"I exist" is not an observation? What is it then? — khaled

I don’t really care about this, but if it were an observation, it would of had to been observed using one of our five senses. “I exist” is arrived at through deductive reasoning. Perhaps you could argue that it is felt or sensed, but Decartes doubted his senses/feelings.

It just occurred to me that my All Is Mind reply above, may have inadvertently explained the essence of Poetry : it expresses immaterial qualities & subjective feelings in real-world concrete terms, thereby giving substance to the insubstantial, and objective form to subjective imagination . 'Poet' comes from a Greek word meaning "to make." Perhaps poetry makes Ideal concepts Real, so others can experience them. N'cest pas? :nerd:

"Like Information and Energy, all of our experiences are with the material containers of properties, qualities, and Information."

I’m not doubting consciousness, only that it derives from “mind” as opposed to brain. — Pinprick

I agree that immaterial Mind is the function of Brain matter. But, do you know of a viable theory to explain how Mind & Consciousness & Meaning are "derived from" from mindless Matter, such as neural networks? Where is the latent potential for mental properties located in brain matter? How does that latency transform into manifest mental behavior? :smile:

For what it’s worth, if the only reason for believing in minds is that they explain consciousness, then how is this anything more than a “god of the gaps” style argument? “Brains can’t explain consciousness, but minds can, therefore minds exist.” All the while completely overlooking or ignoring the fact that minds themselves require an explanation. Hitchens’s razor seems to dispose of this rather quickly. — Pinprick

Mind is just a basic word for whatever goes on inside of a person, as opposed to what we can observe about them from looking at their physical characteristics. At least I think that is how people who disagree with you are defining it. Thought, intellect, feelings, will, memory, impressions. Mind is kind of a catch all word for the combination of all those things. You can claim those things are not all part of a singular thing called a mind, but what appears absurd to many is claiming those things are reducible to matter.

I’m not doubting consciousness, only that it derives from “mind” as opposed to brain. — Pinprick

"mind" is the experience of qualia. You cannot explain to someone what the color red looks like without showing them the color red. Even if someone knows everything there is to know scientifically about the color red (it's wavelength, appearances in nature, etc) they will not know what the color red looks like without seeing the color red.

Consciousness is that thing which experiences these qualia.

Both have not been observed by the senses (no one has smelled tasted, seen, touched or heard consciousness yet). Both are definitely noticable in real life (that you experience qualia and that there is a "you" experiencing qualia are things you cannot deny unless you're a philosophical zombie) but have yet to even be approached by the scientific method.

Mind is just a basic word for whatever goes on inside of a person, as opposed to what we can observe about them from looking at their physical characteristics. — Yohan

Thanks for clearing that up, at least now I know what I’m arguing against. I would say that to a certain, limited extent, we are able to observe whatever is going on in someone’s “mind.” Granted there is no apparatus that can decipher the precise content of your thoughts, memories, feelings, etc., but we are able to observe that you are or are not conscious, in an emotional state, thinking logically, etc. Being that there is a direct causal relationship between physical brain states, consciousness, and qualia, the evidence points to materialism.

You can claim those things are not all part of a singular thing called a mind, but what appears absurd to many is claiming those things are reducible to matter. — Yohan

I like to think those things not so much as things, but more like events. They will not reduce to one neuron, or 1,000 neurons. Nor will they reduce to neurotransmitters, hormones, or subatomic particles. The point I think that gets lost is that when a thought occurs, it is the result of very complex interactions that occur within the brain. So to use an analogy, thoughts are like races, as in motorcycle races, not ethnicities. A race isn’t really a physical thing, it’s an event that involves physical objects. When certain physical objects do certain things in certain ways, it’s a race. Same with thoughts, decisions, feelings, etc.

You cannot explain to someone what the color red looks like without showing them the color red. — khaled

Yeah, because we’re unable to visualize, or imagine particular wavelengths, etc. You can’t hear the color red either, because redness is a strictly visual property. So I don’t see what this proves. Redness is still a physical property, it just can’t be perceived through any medium other than vision.

