there seems no good reason not to assume a theory that these two radically different types of experience have two equally radically different causes. — Isaac

Are you arguing for dualism now?

Are you arguing for dualism now? — Olivier5

I don't think so. That two different experiences have two different causes doesn't seem to me to imply that one cause must be non-physical and the other physical. There could be any number of other differences. The one I had in mind here, for example, is that one (proximately) originated from inside our heads and the other from outside.

The cause of my thought can only be a thought, which is caused by an antecedent thought....never to arrive at the unconditioned cause of any thought. — Mww

Information is the cause of your thought.

You are making a distinction between two types of mental events: those that 'originate from' (better still: code for, represent, depict) an event outside of the mind, and those that 'originate from' (better still: are created, imagined by) the mind.

In other words, a (useful and indeed basic) distinction between an actual perception and an imagined perception. Between the real stuff and its virtual mimicry.

Yep. Spot on.

Ok. Then @RogueAI's argument would be that this recognizes some sort of distinction between mental event and non-mental events.

(Note: I am using this terminology of mental and non-mental because the classic distinction of physical vs mental has been made unusable once you and I recognized that mental events must be physical in some manner or another)

Of course, this distinction between things "in our head" and things "outside our head" is culturally near-universal and I believe absolutely fundamental to art, justice, politics and zillions other things we humans do. Still, some other people refuse to envisage this distinction, or try and deny its importance.

The next step is to realize that perceptions are not just different, or even "originating from" a non-mental event in a mechanical manner. Perceptions represent non-mental events, they interpret them in a symbolic manner. Our mental world is (among other things) modeling reality "out there".

In other words, there is an epistemic gap between the event perceived and the corresponding perception events.

What makes you think this? — Isaac

A thought bwahahaha

Another but similar factor is that recalling a snatch of a tune doesn't seem much like hearing it for the first time. It's less difficult to differentiate if the components of the tune are simple: a simple beat, easy-to-remember lyrics, a simple, catchy melody... You don't have to study In Da Club to convince yourself you can perfectly reproduce the first 45 seconds in your head. However, after that the voice is too rhythmically complex, the lyrics too rapid to be recalled, and even some of the pads surprise you after your tenth listen. You have to _learn_ to play even a simple song in your head.

Something more harmonically complex requires great skill. When I think of a song, I generally get the groove, the bassline, the lyrics and the melody right, probably the vocal harmony or some of it, the basics of the beat (kick, snare, toms). But I cannot "play" the most recognisable chord in pop history: the opening chord to Hard Day's Night. I could probably learn to do so, but it'd take work. And that's a significant difference between hearing a song and thinking it: I don't have to learn Hard Day's Night to hear it.

You'd be able to correct me and fill in a lot of the gaps, but I expect I'm not far off in thinking that a song "playing" in your head isn't just a representation of the real thing (which is true of hearing it for the first time), but an approximation (recall is imperfect) to a representation (memory) of an approximation (memorisation is imperfect) of a representation (what I heard) of a real thing (what was played).

Then RogueAI's argument would be that this recognizes some sort of distinction between mental event and non-mental events. — Olivier5

Yep, I think we all agree there.

this distinction between things "in our head" and things "outside our head" is culturally near-universal and I believe absolutely fundamental to art, justice, politics and zillions other things we humans do. — Olivier5

I agree.

Still, some other people refuse to envisage this distinction, or try and deny its importance. — Olivier5

Do they? I've not encountered such an approach. What would it look like, to say that experiences originating from inside one's head were of no qualitative difference to those experiences seeming to originate from outside it? As I mentioned earlier, there are forms of Schizophrenia where this is a problem, but I don't know many suffers writing philosophical treatise on the matter. Generally, I've found near universal agreement that the two kinds of experience have a distinguishable and meaningful difference.

The next step is to realize that perceptions are not just different, or even "originating from" a non-mental event in a mechanical manner. Perceptions represent non-mental events, they interpret them in a symbolic manner. Our mental world is (among other things) modeling reality "out there".

In other words, there is an epistemic gap between the event perceived and the corresponding perception events. — Olivier5

Absolutely. A matter I've written about pretty extensively in my posts before so won't go into again here in the general sense. Broadly speaking, the idea of active inference of external hidden states underlies pretty much my entire approach to understanding cognition.

What makes you think this? — Isaac


A thought bwahahaha — Kenosha Kid

Ha! I should have worked that out shouldn't I?

