As to the first part of your quote, regarding language applied to physical processes, as to that, I say, "language is physical."
How language is physical and what structure supports the physicality of language are two questions that have been under consideration and attacked in debate for at least the last two millennia.
I’ll venture an intuitive conjecture that we, too, have really been considering the physicality of language. — ucarr
the intelligibility of a sign. — ucarr
For these reasons, I claim that information is ambiguously internal-and-external to both the physical signification and the physical Agent Intellect who decodes the information and meaning of the former. — ucarr
I guess you have a different definition of the term "sentient" than the ones I presented and what is commonly meant by them. — Alkis Piskas
OK, it was a ref that I found handy. You can chose youserf from among 150 million Google results for < perception of plants > (w/o quotes) or the 2.5 million results on < "perception of plants" > (w/ quotes). :smile: — Alkis Piskas
(BTW, my saying "they must feel something" is very general and the wor "feel" in it has the meaning of "perceive" or "sense", not any emotional state.) — Alkis Piskas
Now, you assert that a plant needs not to be aware of -- i.e. perceive-- anything n order to react to stimuli. — Alkis Piskas
Which means that it can identify them, distinguish one from another. — Alkis Piskas
It cannot "choose" how to react. Choosing involves free will or at least the existence of a mind, which are both absent in a plant. Besides, we have already that it reacts mechanically ... — Alkis Piskas
Because "feeling" as a sense belongs to perception, which is our subject and can certainly not follow cognition. Right? — Alkis Piskas
I only would like to say that my definition of consiousness --esp. in its basic form-- has not been disproved by anyone until now. — Alkis Piskas
Here's once more my basic definition of consciousness: "The state and ability to perceive". — Alkis Piskas
OK. Just checking ... :smile:What do you mean by "from the exterior and interior"? Example? — Alkis Piskas
I mean, from the perspective of the sensing organism : interior = self ; exterior = other or environment. :smile: — Gnomon
Well, I find this somewhat twisted, but anyway, it's besides what we are looking for, i.e. the word "feeling" and how it is related to perception (as "touch") and unrelated to it (as "emotion").[Re "emothional" thinking] The evolution of conscious thinking seems to be built upon a foundation of sub-conscious feeling. :love: — Gnomon
Well, at risk of perpetuating a subject that is besides our main point (perception and consciousness), I have to let you know that it is the other way around: It is thinking (the mind) that produces feelings (emotions). This can be easily understood: You think (consciously) about an accident you had and this produces you fear, disgust or other emotion. Try it if you don't believe me.:smile: (But better think about something pleasant, not unpleasant!)Does thinking or emotion come first?
In the primary case, in the standard situation, feelings come first. Thoughts are ways of dealing with feelings — Gnomon
Not true, but whatever they are, they are thoughts, i.e. irrelevant with perception and, by extension, consciousness. Lower organisms can't think and yet they can pereive and are considered conscious. Only this observation explaina and can establish the direct relation of perception to consciousness, and the absence of any kind of thinking, concepts, feelings/emotions etc. in the equation.The mental images are abstract in the sense of lacking material substance ; not in the sense of lacking material substance — Gnomon
Certainly.in philosophy, words generally have field-specific meaning — AmadeusD
Maybe the other way around ... In order to be aware of something you must first perceive it, don't you?So, consciousness is actually very well understood to be the basis for sentience — AmadeusD
Does this mean that you just don't believe or trust what a person says or you can't debate what that person says or you don't trust your own reasoning, knowledge and jugment?I'll just note that I would expect references which would support the points being made, from the person making them — AmadeusD
I know that. And this is exactly what I objected to! :smile:I indicated self-awareness is not required for mechanistic reactions to stimuli without analysis. — AmadeusD
OK about the 1st, but not the 2nd: I never said that there is no sentience. In fact, I explained that "sentience" and "perception" are very close. I alo talked about what I often like to say: Consciousness is a characteristic of life; of sentient beings.You actually replied to my replacement for that theory ... There's no mental image or deliberation. No sentience. — AmadeusD
Well, I said that "sentient" by definition is "Having the power of perception by the senses; conscious."Recognition is a matter for sentience. — AmadeusD
I see that we go in circles. You just reject the definitions, descriptions and examples I'm bringing up.This seems extremely confused. Cognition is almost correlate of sentience and feeling — AmadeusD
EFA... is the "Ground" of Being, including both Mind & Matter. — Gnomon
EFA works only within the physical constraints of the only entropy-increasing world that we know via our senses, but understand via our reasoning & imagination. — Gnomon
Doesn't the term "Intelligibility" refer to an "intellect" or a "mind"? Isn't that giving mental properties to the sign? — JuanZu
I think you are picking up on the perplexing problem, with online philosophical dialogs, of using common conventional language, which is inherently materialistic/quantitative, to discuss immaterial/qualitative concepts, such as Consciousness.My conclusion allows me to claim that when you say:
EFA works only within the physical constraints of the only entropy-increasing world that we know via our senses, but understand via our reasoning & imagination. — Gnomon
You're referring to a realm of mind_matter monism. The mind/body problem is a problem due to a category error in physics_philosophy (mind_matter are two parallel categories). — ucarr
Regarding the interface linking object with observer, we have the question: What does each correspondent contribute to the interface?