Both have not been observed by the senses — khaled

I would say we can observe consciousness when we observe brain activity. We are able to correctly predict whether or not someone is conscious by observing brain states, right?

So I don’t see what this proves. — Pinprick

I’m not “proving” anything. I’m explaining what the word “mind” means.

Redness is still a physical property — Pinprick

Incorrect. Colorblind people will see green when looking at a red object for example. Physical properties include things like “wavelength emitted”, “length”, “mass”, etc. All physical properties can be measured in a way that everyone agrees on the measurement. However color is not like that. Two people can look at the same object and not perceive the same color. They can see the same wavelength is being emitted, but not the same color. That is an example of an object that is identical in physical properties producing different qualia. Another more common example is disagreement on what something tastes like.

Yeah, because we’re unable to visualize, or imagine particular wavelengths, etc — Pinprick

For the same reason as above, color and wavelength are different. Everyone can agree on wavelength without agreeing on color.

I would say we can observe consciousness when we observe brain activity. — Pinprick

If you’re proposing that consciousness IS brain activity then that is demonstrably false. We have more brain activity while sleeping but we’re not “more conscious”.

We are able to correctly predict whether or not someone is conscious by observing brain states, right? — Pinprick

I’m not even sure that’s true and regardless “observing brain states” is different from “observing consciousness”. The former to the latter is like measuring a radio wave vs listening to the channel.

For the same reason as above, color and wavelength are different. Everyone can agree on wavelength without agreeing on color. — khaled

So you’re claiming that when we see color, we’re seeing something immaterial? Care to explain how that works? The fact that people perceive the same phenomena differently has no bearing on whether or not the object is physical. Our sense receptors have varying levels of sensitivity. By and large, that is what causes differences in perception.

If you’re proposing that consciousness IS brain activity then that is demonstrably false. We have more brain activity while sleeping but we’re not “more conscious”. — khaled

If true, this is news to me. But regardless, it isn’t as simple as quantifying our brain activity. The particular parts of the brain that are active also play a role. We are able to determine the difference between a brain that is awake, and one that is asleep, right? If so, I would claim whatever that difference is has to relate to consciousness.

I’m not even sure that’s true and regardless “observing brain states” is different from “observing consciousness”. — khaled

Perhaps it’s an indirect observation, but how can you be sure that whatever brain activity you’re observing isn’t consciousness itself? If you observe people hitting a tennis ball back and forth across a net, are you observing a game of tennis?

The fact that people perceive the same phenomena differently has no bearing on whether or not the object is physical. — Pinprick

I'm not saying that the object is immaterial. I'm saying that "color" is not a physical property. "wavelength emitted" is. And that the experience of seeing color is fundamentally a different sort of thing from the wavelength that caused that experience.

I would claim whatever that difference is has to relate to consciousness. — Pinprick

And you would be correct. It relates to consciousness. It IS not somehow consciousness.

If you observe people hitting a tennis ball back and forth across a net, are you observing a game of tennis? — Pinprick

Yes but I'm not looking for a game of tennis I'm looking for the sensation of hitting the ball. I can't "observe" that no matter how many tennis matches I watch. I have only been able to observe it by hitting a tennis ball.

To refute 'All is Mind', one needs to show that there is substance, which I'd say includes forces/energy acting as substance, plus that Mind cannot make substance, plus that there can't be a kind of a movie going on through Mind in which everything operates exactly as if there were substance and its laws, and that if there is this perfect movie going on that a difference in the message between the faux and the true substance is not a difference that makes no difference.

I'm not saying that the object is immaterial. — khaled

I wasn’t trying to either. I meant color.

I'm saying that "color" is not a physical property. — khaled

Then how do we see it? Similar to brain states and consciousness, I equate color and wavelength emitted. The emitted wavelength is what we are seeing. Certain emitted wavelengths are red. But the point is that we are not capable of seeing anything that is immaterial. Sight requires photons, which are physical.

