as some of the philosophical questions on what criteria could something count as a fact, how are facts isolated from other facts, what does it mean for something to be a fact etc. I — Tobias

Yeah there are a lot of vague points in such things and that's why I mentioned that science can't help in many philosophical questions. But in some fields it can indeed. And in those fields a philosophy thinker should always take under consideration science facts.

The only thing on which I read both science and philosophy is the debate on free will. I did not find the scientific stuff very interesting or enlightening, — Tobias

Really? Come on why not? Free will is a topic that interests me also a lot and some science data about that debate I found them extremely interesting (especially neurologist data). Enlightening? Hmm.. Maybe not much indeed. But some things science says about it are really interesting and fascinating.

There is no better way to explain the workings of the world than those discovered by science. For instance take 'behavioural economics'. If we would like to ask whether it is right to nudge people, an ethical question, we need to know how nudging works. We need to know the behaviorist model underlying it. So in our basic premises, should we rely on science to tell us how the world works, yes absolutely. Should we have great respect for it, a resounding yes! — Tobias

That's what I m talking about.My core point in fact is this :

So in our basic premises, should we rely on science — Tobias

And behavioral economics is a really good example.

but the style in which it is presented is insulting. 'All these philo profs have gotten it all wrong, they are not wise, instead we should be 'independent thinker' (essentially like me! me! me!). Indeed, you just arrived here so blow a little less hard! I feel it is an insult to people who have learned a great deal more than he did. This is just my explanation for my own behaviour, that said I really do appreciate you defending him. — Tobias

Well his style didn't seem insulting here. At least to me. But since you mention the "independent thinker" I guess you are talking about his other thread also, which as to be honest didn't follow it as to see the way he expressed there.
He seems like a honest debater, who seeks answers. But as I mentioned didn't read his other thread as to have a general opinion.

Well I don't like to pretend like Robin Hood of TPF who defend others but I guess he reminded me of myself when I first arrived here.
I was also really surprised how offending some members were and how insulting also. Couldn't use any arguments at all but only clever-ish lines and insults. And I remember thinking "wtf?! If I wanted these kind of shit I would have make a fb or twitter account!".

I have read other posts of you in various threads and your opinions are really interesting. Neither you seem like the person who would play the "wise teacher" role who has all the answers(like some other members do). So I was kind of surprised that you came so harsh on him. But well I don't know, if he did used that "me, me, me" tone in the other thread, it is annoying indeed.And kind of laughable also.
I m kind of bored though as to go and check his other thread now as to be honest. Hahaha. But I might do it later.

Really? Come on why not? Free will is a topic that interests me also a lot and some science data about that debate I found them extremely interesting (especially neurologist data). Enlightening? Hmm.. Maybe not much indeed. But some things science says about it are really interesting and fascinating. — dimosthenis9

I am not saying they are not interesting or fascinating, or enlightening. I did not find what I was looking, but maybe we were looking for different things :) I by no means would wish to discredit neurology or anything.

Well his style didn't seem insulting here. At least to me. But since you mention the "independent thinker" I guess you are talking about his other thread also, which as to be honest didn't follow it as to see the way he expressed there.
He seems like a honest debater, who seeks answers. But as I mentioned didn't read his other thread as to have a general opinion. — dimosthenis9

Well yeah, maybe I am biased by the other thread. If he is an honest debater he will take it to heart, present his thesis better and with less bravado than in the other thread. Everyone who is an honest debater will get an honest response... :)

Well I don't like to pretend like Robin Hood of TPF who defend others but I guess he reminded me of myself when I first arrived here.
I was also really surprised how offending some members were and how insulting also. Couldn't use any arguments at all but only clever-ish lines and insults. And I remember thinking "wtf?! If I wanted these kind of shit I would have make a fb or twitter account!". — dimosthenis9

Yeah, and that is why I liked you standing up for him. We all need defenders, this time I am playing the role of the role of the prosecutor but I value a good defense. You did stay on though... what made you stay even if you felt you were being treated harshly or unfairly?

