trucks! :grin:
Besides, the project is still in its infancy ...

And so on. See, scienitists, in general, are so eager to find and prove that human memory is located and processed in the brain, that every now and then they come up with "exotic" theories, which of course fade away after some time, to be replaced with new ones. I have mentioned elsewhere in TPF, that they are using the wrong tools in getting involved in realms that are outside theirs. Some of them of course admit that some things are just a "mystery" and/or outside the realm of Science. Scientists are doing great things regarding matter and energy. Let them keep on in that realm!

(Note: I am referring to conventional Science and scientists; not the scientifc research, methods, experiments, etc. in general.)