I expect I'm not far off in thinking that a song "playing" in your head isn't just a representation of the real thing (which is true of hearing it for the first time), but an approximation (recall is imperfect) to a representation (memory) of an approximation (memorisation is imperfect) of a representation (what I heard) of a real thing (what was played). — Kenosha Kid

Spot on. I can't remember the paper, but one interesting aspect of recall (in addition to the examples you've given) is that the timing is often compressed. So 'recalling' a three minute song will take less than three minutes of brain time, even though subjects report having gone through the whole song in time and can sing it out loud in good time. It's like compression in computer files. It's just more efficient to give you the main points and then a bit of 'meta-data' making you feel like it lasted three minutes than it is to actually store three minute's worth of data - like your brain just goes "then the song goes dilddledede for a bit" instead of actually creating the right signals in the auditory cortex.

Same's true of speeches and poems apparently, you think you're 'mentally pronouncing' every word as spoken, but the time it takes betrays that fact that you actually skipped quite a lot (or sped it all up, but skipped is the preferred theory, it makes more sense with semantic processing mechanisms)

Generally, I've found near universal agreement that the two kinds of experience have a distinguishable and meaningful difference. — Isaac

I'm not quite sure because he was so vague about it, but it seemed to me that bongo-fury was in the habit of denying everything mental. Just one example.

In other words, there is an epistemic gap between the event perceived and the corresponding perception events.
— Olivier5

Absolutely. A matter I've written about pretty extensively in my posts before so won't go into again here in the general sense. — Isaac

Reminds me of Pattee's epistemic cut and how this is the basis for the subject-object distinction.

https://homes.luddy.indiana.edu/rocha/publications/pattee/pattee.html

The cause of my thought can only be a thought
— Mww

What makes you think this? — Isaac

Simple: I don’t know the cause of my thought. That which cannot be known, can still be thought, hence, the cause of my thought can only be a thought, or, it is nothing. Hence....infinite regress, if the former, and from either, no answer is at all possible.

I know what a thought is. As a scientist, a thought euphemistically represents the relation of a stimulus to a reaction by means of an electrochemical medium. As a metaphysician, given a specific theory, a thought is the relation of an object to its cognition by means of a speculative rational system. To say I know the relation between a cognition and an object, which may or not be true, does not give me warrant for claim to know the cause by which the relation is brought about. All I can say is....that’s how this particular rational system works. I know I start with this (something), I know I end up with that (“basketball”), but whatever happens in between, is part of the system itself, and can never be examined except by the very system of which it is a part.

It is catastrophically erroneous to say the object in the relation is its cause, for the object is necessarily simultaneous with the thought of it***, which eliminates the time absolutely necessary for the principle of cause and effect. There is no such thing as an empty thought, every thought is about something, by which the notion of simultaneity (Kant calls it spontaneity) finds its support. It follows as a matter of course, that given the absence of the time necessary for cause/effect, my thoughts are not caused by nor an effect of, the relation it represents.

Nahhhhh.....cognition is the effect, object is the cause. My thought merely unites one to the other, and it is called......wait for iiittttttt......understanding. More precisely, understanding is the uniting, judgement is the united. Theoretically.

*** not to be confused with the perception of it, which is always antecedent to the thought.
————-

Modeling the cause of thought implies making better humans.
Modeling the content of thought implies making a human better.
— Mww

Woah - left-field, where did this spring from? — Isaac

Modeling the physical cause of thought can possibly lead to manipulation of its electrochemical constituents. Behavior modification is a real thing, right? More likely behavior modification manifests as beneficial to humanity in general, I would hope. Hence....better humans.

Me, modeling the content of my thoughts, meaning “this is what I think about that”, and providing I wish to benefit myself by rearranging what I think about that....hence making me a better human.

Where it springs from....damned if I know. Sounded profound at the time. Ego or superfluous bullshit....take your pick.
—————

Feel free to ignore this. — Isaac

I much favor responding to proper intellectual inquiry, rather than pathological ineptitude.

Information is the cause of your thought. — Pop

Not from this armchair. Information is what the thought is about, not the cause of it.

Information, if anything, is the affect on the brain from perception, which we call sensation.

Information is what the thought is about, not the cause of it. — Mww

Before Pop drowns you under some wall of text about 'enformation', allow me to give the short version:

Like any animal, you are capable of acquiring and analyzing information through senses only because such a process is useful for your survival. So the reason you have a mind is that this mind can acquire and work on usable information to make your life easier, longer, more successful, etc.

Ergo, if there was no information in this world, or if it was inaccessible, or if it was useless for survival, you would simply have no need for thinking, and as per Darwin you would therefore not think.

allow me to give the short version — Olivier5

I’m good with that version.

But still, there are other uses for thinking than survival alone, aren’t there, at least nowadays, when survival isn’t as big a deal as it used to be.

Of course, one can use one's mind to do crosswords or sudoku... or philosophy for that matter. But if the house burns around you and your life is in danger, you'll probably drop that sudoku or Derida book in a heart beat. Your mind wants to survive.