If the observed object, in this case the sign, contributes no information to the interface, then we’re back to claiming the human mind dreams the details of the sign internally. This explanation must then further explain how, or if, any mind makes contact with an objective reality beyond itself. — ucarr
"Intelligible" simply means "able to be understood," as with the example of a book. Do you think something devoid of information can be understood? — ucarr
An entity is something that exists as itself. It does not need to be of material existence. — Gnomon
The information would not be something that passes or transits from one system to another (between a book and a reader), but rather it is generated. That is, it is not cause but effect. — JuanZu
I claim that the sign by itself does not "contribute" information at all. — JuanZu
...the subject does not contribute information either. — JuanZu
I just received my copy of Bernardo (BK) Kastrup's 2020 book, Science Ideated. He doesn't discuss the "Hard Problem" directly, but the subject matter seems to be pertinent to this thread. So, I'll mention a few first-glance quotes & comments here.In a nutshell: because correlation doesn’t explain consciousness. — Art48
This effect is generated by what cause? What is the location of this effect? (If you're theorizing an effect without a cause, elaborate essential details of this phenomenon). — ucarr
Also, imagine that nothing transits from the blank pages to the reader's brain. How does the reader glean a narrative from the book? — ucarr
I claim that the sign by itself does not "contribute" information at all. But, equally, the subject does not contribute information either. The information would not be something that passes or transits from one system to another (between a book and a reader), but rather it is generated. That is, it is not cause but effect. — JuanZu
but rather it (info) is generated. — JuanZu
...we say that a book has information, we also say that among all the ink marks there is something that, however, those ink marks are not. — JuanZu
...it is necessary to say that the information is not found there, neither in the book nor in the reader, but is produced as both systems of signs enter into some type of relation. — JuanZu
the information is not found there, neither in the book nor in the reader, but is produced as both systems of signs enter into some type of relation. — JuanZu
Mind/body questions are at the root of the Enformationism thesis. If you accept quantum physicist J. A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" conjecture, then Mental Information (Ideas) can in theory exert control over Material things. I could get into the Mind over Matter question deeply, but that would require a separate thread. Yet I doubt that it would be persuasive to a hard-core materialist. And to be clear, I am not talking about Magic.Since thought, the supposed immaterial medium of your metaphysical abstractions, manifests and functions as a physical activity of our physical brains, and spacetime, the medium through which empirical experience funds our thoughts, likewise is physical, you must, as many others before you have not, explain how things immaterial shape and control things material. — ucarr
Are you expecting a Scientific, or Philosophical, explanation on this forum? In addition to "spooky action at a distance", Quantum Physics raised unsettling metaphysical Mind over Matter questions with its observation that a scientific Measurement seems to reduce the Uncertainty of an entangled system, somehow causing it to "collapse", or manifest, from an undifferentiated non-local holistic state into a single physical particle of matter*1. Scientific "explanations" for phenomena that don't conform to Classical Physics are typically of the metaphysical philosophical type.Since thought, the supposed immaterial medium of your metaphysical abstractions, manifests and functions as a physical activity of our physical brains, and spacetime, the medium through which empirical experience funds our thoughts, likewise is physical, you must, as many others before you have not, explain how things immaterial shape and control things material. — ucarr
The only non-physical entities I'm aware of are Mental Phenomena (e.g. ideas), which I place into the philosophical category of Meta-physical. My use of that term is based on Aristotle's discussion of Nature*1 --- as a whole system of matter & mind. He describes metaphysics in terms of Causes. And in my thesis, EnFormAction (EFA) is the Causal agency of the universe (energy + laws), with the ability to transform one Form (relationship pattern) into another. So it is the origin of both Matter and Mind. But I did not intend to imply that Mind is a "component" of Matter.What does a non-physical entity emerge from? When you say mind emerges from matter, you imply mind is a component of matter and thus mind, like matter, is material. (See example directly below) — ucarr
In my thesis, there is indeed a close relationship between Energy and Consciousness. Both are emergent forms of a cosmic predecessor that I call EnFormAction. But each sub-form has its own characteristic properties. Energy is physical causation, but no material properties. Instead, in my hypothesis, tangible Matter --- mathematically defined in terms of Mass --- is what happens to Energy when the speed of Light slows down enough for a phase change (to Mass) to occur (E=MC^2). So, Light & Matter & Mind are different phases of the same Universal Substance (essence), to which I apply the modern term "Information", but translate into EnFormAction : the creative act of enforming (i.e. transformation or causation).I'm still on the energy-consciouness relation.
