In this paragraph only I found the following rather exotic philosophical.scientific terms/concepts: pluralistic monism, quantum dynamics, superpositions or blended wavelengths, panpsychism. And then you pretend all this is your opinion and ask from people to tell you what they think! — Alkis Piskas
"A process of integrating information for the purpose of self organization"
— Pop
Is that what you think an experience is? — bert1
Yes, we have direct access to it, which is better than any possible definition or theory. Would it be empirical verses a priori or some terms like that?every moment of consciousness has its feeling. — Pop
every moment of consciousness has its feeling.
— Pop
Yes, we have direct access to it, which is better than any possible definition or theory. Would it be empirical verses a priori or some terms like that? — Mark Nyquist
↪Pop Ok, I'll take that as a counter argument. But we shouldn't get so bogged down in theory that we forget we can examine its workings directly. — Mark Nyquist
This comment and intuition brings to mind the following passages from Steven Shaviro (after Whitehead) and his conception of "prehension" and "lure for feeling". You may find the below interesting or not but I will post the link and some passages from the longer article for you.What this feeling is precisely is very difficult to resolve. My thinking, very roughly, is that all systems self organize due to this feeling. That all systems self organize suggests they do so for a common reason. This reason might be the integration of the laws of the universe ( anthropic principle ). The laws of the universe in ordered pockets of the universe converge to cause self organization. I believe we may be feeling these converged forces. — Pop
According to Alfred North Whitehead, “the basis of experience is emotional” — prothero
It's possible for one's own opinion to overlap with that of others. I don't think Enrique is claiming he came up will all this completely by himself. Not that I understand it particularly. — bert1
The OP is a paragraph drawn from the end of an essay, not really designed to justify everything. Its a conversation starter that doesn't stand alone, you've got to read the entire thread! I'm not being exhibitionistic, merely trying to refine my ideas by eliciting some constructive feedback from a few dudes, and you'll see that my theory did improve because of this discussion. — Enrique
Put simply, we aren't sure that the mind is physical but then nonphysicalists have to explain why? i.e. what (good) reasons are there that the mind could be nonphysical? — TheMadFool
One very potent argument in favor of nonphysicalism is the mind can produce mental objects that aren't physically instantiated e.g. unicorns and that's just one example, there are numerous other objects that exist only in the mind. Is this a good reason to doubt the physicality of the mind? — TheMadFool
The Unicorn can exist physically as patterns of matter and energy ( information ) in your mind, just like all other thoughts, as neuroplasticity would suggest. — Pop
The (mind)ing is what the brain does. The brain is physical. However else it might be conceived of, it follows that (mind)ing can also be conceived of as physical. Like digestion, seeing, dancing, respirating ... physical processes (activities), not things. (Mind)ing is a verb, not a noun. — 180 Proof
I see but I meant to stress on the mind's ability to transcend the physical by being able to conceive of stuff (like unicorns) that don't exist in the physical world. — TheMadFool
You mean the mind can create a world beyond the world in itself? Yes indeed! And if you accept that every consciousness is unique in the absolute sense, then you might also accept that every world view is also unique in the absolute sense, which might make you wonder what the world is, given we live in slightly different ones, depending upon our consciousness. :chin: FYI — Pop
How can you expect someone to read more of the topic if you start it with a whole paragraph that sounds like gibberish? — Alkis Piskas
Hate to break it to you, but I think its pretty damn easy to understand lol — Enrique
Of course you think. But "lol"? What are you? 12? — Alkis Piskas
Giving me crap for my lol's? That is neither philosophically relevant nor intellectually sound, and is unequivocally incorrigible. — Enrique
What I like about a consciousness model built up from the neuron level is there are known events such as the firing of neurons that correlate to mental activity and you can have active and inactive states. Can you identify anything at the quantum level that always correlates to mental activity, can be turned off and on, or is some kind of switching device that could play a role in decision making? And why would these capabilities exist only in the brains of biological organisms? Has our genetic code found some way to exploit quantum phenomenon? And what quantum phenomenon would there be at the temperature our brains function? — Mark Nyquist
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.