Note that survival is the most basic but not the only biological goal that a mind serves. The highest goal is still successful reproduction, which for our species (as well as for most bird and mammal species to a lesser degree) entails not just biology but also cultural elements: songs, seduction, dances, parental care and protection of off-springs, transmission of knowledge to the off-springs, etc.

Reminds me of Pattee's epistemic cut and how this is the basis for the subject-object distinction. — Olivier5

Yeah, I have some sympathy with that view, although there are some aspects I'm not so sure on...another thread though maybe.

I don’t know the cause of my thought. That which cannot be known, can still be thought, hence, the cause of my thought can only be a thought, or, it is nothing. — Mww

So when I see a mark on my kitchen floor and I don't know the cause of it, it must be either uncaused or caused by a thought? ...seems iffy to me.

I know I start with this (something), I know I end up with that (“basketball”), but whatever happens in between, is part of the system itself, and can never be examined except by the very system of which it is a part. — Mww

Are not 'start' and 'end up with' nodes in the system? If had a flow diagram of your though process, box 1 would say [whatever the something is], box 9 would say [basketball] and there'd be whole load of boxes in between. You're saying that you know you start at 1 and end up at 9, but you can't examine the boxes inbetween using the system itself. But how can you know that without having at least taken a glance at the diagram - you must have 'examined' the system to some extent to even be able to report as much as you have.

"It has a box 1 and a box 9. Box one contains the initial thought and box nine the final one, but I don't know what goes on in between"

Is that not a description of the system despite being a partial one? What did you use to arrive at it?

It is catastrophically erroneous to say the object in the relation is its cause, for the object is necessarily simultaneous with the thought of it***, which eliminates the time absolutely necessary for the principle of cause and effect. — Mww

Agreed. The sensation is the cause. The action of light/sound etc on the object is the modelled cause of the sensation. At no point should we say 'the object' is the cause. The object is a model itself, not the cause it attempts to be a model of.

Modeling the physical cause of thought can possibly lead to manipulation of its electrochemical constituents. Behavior modification is a real thing, right? More likely behavior modification manifests as beneficial to humanity in general, I would hope. Hence....better humans.

Me, modeling the content of my thoughts, meaning “this is what I think about that”, and providing I wish to benefit myself by rearranging what I think about that....hence making me a better human.

Where it springs from....damned if I know. Sounded profound at the time. Ego or superfluous bullshit....take your pick. — Mww

I see, makes sense now.

Still all good, but having to do with anthropology and sociology and such. Just because I’m trapped in some relative influences of them, doesn’t mandate a personal interest.

Still all good, but having to do with anthropology and sociology and such. Just because I’m trapped in some relative influences of them, doesn’t mandate a personal interest. — Mww

Sure, you could try and become a hermit or a monk, or just throw yourself under the bus if survival is of absolutely no interest to you.

Yeah, I have some sympathy with that view, although there are some aspects I'm not so sure on...another thread though maybe. — Isaac

I found it a very powerful formulation, and I think it works for me. Life is fundamentally transcendental in that sense.

deleted

You're saying that you know you start at 1 and end up at 9, but you can't examine the boxes inbetween using the system itself. But how can you know that without having at least taken a glance at the diagram - you must have 'examined' the system to some extent to even be able to report as much as you have. — Isaac

I get where Mww is coming from. The diagram is not in the system, it's an outside view. A system with an input and output can't have as its output a report on the system. If there's a bit of the system that measures the system, what is measuring it, etc. Never call the logger inside the logger ;)

However, nothing wrong with a system examining the inner workings of a sample of almost identical systems.

"It has a box 1 and a box 9. Box one contains the initial thought and box nine the final one, but I don't know what goes on in between"

Is that not a description of the system despite being a partial one? What did you use to arrive at it? — Isaac

Functionalism in a nutshell. Have the system report the map input :|--> output for all possible inputs. The resultant map is functionally identical to the system, but differently composed (unless you were unfortunate enough to do this on a map). Have the last node cache the results for good measure and boom, you have a system that knows so well what it does, even if it has no clue how it does it, it doesn't have to do it anymore. \o/

but you can't examine the boxes inbetween using the system itself. — Isaac

EXCEPT by using the system itself. Also, as you must be aware, examining the system, reporting on it, post hoc, is not the use of the system for its intended purpose. When thinking about something, in the common course of cognitive events, to ask myself how it is I’m thinking it, isn’t in that common course. I may inquire afterwards, in which case I would retrospect using the very same system by which the original thought occurred. Check out how a car drives, whether it drives properly or there’s something wrong with it, by driving it, right? Check out the fit of a shoe......ehhhh, you get the picture.

In addition, part of the system is not in our awareness. Just as in the physical nature of brain mechanics, there is a gap between the sensing of a thing and the apprehension of it, that part in which the perception is transformed into material for the system. Much like we are not conscious of the transfer along nerves of the output of sensation and the input to the brain. Metaphysically speaking, the output of sensation into the nerve endings is phenomena, the transfer along nerves is imagination, the input to the brain is apperception. You know.....case you were wondering.

