Other than via physical instantiation (re: Boltzmann, Turing, Shannon, Von Neumann et al), how can we differentiate signals from noise? — 180 Proof

It's all noise until a mind comes along and attaches meaning to a bit of noise and calls it a signal. If a simulation of a tornado is running on a computer with no one observing it, is it still a simulation? It's interesting that the issue of observers pops up in physics.

It's all noise until a mind comes along and attaches meaning to a bit of noise and calls it a signal. — RogueAI

If "it's all noise" and "all" includes "minds" and it is "mind" that "attaches meaning to a bit of noise and calls it a signal", then, in effect what you're saying is, noise generates signals from noise.

If "it's all noise" and "all" includes "minds" and it is "mind" that "attaches meaning to a bit of noise and calls it a signal", then, in effect what you're saying is, noise generates signals from noise. — 180 Proof

Do you think mind=noise???

Do you think mind=noise??? — RogueAI

Your previous post implies this.

If you agree that the mind is not noise, what is it equal to? The brain?

what you're saying is, noise generates signals from noise. — 180 Proof
Do you think mind=noise??? — RogueAI

's assertion was intentionally ridiculous, because he's trying to make your position sound absurd. His vigorous defense of Orthodox Materialism, attacks what he perceives as heretical Immaterialism (or spiritualism, or idealism). To him, Mind is a Myth or Illusion. So any reference to such phantoms is only so much noise.

I would re-word his quoted phrase as : "the rational Mind interprets meaningful signals from incoming Information. That which is not informative is noise." I actually enjoy sparring with him, just as I used to dialog with devout Christian propagandists, because it's good exercise for my own rational faculties to distinguish Information from Noise. :grin:

PS__I will apologize in advance for mis-representing his philosophical position. But that's because he mostly attacks other beliefs, but doesn't make his own position clear. That's a common tactic in propaganda. It's a one-way dialog. :cool:

His vigorous defense of Orthodox Materialism ... To him, Mind is a Myth ... he mostly attacks other beliefs, but doesn't make his own position clear. — Gnomon

Strawman. Stop your onanistic bs, G. :lol:

Minding is what highly adaptive, fully-functional, and sufficiently complex CNS-brains do.

Minding is what highly adaptive, fully-functional, and sufficiently complex CNS-brains do. — 180 Proof

Which sufficiently complex CNS-brains have minds? Do octopi have minds? Lobsters? What about functional equivalents to sufficiently complex CNS-brains? Do any machines today have minds? What about the near future? What about the distant future? How will you test for the presence of minds? What does "sufficiently complex" mean?

Strawman. Stop your onanistic bs, G. :lol: — 180 Proof

Is that your final answer to the question of Immaterialism? :smile:

:roll:

"Immaterialism" as in e.g. dis-embodied minds? :eyes: Res ipsa loquitur.

All right, all right. What is your favorite book on philo of mind?

My "favorite" book on the philosophy of mind (or neurophilosophy) is still, after 15+ years, Being No One by Thomas Metzinger (followed by his non-technical summary of the same The Ego Tunnel). Also, the speculative writings (now defunct blog) of R. Scott Bakker titled "Three Pound Brain" (see archive @menu) especially for his essays concerning what he calls "Blind Brain Hypothesis", "Heuristic Neglect Theory" and "The Semantic Apocalypse" (which attempt to think through the cognitive, social and philosophical implications of T. Metzinger's work), also explored in his speculative novel Neuropath as well as in Peter Watts' Firefall duology.

Thanks!

Strawman. Stop your onanistic bs, G. :lol: — 180 Proof
Is that your final answer to the question of Immaterialism? :smile: — Gnomon

Language, Mr. Proof. Watch your language! There are sensitive immaterial minds on this forum. :grin:

↪Gnomon
"Immaterialism" as in e.g. dis-embodied minds? :eyes: Res ipsa loquitur. — 180 Proof

No. Once again you miss the point, because you can't put your physical finger on a Function. The target is invisible to the eye, but knowable to a rational Mind. Do you have one of those spooky non-things? Or are you ipso facto dis-enminded?

"Immaterialism" refers to the mental functions of embodied brains. It's not about wandering ghosts or out-of-body experiences. That would be Spiritualism. "If one did not start with a materialist bias, materialism would not be invoked as an explanation for a whole range of experiments in neuroscience " ___Michael Egnor, neuroscientist

Instead, it's the age-old philosophical category of mental Qualia as contrasted with material Quanta. If you are so sure that the Mind is a material object, you could prove it by posting a picture of one. Does the mind show-up in electron microscope images? Even atoms look like anonymous balls of fluff. So what does the Mind look like, gray matter or white matter? The burden of proof is back in your court. :joke:

what is a function? :
A technical definition of a function is: a relation from a set of inputs to a set of possible outputs where each input is related to exactly one output. ... We can write the statement that f is a function from X to Y using the function notation f:X→Y.
https://mathinsight.org/definition/function
Note -- The function of a mechanism is not the machine, but the purpose of the process.