I have read other posts of you in various threads and your opinions are really interesting. Neither you seem like the person who would play the "wise teacher" role who has all the answers(like some other members do). So I was kind of surprised that you came so harsh on him. But well I don't know, if he did used that "me, me, me" tone in the other thread, it is annoying indeed. — dimosthenis9

The 'me me me' was an inference of mine and maybe unfair, that is possible, though I am not sure yet. I do think that a bit of tough love cannot harm. In Dutch we have a figure of speech, he who hits the ball should expect it to come back. I do not have anything personal against Skalidris. I do not have all the answers... I usually do pounce upon the people that claim they do... Eventually Skalidris will go back, reformulate, rework and resubmit and he will become stronger. I am against using velvet gloves, but you and he should rest assured this is nothing personal. A truly wise person sees the wisdom in the ideas of others, only then might he supersede them.

but maybe we were looking for different things :) — Tobias

Well put. That is probably the case.

You did stay on though... what made you stay even if you felt you were being treated harshly or unfairly? — Tobias

Here I found a place where I can discuss issues that I can't discuss in my real life. Most of the people I know in real life, get bored with such issues or even don't care about them .
But I have obsession(literally I do.. hahha) with these things and I am damn curious. So at least here I found some people to discuss about all these. Or at least read their opinions cause I can't say that I m extra vivid in commenting.

So I just accepted the fact that, as in all communities, here too (even to a philosophy forum) concludes all kind of human weaknesses that you meet in every micro-society outside in real life.
I just write on my balls whoever trolls or talks offensive with no arguments. Ignoring them as I do in my real life and go on. But well, before I turn my back , they will receive the proper answer that they deserve.

Plus there are also some posters here that I really appreciate their way of thinking and their knowledge. And some seem really clever ones. So it is nice to hang out with clever people. You can always learn something. And that leads to...

A truly wise person sees the wisdom in the ideas of others, only then might he supersede them. — Tobias

I could not make much out of it exactly, but I am genuinely curious. — Tobias

I wasn't familiar with the math he used but it looked OK as far as I got. Hillary (or a previous incarnation) is a physicist and seemed to think there was some merit there, other than the fatal flaw of not being about physics in the original form. What turned me away was the notion of virtually everything being Turing machines. It seemed more an exercise in CS from my perspective. But I think the author is very smart and could be onto something.

About the content of Alexandre's article I cannot say anything as the mathematics and physics are over my head. — Tobias

As a physicist, I can say something about it. I have looked over the math. He uses Hestenes's spacetime physics formalism and transplants quantum mechanics to experimental practice ("practice states", as states in a Hilbdrt space or even wider, a Fock space) and Tūring machines. The observer (the singleton, as he rather impersonally calls it), math, physical models, theories, are all part of a context. A context to his "absolute" reality. The reality of clicks in an experiment, programs, and Türing machines to let them run on and operate on the "clicks". He made quite some errors in the math, but not substantial. Mostly wrong indices, or two times the same expression for different things, or make-up errors. There was no real quantum gravity present. He used the classical Einstein Hilbert action, from which a gauge theory for classical general relativity follows, not the quantum version. He used an entropic approach to information, but the point is that this cant be applied to experimental outcome. Basically he projected QM on experimental outcomes and used maximum entropy to maximize a measure for a kind of experimental Hilbert space to include all possible experiments. So it's no wonder that the Born rule automatically follows, as he put that in in the first place. He proposed an interference experiment to show quantum gravity, but that experiment shows he has not a truly good understanding of basic quantum mechanics and when I helped him clearing up the math he used I thought how he could not see those obvious things himself before publishing. He had the tendency to pull all your physical thoughts into his "context" while actually, from the POV of real physics, it are his notions of the observer, the Türing machines, the clicks, and the programs that are the context. Though I believe that even computer programs are considered context. Most of his math is just stated and pulled in straight from the books. He has done a few calculations himself, mainly a lot of e powers. And he uses a lot of tuples and matrices to offer experiments, which he transformed to mere sentences and symbols, to fit the math. It's a cold theory without a personal touch. No new and interesting physics and a suggestion for an experiment from which nothing about quantum gravity can be deducted. Believe me, if that were the case then we would have known. Many clicks, little hot licks! But my spacetime physics formulation got an impulse. Much math, easy math, but not one inch of physics.