And you would be correct. It relates to consciousness. It IS not somehow consciousness. — khaled

I worded it that way because that in itself may not be consciousness. I didn’t want to exclude whatever parts of the brain are active during sleep. They may need to be active in addition to whatever parts are not in order to be conscious. So the inactive parts of the brain during sleep relate to consciousness because they are a part of the whole.

Yes but I'm not looking for a game of tennis I'm looking for the sensation of hitting the ball. I can't "observe" that no matter how many tennis matches I watch. I have only been able to observe it by hitting a tennis ball. — khaled

True, but what makes you think that the sensation of hitting a tennis ball isn’t physical? We can’t experience exactly what others do, and we can’t know exactly how others experience. But I don’t see how this calls into question whether or not what we experience is physical or not. I don’t need to know how you experience seeing a rock to know that it’s physical. We can only experience physical things. Therefore all things experienced are physical. Even if you’re trying to get at experience itself, it still must be physical, because it to is experienced.

Or that mind does not exist, or is not what it is claimed to be (immaterial). Or, if all is mind is not able to justify its conclusions logically it refutes itself. Or, if all is mind is not able to explain better the nature of the universe than materialism.

Similar to brain states and consciousness, I equate color and wavelength emitted — Pinprick

So how come you can imagine the color red without any photons entering your eyes?

I don’t need to know how you experience seeing a rock to know that it’s physical. — Pinprick

To know that the ROCK is physical not the "experience is physical" whatever that means.

Even if you’re trying to get at experience itself, it still must be physical, because it to is experienced. — Pinprick

So can I hold "the experience of seeing the color red" in my hand? Or can "the experience of seeing the color red" be propagated through a medium like a wave? Because if the answer is no to both of those questions then what exactly is "physical" about it?

So how come you can imagine the color red without any photons entering your eyes? — khaled

Memory. Because, as you’ve noted, you cannot imagine the color red without seeing it first. So when we imagine it now, we are just remembering or recalling our prior knowledge of what it looks like.

So can I hold "the experience of seeing the color red" in my hand? — khaled

No.

Or can "the experience of seeing the color red" be propagated through a medium like a wave? — khaled

I’m going to say yes. That is the only way we can experience the color red. If there is no wave, there is no color red.

Recently published Closer to Truth interview on this theme. They discuss the notion that 'all is mind'.

If there is no wave, there is no color red. — Pinprick

As I said, you can imagine red. So what you're saying is that color itself is an electromagnetic wave? So if we were to imagine color using memory does that make memroy an electromagnetic wave? What is memory then?

Does memory EMIT an electromagnetic wave (since according to you the color red IS an electromagnetic wave) in your brain that is somehow processed as "red" without going through your eyes? Are you proposing that when I think of red, if you open up my skull you will literally see red, that there will literally be a light with the wavelength of red bouncing around in my head? After all, the experience of the color red and the wavelength of red color is the same therefore people should be able to see that wave from the outside right? You're probably not proposing any of these things but then how exactly does imagination work in your view? How come there can be the experience of the color red without the wavelength red even though they're supposed to be "the same thing"?

If red literally IS the electromagnetic wave then how come the same electromagnetic wave can enter people's eyes and they will report drastically different colors if they're color blind? In that case the wave and the resulting experience of color are different. So they're clearly not the same thing.

A lot of knots are made when someone conflates a mental phenomena with the physical phenoena that causes it.

As I said, you can imagine red. So what you're saying is that color itself is an electromagnetic wave? So if we were to imagine color using memory does that make memroy an electromagnetic wave? What is memory then? — khaled

My point is that our brains interpret the raw data (wavelength) into a form that we are capable of understanding (experiencing). Memory would be the place that data is stored, after it has been interpreted. I don’t know the specific mechanics involved in choosing to think about a certain memory, and then accessing my memory to do so.

how exactly does imagination work in your view? — khaled

Well, I wasn’t planning on bringing this up, but I think people tend to overestimate how good our imagination is. What I mean is when we imagine the color red, we really do not see it. We see whatever our eyes are focused on. Nonetheless, there is “something” that happens called imagining, but what exactly that something is is a mystery to me. I would say somehow our brains activate whatever neural networks correspond to the color red which causes us to experience it, minus any actual visual data or context.

