P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change — MoK

Nonsense. Abstractions do not "exist" (A. Meinong) and are not "subject to change". Thus your conclusions are invalid.

Also, "mind" is what sufficiently complex brains do – activity / process (i.e. mind-ing) – and is not a concrete thing. "Mind(ing)" causes brains no more than 'walking causes legs' or 'digesting causes intestines'. After all, there is no evidence whatsoever of (anything like) 'disembodied mind'.

Lastly, in nature "uncaused cause" is not unique since (e.g.) random – "uncaused" – radioactive decay causes EM static (i.e. radiation).

NB: Read Spinoza, forget Aristotle/Aquinas.

perhaps I may be confused by the way it's worded, but are you suggesting that experience is due to physicality with an event?

But I'm saying experience can be completely non physical. The quote I present is an older one that brings up this very notion, we can gain experience in dreams....

Unless you mean like we can only experience things because we have a body? But I would say then that the mind is caused by the body in that model.

Nonsense. Abstractions do not "exist" (A. Meinong) and are not "subject to change". Thus your conclusions are not valid. — 180 Proof

I am not talking about the abstract objects here. I am talking about experience. Are you denying that you experience and your experience is not subject to change?

Also, "mind" is what sufficiently complex brains do – activity / process (i.e. mind-ing) – and is not a concrete thing. "Mind(ing)" causes brains no more than 'walking causes legs' or 'digesting causes intestines'. — 180 Proof

Saying that the mind is the brain's activity or process does not add anything informative. Please read the rest of the argument.

Lastly, in nature "uncaused cause" is not unique since (e.g.) random – "uncaused" – radioactive decay causes EM static (i.e. radiation). — 180 Proof

I believe in De Broglie–Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics, so no Schrodinger cat paradox, no particle-wave duality, Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment is explained well, etc.

perhaps I may be confused by the way it's worded, but are you suggesting that experience is due to physicality with an event? — DifferentiatingEgg

I am saying that experience is due to physical. Physical is a substance, like the brain, without it experience is not possible.

:ok: Non sequiturs ... Whatever.

Are you familiar with Emergent Properties? For example, it's possible to show things exist between dimensions like 2d and 3d...

Our most current models suggest Consciousness is an emergent property of our fractally nested biology.

Are you familiar with Emergent Properties? For example, it's possible to show things exist between dimensions like 2d and 3d...

Our most current models suggest Consciousness is an emergent property of our fractally nested biology. — DifferentiatingEgg

Yes, I am aware of the emergence concept. Accepting that experience is an emergent property leads to epiphenomenalism in which experience does not have any causal power. This is however against intuition since we experience a fantastic correlation between experience and change in physical.

Non sequiturs ... Whatever. — 180 Proof

What is non sequiturs here?

I'm of the mind that one wouldn't classify experience as emergent just because the mind is?

I'm of the mind that one wouldn't classify experience as emergent just because the mind is? — DifferentiatingEgg

I am saying two things here: 1) Accepting that experience is an emergent property then we deal with epiphenomenalism and 2) Experience is not a substance so it has no causal power so it cannot cause a change in physical.

In fractal emergence, one shouldn't consider the mind as something that isnt fundamentally "the body." They are in essence one and the same.

They are bijected, and inject and surject into and out of each other.

In fractal emergence, one shouldn't consider the mind as something that isnt fundamentally "the body." They are in essence one and the same. — DifferentiatingEgg

The Mind is not the brain. The brain is physical, by physical I mean it is a sort of substance. Accepting that the brain and the mind are the same one commits monism. If they are the same thing then why use different words?

Accepting that the brain and the mind are the same one commits monism. — MoK

Not quite

If they are the same thing then why use different words? — MoK

Because the two have generally been perceived as existing through the antithesis of values rather than growing out of the body through fractal emergence.

Healthy body, aids in a healthy mind, and a healthy mind aids in a healthy body. The two opposites are intertwined together, they exist in a "hybrid" state. A coming together of two opposites along a gradational spectrum with bimodal extremes represented in language by "body and mind."

Just like everyone's genetic material is made up of male and female DNA, although our terms are defined "male" and "female" for example. However, in reality it's much more complex than that biologically, we know, for example a man can be living with inert female reproductive organs inside, regardless of there being the scientific definition at the SRY gene. There are still multiple gradations on either side which show statistical dominance towards a certain pole. Not that everyone is either 100% Man or 100% Woman...

Not quite — DifferentiatingEgg

No.

Because the two have generally been perceived as existing through the antithesis of values rather than growing out of the body through fractal emergence. — DifferentiatingEgg

How do you distinguish between the mind and the brain? What is your definition of the mind?

We can think of it like this: the software and hardware of the body both grow out of the FIRMWARE of the body.

Hardware being muscles, bones, organs innervated by the CNS.

Firmware is the Central Nervous System and Autonomic/Peripheral Nervous System

Mind is emergent cognition (software) that arises out of the CNS (firmware), shaped by body (hardware) and experience.

The brain creates it's own dynamic model of the body which can persist irrespective of reality. Cut off your arm, and you'll experience a phantom limb, because the mind and body are so deeply intereconnected.