In short, it's no wonder quantum mechanics follows from his "ToE" if he has put it in in the first place. Quantum gravity is nowhere to be seen. The math is used for the wrong subject matter, as the thermodynamical entropy can't be applied to experimental "states". The theory is impressive at first sight (mainly because of the math, but that is more of a diversion here) but at closer look it's an attempt to draw the whole world within his view. Which would be no problem if he could relativize but he truly thinks it's the only absolute reality, while in reality there are many. The first encounter made me sit up. Could it be...? But no... And J already knew that it couldn't be, because I know how reality functions at the fundamental level, and how the big bang came to be. I thought about it all my life 36 years long (well, a bit less of course). Away from the scientific community, which might be exactly why. Of course I absorbed known physics. And recently it fell all into place.

other than the fatal flaw of not being about physics — jgill

You got it exactly right!

Thanks for your summary. What he did and didn't do makes more sense now. :up:

Maybe as a philosophical ToE it makes sense, but not as a physical. After all, he says physical models and theories belong to the context. His reality concerns the patterns of clicks. Certain things when asking, he very cleverly evaded. Or directed them to his context. I have to say, it was pretty consistent (if that is an advantage in the first place, but Im sure his judges think so).

As a physicist, I can say something about it. — Hillary

I am sure you can actually, in the whole post you did :smile: The funny thing is I have no idea whether it is correct or even what you are saying. That is by no means a fault of yours, just that understanding the whole language of physics requires a proper initiation and study. It is like that with many subjects of course, including philosophy actually, although it might be less specialized than theoretical physics. Like jgill I thank you too for the summary, I can just not make any constructive comments as I still do not know what it is about. I do thank you for taking your time and comments on the paper. @jgill maybe I misunderstood, I thought you gave him as an example of someone providing a really spectacular new theory out of nowhere.

I am sure you can actually, in the whole post you did :smile: The funny thing is I have no idea whether it is correct or even what you are saying. — Tobias

Sometimes J forget that. If it seems so obvious, it's hard to get it's not for others. I remember encountering the first theoretical, mathematical formulations of fundamental physics. WTF...? So I thought. But its actually pretty simple once you see through it. And I remembered fantasizing about coming with a physical ToE of my own... And now I have! :grin:

Like jgill I thank you too for the summary, I can just not make any constructive comments as I still do not know what it is about. — Tobias

No worries...

Philosophy has only a humanistic continuity and should be considered essentially of the same nature as any other - for example literary criticism. It continues because its epistemology can never be definitive, because its only subject matter is man as the unknown - the man who can only be lived out and not thought about, and who in living himself out as question, as unknown, cuts across all philosophical questions and proves them unreal.

jgill maybe I misunderstood, I thought you gave him as an example of someone providing a really spectacular new theory out of nowhere. — Tobias

I gave him as an example of someone who has tried in a fairly sophisticated way to do something new in philosophy related to science, not as one who has succeeded in doing so. When he described coding all facts in the universe I quietly arose from my seat and left the theater. :cool:

When he described coding all facts in the universe I quietly arose from my seat and left the theater. :cool: — jgill

I would have quietly followed you. To watch that movie in the theater next to it and drink some beers. Maybe we stumbled on some truly interesting stuff. In the complex plane... :cool:

Thank you! I think you understood my point.

The counter argument of course is that in many philosophical theories (of any kind of field) science plays a crucial role indeed — dimosthenis9

Could you give me an example?

Maybe he wants to suggest a science based philosophy that would unify all fields or something like that — dimosthenis9

I don't see it as it would unify all fields, but rather use some scientific theories (not all!) when it seems relevant to a "philosophical" issue. Maybe it is already done by some but there are a lot of concepts for which it isn't done and if we had such a discipline, we wouldn't miss out on so many concepts. As I gave the example earlier, scientists don't define the term "individual" or "organism". When I'm searching for such definitions, I mostly find debates about whether it is useful to define it, whether it belongs to philosophy or biology, or whether it should be studied by philosophy of biology, and I just find this incredibly inefficient. I saw that philosophy of biology aims to clarify such concepts but I'm still wondering : where is it at? Where is their consensus?