Is the Mind Immaterial or Material? :
Of course, dualism doesn’t necessarily answer these questions, merely pushing it back a level, but materialism has yet to explain it either, generating a sort of infinite regress of homunculi.
https://authortomharper.com/2019/06/13/is-the-mind-immaterial-or-material/

Science Points To An Immaterial Mind :
For example, I pointed out that abstract thought cannot be localized to one specific region of the brain, whereas perception and movement are highly localizable. I interpreted this as being most consistent with the immateriality of abstract thought.
Michael Egnor; neurosurgeon, and Senior Fellow, Center for Natural & Artificial Intelligence
https://mindmatters.ai/2019/06/science-points-to-an-immaterial-mind/

WHERE CAN WE FIND THE MIND?

To answer your last question: in various regions in the picture.

We eat stuff and we drink stuff. Ten years ago I consisted 90% of different matter (I'm not sure about my brain, neurons don't get replaced). In what else than matter can the mind reside?

In what else than matter can the mind reside? — Cornwell1

The philosophical question is not where Mind resides, but what is Mind? If it's not a material object, then it's immaterial. Many of the posts on this thread are talking past each other. When the topic is about "immaterialism" it's referring to Qualia, not Quanta. Qualia, as subjective patterns, can reside in a variety of material objects. Pattern recognition occurs, not in a Brain, but in a Mind. The "observer" is not a homunculus. Qualia is "what it feels like" to observe a pattern of incoming information.

Of course, on the macro level of reality, those patterns are always associated with physical things. But on the quantum scale that common-sense association breaks down. Reductionism ad absurdo, ("reducing to an absurdity.") Yet some, but not all, physicists persist in trying to maintain an illusion of the old Materialistic model of hard little atoms as the fundamental elements of reality. For example, what they now call "virtual" particles, are not bits of matter, but merely mathematical points in an imaginary grid. A "point" has no spatial dimensions, so we can't see them, we can only imagine them. Like the Cheshire Cat, the matter just fades away, leaving only a smile. :grin:


From Quanta to Qualia: How a Paradigm Shift Turns Into Science :
Ever since the development of quantum mechanics in the first part of the 20th century, a new world view has emerged. Today, the physicalist objective assumption that objects exist independently of acts of observation has been challenged. The repercussions of this radical challenge to our common-sense perception of the world are far-reaching, although not yet generally realized. Here we argue that there is a complementary view to the way science which is being practiced, and that consciousness itself is primary and qualia form the foundation of experience. We outline the arguments of why the new science of qualia will tie objects that are being perceived to the subjective experience, through the units of subjective experience called qualia.
https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/scs_articles/152/

WHERE'S THE CAT?

The philosophical question is not where Mind resides, but what is Mind? If it's not a material object, then it's immaterial — Gnomon

Ha! Nice picture. The mind in my brainy neurons sees a laughing mouth. The eyes look grim though! :smile:

Of course, on the macro level of reality, those patterns are always associated with physical things. But on the quantum scale that common-sense association breaks down. — Gnomon

I'm not sure what's so special about the quantum scale. That's matter as on the macro level. There is a wavefunction, which constitutes space, tickling the particles, which are here, then there, then over there, etc. This behavior is not seen on the macro level. Particles can even send out other particles to reach out. It's pure love or hate: attraction or repulsion. Particles form aggregates to create holistically refinements. The can even form faces!

I'm not sure what's so special about the quantum scale. — Cornwell1

The link in my last post will give you an overview of what's special enough about Quantum physics to call it a "Paradigm Shift". That's why physicists now distinguish between the Classical physics of Newton, and the Quantum physics of the 20th century. It was the radical new worldview of non-local acausal physics that inspired Thomas Kuhn to coin a novel phrase. What used to be Common Sense becomes marginalized in the new era. For example, Matter is now defined by ideal mathematical Points instead of real material Atoms. :smile:

Are We in the Middle of a Paradigm Shift? :
If Einstein was such a creative thinker that he literally redefined our view of the world, why did he reject one of the basic implications of quantum physics?
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/2021/04/28/are-we-in-the-middle-of-a-paradigm-shift

Matter is now defined by ideal mathematical Points — Gnomon

This assumption is the reason for many difficulties in fundamental physics. Strings are a small improvement but not sufficient. Particles must have a dimension of the full dimension of space, which can only be if a particle is a 6d geometrical structure of which 3 are curled up in a circle. Space and particle are thus interconnected. It can even be thought that the 6d space is somehow a subspace of a 7d one. Then it can expand in that space and dark energy will be a natural outcome. But now I'm drifting very far in the borderlands of physics... :smile:

Sorry to jump in, but this quote bugs me :

Qualia is "what it feels like" to observe a pattern of incoming information.