Our brains use 20 percent of our bodies total energy. In terms of power it's about as much as a 10 watt light bulb. So we should suspect consciousness is energy driven. I don't think that's the end of it though. Once we have functioning consciousness the subject matter can drive physical matter. — Mark Nyquist
I was making the point that since consciousness is mass and energy dependant then thoughts are not immaterial. — Mark Nyquist
Certainly. — Alkis Piskas
Maybe the other way around ... In order to be aware of something you must first perceive it, don't you? — Alkis Piskas
Does this mean that you just don't believe or trust what a person says or you can't debate what that person says or you don't trust your own reasoning, knowledge and jugment? — Alkis Piskas
How can you judge that if you can't judge what the person says in the first place? Or are you going to believe that authority unquestionably because it is a famous personality? Or are you going to start doubting or arguing about what that authority says or even about the authority iself? Wouldn't that end up in a vicious cycle?
It all loses its meaning, doesn't it? — Alkis Piskas
the final acceptance or rejection of a proposition will always depend on your own jugment. — Alkis Piskas
I know that. And this is exactly what I objected to! :smile: — Alkis Piskas
I explained that "sentience" and "perception" are very close. I alo talked about what I often like to say: Consciousness is a characteristic of life; of sentient beings. — Alkis Piskas
I see that we go in circles. You just reject the definitions, descriptions and examples I'm bringing up. — Alkis Piskas
Why don't you look up for yourself and clear the meaning of all these words/terms in a dictionary? Do you hate dictionaries as a lot of people in here do? — Alkis Piskas
Just rhetorical questions. I'm not interested in talking more about this subject. It's totally useless. — Alkis Piskas
The only non-physical entities I'm aware of are Mental Phenomena (e.g. ideas), which I place into the philosophical category of Meta-physical. — Gnomon
...I did not intend to imply that Mind is a "component" of Matter. — Gnomon
Quantum Physics raised unsettling metaphysical Mind over Matter questions with its observation that a scientific Measurement seems to reduce the Uncertainty of an entangled system, somehow causing it to "collapse", or manifest, from an undifferentiated non-local holistic state into a single physical particle of matter — Gnomon
Are you expecting a Scientific, or Philosophical, explanation on this forum? — Gnomon
My own theory of Consciousness has a "defect" similar to Panpsychism : jumbling Matter together with Mind. That's because the fundamental element of our real world is neither a physical thing, nor a metaphysical entity, but the not-yet-real Potential for both. Terrence Deacon calls it "constitutive absence", but I call it "causal information" (EnFormAction). Materialism & Spiritualism typically view Mind & Brain as incompatible opposites. But the BothAnd principle*3 allows us to see both sides of reality, where Mind & Matter are parts of a greater whole system : the enminded universe. — Gnomon
Materialism & Spiritualism typically view Mind & Brain as incompatible opposites. But the BothAnd principle*3 allows us to see both sides of reality, where Mind & Matter are parts of a greater whole system : the enminded universe. — Gnomon
*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. . . . Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does, as you re-frame the question. — Gnomon
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.