There seems to be a huge problem for philosophers and scientists to communicate with each other and maybe that's why it doesn't lead to some kind of encyclopedia where they would define such concepts (also giving the uncertainties on the definition they created). My point being, this interdisciplinary approach is clearly not working, so maybe we should forget everything we know about philosophy (only for that purpose, not remove it from the society), start with just science and slowly create a method on how to maximize logical reasoning leading to these concepts.

but the style in which it is presented is insulting. 'All these philo profs have gotten it all wrong, they are not wise, instead we should be 'independent thinker' (essentially like me! me! me!). — Tobias

I'm sorry you felt insulted, it did not mean to insult philosophy. I did mean to criticise it though. Maybe I haven't spent enough time with philosophers to say all of this with certainty, but my experience has been pretty bad, and not just with philosophers, but also when I read philosophical articles in general. I once spent 15 mins trying to get a philosophy professor to answer one of my question, which simply was "what's your opinion on that matter?". It lead to a lot of side talking, where he explained to me how my questions were "wrong", how we could not see it the way I see it. And, to be honest this is the kind of behaviour that makes quite upset, as I wouldn't want to see philosophy as some kind of religion with rules where only certain opinions are accepted because they do not contradict other philosophical concepts. The funniest thing is that, in the end, he said he doesn't have an opinion, he doesn't know... I really don't know how science and philosophy can collaborate if philosophy doesn't accept to see the world other than with philosophical concepts...

It lead to a lot of side talking, where he explained to me how my questions were "wrong", how we could not see it the way I see it. And, to be honest this is the kind of behaviour that makes quite upset, as I wouldn't want to see philosophy as some kind of religion with rules where only certain opinions are accepted because they do not contradict other philosophical concepts. — Skalidris

I can relate to your experience. I have been a student once too and it happened to me as well. It makes one feel annoyed maybe, but on closer inspection... wasn't he doing what philosophy ought to do? He wasn't giving you a religion with rules and dogma, on the contrary! He used his expertise to pick apart your questions into questions than can be answered and those that cannot be. The ones who could not be, perhaps because they included hidden assumptions, or were 'loaded', or simply contradictory were discarded. On the questions that were left.... he had no opinion. Of course not, because probably they were questions best left to science and he is no scientist. In one of my classes (not in uni but at a private course) a student exclaimed "are we getting any answers!". I answered "no, only better questions".

Of course asking better questions leads to better answers and it may also lead to insight in social behaviour, or in the perception works, or in relation to freedom of the will or whatever, but that is essentially the philosophical discipline. It cuts the dead wood from the branches of knowledge.

wasn't he doing what philosophy ought to do? — Tobias

Well, if this is what philosophy does, it becomes even clearer to me that it's impossible for science and philosophy to collaborate... What do you think?

On the questions that were left.... he had no opinion. Of course not, because probably they were questions best left to science and he is no scientist. In one of my classes (not in uni but at a private course) a student exclaimed "are we getting any answers!". I answered "no, only better questions". — Tobias

I have no problem if someone doesn't have an opinion, but he could have said so from the beginning. Instead, he just explained how my point of view did not fit in his philosophical one... (and I'm not a philosophy student so that was even more irrelevant). If you want more details, my question was whether he thinks there are other causes than psychological ones for Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (yeah I know, weird topic). And he spent his time telling me how we cannot separate the mind and the body. The problem is, there are a lot of philosophical concepts, and a lot of them contradict each other, so how can you even say that a question is wrong if it doesn't fit a concept (which here I think is more of an opinion)? What would be the "better questions"? Questions that challenge the logic of the concepts? Okay fine, but what if I want to start from scientific concepts? How does that make it "wrong"? What makes philosophical concepts stronger than scientific ones in your opinion?

The whole theory he offered was a collection of ckicks, maximally entropized with Gibbs measure. He prijected the apparatus of QFT and the second law of thermodynamics on experiment. No wonder QM followed (Born rule). Be put it in it at the start! Except QG...

Well, if this is what philosophy does, it becomes even clearer to me that it's impossible for science and philosophy to collaborate... What do you think? — Skalidris

No, not at all. I think it is a good division of labour. Sciences maps what the world is like and philosophy brings to the fore the categorizations and assumptions that the map has implicitly and often subconsciously accepted.

I have no problem if someone doesn't have an opinion, but he could have said so from the beginning. Instead, he just explained how my point of view did not fit in his philosophical one... (and I'm not a philosophy student so that was even more irrelevant). If you want more details, my question was whether he thinks there are other causes than psychological ones for Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (yeah I know, weird topic). And he spent his time telling me how we cannot separate the mind and the body. — Skalidris

Yes, what he did was bring to the fore an assumption made in the question, perhaps the body and mind being separate. Indeed mind body dualism is considered extremely problematic from a philosophical point of view. The reason is that we would have to account for something non-material and establish a link between the material and mental stuff, so it is not just his philosophical scheme, mind boy dualism is by many considered to be untenable. What he did (possibly, I wasn't there of course) was show you how this assumption, which is deeply problematic, was made in your argument.