So there is incoming information. From where?

If there is an Inside and an Outside to existence, then physicalism holds (or at least dualism does). It doesn't matter what form the Outside takes - whether it be atoms, or points, or the mind of God. These are just different names for a thing we can never truly know, but acknowledge must be. The only alternative is solipsism.

[

If there is an Inside and an Outside to existence, then physicalism holds (or at least dualism does). It doesn't matter what form the Outside takes - whether it be atoms, or points, or the mind of God. These are just different names for a thing we can never truly know, but acknowledge must be. The only alternative is solipsism. — Real Gone Cat

Why is that the only alternative. The mind of God does not reside in our universe and points neither. We know the outside and the inside we experience because we are the stuff we see the outside of outside of.

If it's not a material object, then it's immaterial. — Gnomon

Another false dichotomy – occupational hazard of dualism ("BothAnd" :roll:), no doubt.

"Immaterialism" refers to the mental functions of embodied brains. — Gnomon

Your narrow usage, G; I prefer Berkeley's much broader concept of "immaterialism" to which I referred previously.

The mind of God does not reside in our universe and points neither.

Ok, you lost me. You mean we're getting signals from other universes? Interesting...

I think we're generally in agreement, but Gnomon may have struck close to the truth with this quote :

"Immaterialism" refers to the mental functions of embodied brains.

I have always held that minds are not just brains but rather healthy working brains. That is to say, minds are not just the trillions of synapses to be found in the brain, but the firing of those synapses. Where Gnomon goes wrong is to call that entirely physical process "immaterialism".

:up:

Wèll, the only signal we got from an outside universe was the signal received at the singularity to bang into existence.

There is no mìnd of God nor are there point particles. You can know the nature of the stuff around you because you are made of it. You look at it from the outside and you feel it on the inside. The mind.

Ah, sorry. You do not actually think those are valid alternatives. So what alternatives do you consider valid?

I can't see how the immaterialist avoids solipsism. Either the Outside exists or it doesn't. Are we merely discussing what that Outside consists of? Sure, you can say it isn't matter (atoms and such), but whatever you choose as an alternative, you should be able to justify.

And I caution my philosophy-minded friends to be careful invoking quantum physics. Its an abstraction (i.e., mind-generated construct) we use to help us deal with phenomena at the limits of current observation. It is not the Outside. It's a wonderful instrument for explaining certain experimental outcomes, but so is Newtonian and Einsteinian physics at the macro scale.

You do not actually think those are valid alternatives — Real Gone Cat

What do you mean by "those"? God's mind and point particles?

And I caution my philosophy-minded friends to be careful invoking quantum physics. Its an abstraction (i.e., mind-generated construct) — Real Gone Cat

Why can't it be a description of material reality? Particles on the micro level are not that different from their macro counterparts. They wavefunction embracing them is more apparent and particles interact by means of virtual particles. Virtual does not mean not-real though, but the term "virtual" is used for contrast with on mass shell. On mass shell is real, off is virtual.

What do you mean by "those"? God's mind and point particles?

Are you arguing just to be contrary? Of course those. They are the only two you mention. And subsequently dismiss. So list what explanations you do find compelling.

Why can't it be a description of material reality?

Sure it can. I was cautioning Gnomon who seems to imply (the Cheshire Cat post) that quantum physics provides an alternative to materialism.

Are you arguing just to be contrary? — Real Gone Cat

I don't want to get into an argument about that...

Of course those. They are the only two you mention. And subsequently dismiss. So list what explanations you do find compelling. — Real Gone Cat

God's mind lays outside the universe, though they might show themselves. Point particles are mathematical constructs. They don't have a physical counterpart. Particles only seem points. There is a lot of space between 10exp-20 (minimum distance explored so far) and 10exp-35, the Planck length. Quarks and leptons are not elementary, and we can consider particles as 6D structures of which 3 are curled up in 7D space to form 3D structures, loaded with charge (the nature of which still perplexes all of us). We can consider the wavefunction as space itself. We can't know the nature of a particle except that already at the fundamental it's love (attraction) or hate (repulsion). We know though what it feels like to be a particle though.