Are not 'start' and 'end up with' nodes in the system? — Isaac

Technically, no, they are not. The first box is the instantiation of it, the last is the culmination. Empirically, the first is perception, the last is experience. Rationally, the first is thought, the last is reason.
—————

I don't know what goes on in between"

Is that not a description of the system despite being a partial one? — Isaac

Description, yes, but not necessarily knowledge. Metaphysics describing the human cognitive system is a logical interpretation only. Say, experience is this, but only if that and that and that, are consistent with the possibility. But we do not know if the conditions speculated, are the conditions in fact. But that's ok, because science doesn’t know either. Hence.....the inescapable dualism.
————-

The object is a model itself — Isaac

This is exactly right, and oh so Kantian, for it is the purpose of his entire tripartite treatise, to show the objects we perceive are given their modeling by us. The only way it could be otherwise, is to deny the representational nature of the human system. Science will never be able to do that, because the very laws which promise the certainty of its paradigm, automatically prevent its denial, re: conservation of energy. Thing is, in the physical system, the energy is the same throughout and compensation for energy loss in the transfer from one medium to the other occurs downstream, but in the metaphysical system, where the energy of sensation is completely lost, everything downstream is prevented from being a direct correspondence to the object perceived. This is how we are allowed to claim we don’t know what a thing is, immediately upon the sensing of it. It merely constructs as an internal representation, in accordance with the affect the energy of the perception, has. And that which is constructed, is a phenomenon. The object becomes a model.

Philosophy.....ain’t it grand????

That’s not at all what I’m saying. I have no wish to be attacked by a bus, anymore than my ancestors wished to be attacked by a grizzly. Considering the relative possibilities of each, I’d say my survival is less the problem than his.

Exceptions to a rule say nothing whatsoever about the rule.

In any case, that was (I think) what Pop meant by:

Information is the cause of your thought. — Pop

That'd be why sense-deprivation is a mode of torture.

a song "playing" in your head isn't just a representation of the real thing (which is true of hearing it for the first time), but an approximation (recall is imperfect) to a representation (memory) of an approximation (memorisation is imperfect) of a representation (what I heard) of a real thing (what was played). — Kenosha Kid

Ahhh....another closet Kantian. YEA!!!!! C’mon, admit it. Release yourself to the Force, padawan!!!

“...For the manifold representations (recall, memory, what I heard) which are given in an intuition (what was played) would not all of them be my representations, if they did not all belong to one consciousness, that is, as my representations (...), they must conform to the condition under which alone they can exist together in a common consciousness, because otherwise they would not all without exception belong to me (be in my head)....”

Ahhh....another closet Kantian. YEA!!!!! C’mon, admit it. Release yourself to the Force, padawan!!! — Mww

Hey, I already said nice-ish things about Kant.

HA!! Boy-howdy. I can’t even imagine total sense deprivation. I’m not even sure such a thing is possible at least while being conscious.

Noticed, and for which he owes you a cocktail of your choice.

Noticed, and for which he owes you a cocktail of your choice. — Mww

Well, I Kant say fairer than that, Maine's an extra dry vodka martini with a twist

With Hangar One, of course. Shaken, not stirred.

Tangueray for me, while you’re at it. Preferably Rangpur.

Information is the cause of your thought.
— Pop

Not from this armchair. Information is what the thought is about, not the cause of it.

Information, if anything, is the affect on the brain from perception, which we call sensation. — Mww

↪Mww In any case, that was (I think) what Pop meant by:

Information is the cause of your thought.
— Pop

That'd be why sense-deprivation is a mode of torture.
3 hours ago — Olivier5

Information is the only thing that fits in mind, so it is the only thing that can cause a thought ( The deeper question though is what causes the information to integrate?).

"What is information", really needs its own thread, as it is probably the most valuable piece of knowledge a philosopher can posses - it being central to all understanding - how consciousness works by integrating information. A bit much to plonk here right now.

Instead, perhaps you might understand that we interact with the world through the information we have of it. We cannot interact with something we have no information of ( a nothing ). The information of the outside world reaches us via frequencies and vibrations ( sight and sound ), discrete molecules ( smell and taste ), and force fields ( matter ). This information must be interpreted.

Hopefully this provides a sense of how radically transformative the interpretation is. In the external world there are no colours or sound, there are frequencies and vibrations. The mind is working with "raw information" in the form of frequency and vibration and translating it to anthropocentric ( socially understood ) symbols of colour and sound. This energetic and vibratory information of the outside world is constantly acting upon us. We are constantly swamped by it ( information ) . We must interpret it, in order to navigate it , and self organize.