What would be the "better questions"? Questions that challenge the logic of the concepts? Okay fine, but what if I want to start from scientific concepts? How does that make it "wrong"? What makes philosophical concepts stronger than scientific ones in your opinion? — Skalidris

Better questions are more examine questions, questions of which the asker knows what kind of philosophical baggage they carry with themselves. You can still ask the question of course, but now with knowledge of the things you would have to accept as well when you think this is a meaningful question. (On the question itself I have no opinion, I do not even understand it because I do not know the subject, but that is beside the point)

Okay fine, but what if I want to start from scientific concepts? — Skalidris

Well, you can of course, but you will run into problems because you have unwittingly accepted a whole lot of assumptions that they carry around with them.

What makes philosophical concepts stronger than scientific ones in your opinion? — Skalidris

I do not think philosophical concepts are 'stronger' than scientific ones, they concern different things.

For instance the scientist wants to do an experiment. He wants to examine whether X emerges under laboratory conditions Y. He talks to a philosopher and she asks her, ok what are your criteria to say indeed X emerged? How can you be sure that X emerged due to conditions Y and not some hitherto unknown condition? Can you in fact know, or is there always a possibility of error? Perhaps there is, how can you minimise it? If there still is, when would you be confident that indeed Y caused X to emerge etc. Philosophy questions, it does not give answers but puts those on the spot that would like to provide an answer. Both are meaningful, but different.

Sciences maps what the world is like — Tobias

Which is a philosophical statement about science.

I do not think philosophical concepts are 'stronger' than scientific ones, they concern different things — Tobias

Science once was part of philosophy and vice versa. Look at 19th century physicists. Or at Aristotle. What caused the division?

Oh! Sorry! I'll leave the two of you... just saw it now...

Which is a philosophical statement about science. — Hillary

Yes it is.

Science once was part of philosophy and vice versa. Look at 19th century physicists. Or at Aristotle. What caused the division? — Hillary

Specialization I think. Maybe also the emancipation of both science and philosophy, in different ways, out of religious dogma. I think it is more of a history of science / hist of phil question or a sociology of science question than a natural scientific or philosophical one. I am not sure though.

Which is a philosophical statement about science.
— Hillary

Yes it is. — Tobias

Can that statement be confirmed or falsified? Is it really what science does? Relgion seems to do the same.

Science once was part of philosophy and vice versa. Look at 19th century physicists. Or at Aristotle. What caused the division? — Hillary

Specialization. Contemporary philosophers give common examples to illustrate their ideas, like, "Mary sees blue."
Earlier figures like Frege used examples that more literary, like citing Homer or a Latin author (untranslated). Even Frege expected his readers to be widely educated.

I don't see it as it would unify all fields, but rather use some scientific theories (not all!) when it seems relevant to a "philosophical" issue. — Skalidris

I agree that would be extremely helpful sometimes and could direct the philosophical reasoning to more fruitful grounds.
At the end at every philosophical issue that we want to debate about, we do need a starting base which better be as solid as it gets.And well there is nothing more solid or appropriate than a scientific base (when it can be used of course).

whether it belongs to philosophy or biology, or whether it should be studied by philosophy of biology, and I just find this incredibly inefficient. I saw that philosophy of biology aims to clarify such concepts but I'm still wondering : where is it at? Where is their consensus? — Skalidris

Well that debate you mention though inefficient in some way it is also important though and crucial. Clarifying concepts could give us better questions indeed(as Tobias mentioned) and better questions would lead us to better answers.

But I can understand your frustration cause though I find it necessary ,sometimes the overanalysis ends up ridiculous. That definition game, though useful, it can turn into an endless circle tale hunting.
If you stick around here on TPF for some time, you will witness it yourself. Some members just looove that definition game.

But at the end we can't get stuck up only to questions and stop there!Say "oh we can't define it 100%. So let's just shut up and don't say anything at all about it!". Come on.
The ultimate goal is Answers after all. We do need them even if we don't know the absolute ones. Or at least some suggestions(possible answers) as to state it better. But not saying anything?? Pfffff I find it extra silly.

start with just science and slowly create a method on how to maximize logical reasoning leading to these concepts. — Skalidris

How do you imagine that method? It doesn't sound bad but I think the problem is that "just science" ought to deal and present facts. That's why some philosophical concepts can't be defined by science and it would be non-scientific if anyone tried to attempt to do so.