So they're clearly not the same thing. — khaled

I agree, but I don’t understand why they both can’t be physical.

A bit of a side note, but do you think consciousness is required to experience qualia? There are animals with no brains, which implies that they are not conscious, which are still able to navigate their environment and discriminate between different types of things (food, mate, etc.).

I agree, but I don’t understand why they both can’t be physical. — Pinprick

Well what's the meaning of the word "physical" at that point then? If the experience of color is not something you can hold in your hand and is not a propagating wave or some sort of force or energy what's the point in calling it physical? The word "physical" itself loses its meaning then. People call it immaterial precisely because it is none of the above and so calling it "physical" would make the word itself meaningless.

but do you think consciousness is required to experience qualia? There are animals with no brains, which implies that they are not conscious, which are still able to navigate their environment and discriminate between different types of things (food, mate, etc.). — Pinprick

I'm not sure but my view is that consciousness is inherent in everything not just brains.

To refute 'All is Mind', one needs to show that there is substance, which I'd say includes forces/energy acting as substance, plus that Mind cannot make substance, plus that there can't be a kind of a movie going on through Mind in which everything operates exactly as if there were substance and its laws, and that if there is this perfect movie going on that a difference in the message between the faux and the true substance is not a difference that makes no difference. — PoeticUniverse

Ironically, Aristotle's definition of "Substance" combined the mental (metaphysical) and material (physical) elements : Form + Matter. But Materialists only recognize the sensory stuff as "real", and ignore the invisible structure or "essence" of reality, that is apparent only to Reason. It's true that human minds cannot "make substance" (matter) directly, but they can and do Enform matter to Conform to imaginary concepts (information) in the mind of the designer.

Poets express intangible concepts by presenting them clothed in familiar forms (material things). As an architect myself, I often imagine unreal things (such as proposed buildings on empty lots) that eventually become real. Of course, that is only a pale imitation of the creativity of a World Enformer. Creation of something that did not exist before, in any form, is the ultimate Difference that makes a meaningful distinction : i.e Information. That's not a religious belief, but a scientific concept, that an ancient pagan philosopher could accept. :cool:


Substance : According to Aristotle, the being of any individual thing is primarily defined by what it is, i.e. by its substance. Substance is both essence (form) and substratum (matter), and may combine form and matter. Substance constitutes the reality of individual things.
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/firstphilosophy.html

Enform : to form, fashion, create new forms of things.
e.g. A sculptor enforms a block of marble into the form of a human body.

Concept :
1. an abstract idea; a general notion.
2. a plan or intention; a conception.

Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

The Enformer :
AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. I simply label it "G*D". But Materialists call it "Multiverse".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

PS__In a poem, which is the faux, and which the true substance? Does poetry make any meaningful difference in the world?

Well what's the meaning of the word "physical" at that point then? — khaled

I don’t know exactly, but I find it more reasonable to assume that perhaps we aren’t aware of all properties a physical thing can have, as opposed to assuming things must be immaterial. For example, some physical objects have the property of “color,” but others do not. So why couldn’t it be that some physical things have a subjective quality, or property, that allows us to experience them directly? If I’m remembering correctly, Searle may have proposed something similar.

I don’t know exactly, but I find it more reasonable to assume that perhaps we aren’t aware of all properties a physical thing can have, as opposed to assuming things must be immaterial. — Pinprick

Well the definition of physical has always been: Wave, Force, Or touchable thing. The experience of red is none of those as has been shown. That's why people call it immaterial. If you choose to call it material then the word itself loses its meaning eventually and "Physical thing" just becomes "Thing".