To suggest they are seperate from each other, is due to one holding steadfastly adamant to Cartesian Dualism. Which is fine, but that manner of thought is not compatible with this manner is all.

We can think of it like this: the software and hardware of the body both grow out of the FIRMWARE of the body. — DifferentiatingEgg

Software is nothing but an arrangement of bytes of memory in a hardware. So it is not a thing by itself.

Mind is emergent cognition (software) that arises out of the CNS (firmware), shaped by body (hardware) and experience. — DifferentiatingEgg

So to you, the mind is an arrangement of physical? What is an experience to you and why it is relevant if the brain is merely software and hardware and can work on its own?

Software is nothing but an arrangement of bytes of memory in a hardware. So it is not a thing by itself. — MoK

Exactly the point... the mind doesn't exist as a thing by itself.

What is an experience to you — MoK

That's why I quoted:
"Quidquid luce fuit, tenebris agit [What occurred in the light, goes on in the dark]: but the other way around, too."

Experience is something we can gain from both our internal and external world.

Exactly the point... the mind doesn't exist as a thing by itself. — DifferentiatingEgg

To you, but not to me. I have an argument for it, the OP.

By the way, could you please answer my other question as well: What is an experience to you, and why it is relevant if the brain is merely software and hardware and can work on its own?

Sorry, made a late edit:

That's why I quoted:
"Quidquid luce fuit, tenebris agit [What occurred in the light, goes on in the dark]: but the other way around, too."

Experience is something we can gain from both our internal and external world. It doesn't "work on it's own" it is a dynamic model created from inputs (and outputs, which are injections, and thus inputs too...in this case) from our internal and external world.

Sorry, made a late edit: — DifferentiatingEgg

No problem.

"Quidquid luce fuit, tenebris agit [What occurred in the light, goes on in the dark]: but the other way around, too." — DifferentiatingEgg

I don't understand what you mean by that and how that could be relevant to the discussion.

Experience is something we can gain from both our internal and external world. — DifferentiatingEgg

That is very ambiguous to me. To me, that is a definition of knowledge. Do you mind elaborating?

It doesn't "work on it's own" it is a dynamic model created from inputs from our internal and external world. — DifferentiatingEgg

So again, if we accept that the mind is the software and the brain is the hardware then the brain can work on its own. What is the role of experience here?

I don't understand what you mean by that and how that could be relevant to the discussion. — MoK

What it is saying is that what we experience in the external world affects even our internal world. But also that what we experience in our internal world affects our external world also. As in, it's a two-way street. Experience isn't just a "physical" phenomenon...

That is very ambiguous to me. To me, that is a definition of knowledge. Do you mind elaborating? — MoK

Something isn't known until it's in the muscle memory...

For example, you don't know 5x5=25 if you have to solve 5x5 every time...

Knowing 5x5 = 25 automatically, without conscious thought, is the result of muscle memory.

What it is saying is that what we experience in the external world affects even our internal world. But also that what we experience in our internal world affects our external world also. As in, it's a two-way street. — DifferentiatingEgg

I agree with that.

Experience isn't just a "physical" phenomenon... — DifferentiatingEgg

But you cannot deny its existence and the fact that it affects the physical such as the brain. My question is how experience can affect the brain?

But you cannot deny its existence and the fact that it affects the physical such as the brain. My question is how experience can affect the brain? — MoK

Not trying to deny it's existence. Experience affects the brain through things like neuroplasticity. Which is pretty much a self referential and self affirming as experience even reinforces it's own self through the genesis of neuroplasticity, which makes it more and more likely something will be utilized.

Not trying to deny it's existence. Experience affects the brain through things like neuroplasticity. Which is pretty much a self referential and self affirming as experience even reinforces it's own self through the genesis of neuroplasticity, which makes it more and more likely something will be utilized. — DifferentiatingEgg

But experience is not a substance so how it could affect the brain?

Experience is encoded and processed by the brain through a complex biological network.

A person can physically sense a phantom limb... like say you pretend to shock the phantom arm of where a person believes their phantom limb is currently at (a limb that exists due to the dynamic model created by processing experience) it will register on an EKG as if they were shocked. In otherwords it is completely immaterial and causes a physiological stimulus.

Experience is encoded and processed by the brain through a complex biological network. — DifferentiatingEgg

Yes, the experience is encoded in the brain. I am saying something different though: How the experience can cause a change in the brain knowing that it is not a substance? Let me give you an example: We are discussing a topic right now. Let's focus on me for the sake of simplicity. I read your post and have a sort of experience. This experience, then is encoded into my brain for further analysis. I am interested to know what causes the change in my brain to allow the experience to be encoded in my brain. I am arguing that that thing cannot be the experience itself since the experience is not a substance so we need a substance that can cause a change in my brain.

Patterns of neural activity occur when the brain processes input/information, whatever we wanna call it, from the mind and or the external world. Patterns of neural activity are specific arrangements and sequences of electrochemical signals that occur within the brain's network.

Patterns of neural activity occur when the brain processes input/information, whatever we wanna call it, from the mind and or the external world. Patterns of neural activity are specific arrangements and sequences of electrochemical signals that occur within the brain's network. — DifferentiatingEgg

It seems to me that you didn't read my post carefully.

Wrong thread. Post deleted.