Some say Idealism means Monism and some say it means Dualism. Idealism is one of those terms that can be twisted around to mean various different things. I say that there is a separate Physical World and a separate Conscious World that seems to exist. I think I am a Dualist. Occam's Razor is not a real law of Logic or Science. If anything it is a Folk Law. Maybe Consciousness is more complicated than people want it to be.I think your perspective is interesting. Would you say the The Inter Mind Model is basically idealism? Do you feel that imagining something like a CM (Conscious Mind) existing in CSc (Conscious Space) a violation of Ochamm's Razor? In my opinion, it would appear that although you may have great explanatory power with this theory, it seems to be adding unwarranted elements in order to resolve some of the difficulty which is presented in considering consciousness and how it relates to "physical" reality. — rlclauer
The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons. — SteveKlinko
Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem. — SteveKlinko
The Inter Mind Model (http://TheInterMind.com) can accommodate Consciousness as being in the Neurons, but it can also accommodate other concepts of Consciousness. The Inter Mind Model is structurally a Connection Model, in the sense that the Physical Mind (PM) is connected to the Inter Mind (IM) which is connected to the Conscious Mind (CM). These Connections might be conceptual where all three Minds are actually in the Neurons. But these Connections might have more reality to them where the PM, the IM, and the CM are separate things. — SteveKlinko
Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. — SteveKlinko
This is a false problem caused by an unwillingness or inability to imagine consciousness as just another process. I can certainly understand that. It takes a conceptual leap and a realization that our precious sense of self is nothing special.
Would you say the self is an illusion, or a bi-product of brain activity? — rlclauer
That manifestation, whatever you call it, the mind I guess, is different from brain activity in the same sense that life is different from chemical and biological activity.
I agree with everything you said but I am having a bit of trouble with this sentence. How is the mind different? Our perception of the self as a disembodied separate entity is an illusion, but how does it then become different than the processes? I guess just because it is the amalgam of those processes, and not the processes in and of themselves? Help me out? — rlclauer
But do you believe what we perceive as consciousness is something different than the sum of its biological parts? Or is it just the sum of all the biological activity, thereby, not making it any different, just seeming to be different because of how it "appears to us"? — rlclauer
Our awareness of our self is an illusion as described in eastern religions. In a sense, we are one with existence, the Tao. In another sense, we have separated the world into pieces - things, concepts, words, our selves. All of those are illusions. — T Clark
But the mind is not an object of perception, rather 'that which perceives'. — Wayfarer
Mental processes are different in kind from biological/neurological processes in the same way biological processes are different from chemical processes. — T Clark
But the fundamental point remains. — Wayfarer
So seemingly real as an illusion such that a difference that makes no difference is no difference? — PoeticUniverse
Mental processes are different in kind from information-technology processes (and will be re-conceived as, I dunno, social-semiotic processes) in the same way that vital life force processes are different in kind from chemical processes (and have been re-conceived as bio-chemical processes). — bongo fury
But the mind is not an object of perception, rather 'that which perceives'. You can't get behind 'it' or outside 'it' to see what 'it' is, but such is the habit of 'objectivism' that this is the only way we can consider the matter. — Wayfarer
I don't know what that means — T Clark
The brain perceives its objects/results via the consciousness brain process as a kind of sixth sense? — PoeticUniverse
The confusing difference is that you can also see it, feel it from the inside. That confuses people into believing it doesn't fit in with the rest of the world, but it does. — T Clark
Our experience of the world is a manifestation of brain activity — T Clark
That manifestation, whatever you call it, the mind I guess, is different from brain activity in the same sense that life is different from chemical and biological activity. — T Clark
Our awareness of our self is an illusion as described in eastern religions. In a sense, we are one with existence, the Tao. In another sense, we have separated the world into pieces - things, concepts, words, our selves. All of those are illusions. — T Clark
The hard problem of consciousness is WHY is there such a manifestation? Why couldn’t all the brain processes be happening “in the dark” so to speak. — khaled
But “life” is an abstract concept. It doesn’t actually exist. Can you point at “life” directly? Not an instance of a living thing but “life” itself. Obviously not, the request doesn’t even make sense. On the other hand, consciousness is a very real experience, not just an abstract property. — khaled
If there is a “you” to think, then you’re obviously conscious. — khaled
As with all other things in the world, just because. That's how it works. No mystery. You put all that stuff in a jug, shake it up and down, pour it out, and that's what happens. It's the world. It's how things are. Why is that so hard to understand? — T Clark
The "you" is also an illusion. This is not a novel idea. Are you familiar at all with eastern philosophies? — T Clark
I don't see why consciousness is any realer than life — T Clark
So are you saying that conscious experience arises out of the mere fact that chemical actions are happening there? So is my Soda bottle conscious? The question is: what specific properties in my brain make it conscious? That we don’t know. Is any chemical interaction conscious? — khaled
Does consciousness only arise after a certain amount of complexity? Etc. — khaled
It's not the mere fact that there are chemical processes, it is the specific chemical processes that are present. It's not the mere fact that there are biological processes, it is the specific biological processes that are present. — T Clark
Given that, yes, it seems likely that a certain level of complexity is probably required for mental processes to arise out of biological processes. — T Clark
How do you know that? You have a sample size of 1. That’s not enough to make a general theory — khaled
Again, how do you know that? You have a sample size of 1. Another equally likely theory is that everything is conscious. Why would that not be the case? That’s why the problem is called hard. — khaled
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.