So I m not sure how that "general method" it could be applied. I see it mostly that each philosophical case is different and needs a unique approach each time. So it depends on each "case" if science can actually really help us or not.

Can that statement be confirmed or falsified? Is it really what science does? Relgion seems to do the same. — Hillary

I do not understand. What statement needs falsification? That science creates a map of what the world is like? Well, that statement is itself too imprecise, but with modifications it can be falsified. We could scientists what they think they are doing for instance. Religion usually does not just describe but also ascribes a certain telos to the world, it has a normative dimension that science in general lacks. Or was that not what you were after?

mind boy dualism is by many considered to be untenable. What he did (possibly, I wasn't there of course) was show you how this assumption, which is deeply problematic, was made in your argument. — Tobias

In other words :
Question : Is the mind separated from the body?
Philosophical answer : Probably not, because it would cause a lot of problems if it was.

Assumptions : a lot of assumptions about what the mind and the body actually mean.
Problem : the scientists and philosophers have totally different definition of these.

You, a couple of lines later :

Philosophy questions, it does not give answers but puts those on the spot that would like to provide an answer. — Tobias

How's that not an answer to say the mind is probably not separated from the body?
Philosophy of sciences studies the assumptions of science, and I believe epistemology can study the assumptions of philosophy. But philosophy isn't just about criticising knowledge, is it? What about Ontology, doesn't it study what reality is? How is that a critique of knowledge provided by other disciplines?

Well, you can of course, but you will run into problems because you have unwittingly accepted a whole lot of assumptions that they carry around with them. — Tobias

Oh and philosophical concepts don't have assumptions?
And by the way, this hypothetical science-based philosophy could still take "advice" from a philosophy of sciences.

But I can understand your frustration cause though I find it necessary ,sometimes the overanalysis ends up ridiculous. — dimosthenis9

You know what's funny? If you set the limits of the analysis, it's impossible to overanalyse, you would end up saying "this matter is out of the limit of this discipline".

How do you imagine that method? — dimosthenis9

Well, I actually believe some clarity could be gained if we made the assumptions explicit rather than implicit. To visualise, we could build a mind map with all the underlying scientific concepts that lead to an understanding of the abstract one that we study, and detail the logical links we made between them. And this would include the uncertainties of the links we made. For example you could say this concept is partly related but not totally because of x and y, which can't be measured. To make it perfect, we would need this concept, which isn't proven by science. Do you know what I mean?

There could be several mind maps, with different underlying concepts but the idea would be to build the one that has the least uncertainties.

To visualise, we could build a mind map with all the underlying scientific concepts that lead to an understanding of the abstract one that we study, and detail the logical links we made between them. And this would include the uncertainties of the links we made. For example you could say this concept is partly related but not totally because of x and y, which can't be measured. To make it perfect, we would need this concept, which isn't proven by science. Do you know what I mean?

There could be several mind maps, with different underlying concepts but the idea would be to build the one that has the least uncertainties. — Skalidris

Yeah I think I got your point. Like putting down all the scientific data we have for each concept and starting making the most logical assumptions and connections between them(where of course is possible).
And going on afterwards including the uncertainties of each connection and evaluate the cases with the least uncertainties, right?

It is an interesting idea. I don't know if something similar exists already with such a general appliance. Or even if it is actually possible cause of the heavy complexity that philosophical concepts carry. But in general, I see it with a positive attitude.

Well at least with that way we could eliminate some falsifiable assumptions that is made in some philosophical concepts and focus more on cases that science "leaves" an open window for philosophical reasoning. It could be useful.

Question : Is the mind separated from the body?
Philosophical answer : Probably not, because it would cause a lot of problems if it was. — Skalidris

This question is easily resolved when we consider mind an unseparable part of matter, like electric charge in an electron. In that view we are an incredibly complicated material particle with a mental charge (which, in fact, is an incredibly complex electric charge, running around on the incredibly complex neuronal network of the brain). What exactly is that charge? No one knows. The gods out it in matter. Inside of a Planckian 3D hypersphere.

We don't know what it is, but we can feel it inside.

In that view we are an incredibly complicated material particle with a mental charge (which, in fact, is an incredibly complex electric charge, running around on the incredibly complex neuronal network of the brain) — Hillary

Both electrical and chemical.