in my view he doesn't wrestle with the question of ipseity, the nature of subjective awareness as such. — Wayfarer

So then he doesn't get specific. Which sounds something like in there neighborhood of vague to me. Anyway, I have Mind in Life. I hope to get to it soon.

We have much in common physiologically speaking. I seems to me that the greatest divergence consists in the ways we each interpret the general nature of experience. — Janus

I think we have at least a couple of major differences. Going back to an earlier conversation, I can definitely look at something, and be aware that I'm looking at it, at the same time. I can talk about my awareness of looking at it, and anything else about it, and I will still notice if something blocks my vision of the thing, moves it, throws paint on it... I wouldn't see it move or change if I was not still looking at it while discussing my awareness of looking at it.

If you cannot do that, then we are very different.

I think it's a vague way of approaching the issue, and I think it has to be. Part of what Nagel was saying is that we can't understand what it's like to be a bat. We're too different to even pretend we can imagine being a bat.

But we can still consider whether there's anything it's like. As opposed to what it's like to be a rock. There's nothing it's like to be a rock. Who thinks a bat's subjective experience is as absent as a rock's?

I didn't mean those conditions specifically. I just used them as things that are sometimes very different from one person to another. You and I are not always simply interpreting things differently.

↪Patterner I don't know about you, but all my feelings seem physical, visceral, bodily, to me. Even mental associations, such as I may experience when reading, looking at artworks, listening to music or thinking about someone I love, evoke feelings I can only understand and describe as bodily. — Janus

You and I seem to be very different. :rofl: This isn't the first time our conversation has made me think of things like aphantasia and anaduralia. I don't know which of us lacks this or that ability that the other has, but we experience life very differently.

Sorry. It was getting late, and I forgot to finish my thoughts.

Does it just mean that the animal feels something then? — Janus

I believe that's what Nagel means. I think "There's something it's likes to be a bat" means "There's something it feels like to be a bat." But not a physical feeling. At least not only physical feelings. Do you have a feeling of your own existence aside from your physical body? Yes, we feel when our skin is torn. But we have a feeling about pain. We feel different ways about different people. We feel a certain way about one genre of music, but differently about another. We have feelings about specific pieces of music. I have very strong feelings about various instrumental works be Bach, Beethoven, and others. The last half of Layla, by Derek and the a Dominoes is a good example. We feel certain ways about political issues and moral issues. We feel love and hate. Many different feelings and types of feelings. And it all combines into what it's like to be me.

Animals don't have feelings about political issues. I doubt they have moral concepts. What about music; food; being chased, or hugged, by a human? Which animals is there something it is like to be? Which are self-reflectively aware?

Does it just mean that the animal feels something then? — Janus

I believe that's what Nagel means. I think "There's something it's likes to be a bat" means "There's something it feels like to be a bat.". But not a physical feeling.

ChatGPT doesn't play with language in the sense I mean. It is programmed to sample vast amounts of relevant language and predict the most appropriate sentences to any question as I understand it. It doesn't claim to be self-reflective either. — Janus

I don't know enough about ChatGPT to know if it's a good example of the idea that's only half-baked in my head. I'm wondering what you mean by "playing with language". How does that come about? Can we program a computer to do that? If so, does that mean it's self-reflectively aware? Even if it doesn't claim to be? If it needs to claim to be, but doesn't, what is it about us that makes us claim to be, despite the fact that we aren't? What extra programming would we have to give the computer?

The idea of things going on "in the dark" may be an incoherent idea. Do things go on in the dark for animals if they cannot be self-reflectively aware? — Janus

Not necessarily. I don't think subjective experience and self-reflective awareness are the same thing. If there's something it's like to be the entity, to the entity, then all the physical things and processes that make it up are not taking place "in the dark". I couldn't guess what level of complexity is needed for that subjective experience, but I wouldn't assume it doesn't happen until self-reflective awareness comes about.

If all the mental abilities I have that a mouse doesn't were taken from me, making me the equivalent of a mouse, mouse-me would surely not remember what it's like to be human-me. Mouse-I wouldn't have the capacity for the thoughts and memories, or any conception, of human-me.

But when my human capacities were restored, would I have any recollection of what it was like to be the mouse? Even a vague impression? Surely more than what I would have if I had been a rock.

Are we really self-reflectively aware or are we just playing with language? — Janus

I don't understand how this works. If we program computers to play with language in this way, if ChatGPT does it, would it falsely believe it is self-reflectively aware? It seems like pretending to be conscious.

Having a multitude of different thoughts at exactly the same time, is exactly what a complex concept is. Consider a relatively simple complex concept, like "right angle triangle". That concept consists of "triangle", which is itself complex, and also "right angle" which is complex. So there's a number of different ideas tied up in understanding "right angle triangle". Now consider "Pythagorean theorem". This consists not only of "right angle triangle", but a bunch more ideas about the relationships between the lengths of the sides of that type of triangle. It appears that to adequately understand "Pythagorean theorem", a person must be able to have all these ideas in one's mind at the same time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, all you say is certainly right. However, can you look at that paragraph of yours that I quoted and write it on paper, or type it, while doing fairly simple math? Something along the lines of 673x8. Or 435+62+787. It seems to me the things you are taking about are related ideas. One thing building on the other. But there's no connection between writing those sentences and sound math problems. Thinking entirely different types of thoughts is more difficult, and possibly impossible beyond a certain level of complexity.

Hopefully, not whilst driving.

Perhaps the law on the use of mobile phones whilst driving shows that even the Government accepts the difficulty in carrying out two acts both requiring different thoughts at the same time. — RussellA

I plead the 5th.

In practice, it seems that humans have great difficulty in having two different thoughts at (exactly) the same time. — RussellA

Indeed. I'm sure it can be done to at least some degree, even if not to that which people generally assume. There's definitely a lot of jumping back and forth very quickly taking place.

The singing could have been employing a "muscle memory" rather than active thought, allowing you do carry out another task that did require an active thought. — RussellA

I'm sure at least some degree of muscle memory is involved in singing. Even with speaking. Neither as much as playing an instrument, though. Having played the piano for many years, I'm very familiar with it. An aspect of Mozart's extraordinary musical abilities was doubtless due to it. He is said to have composed pieces while performing other pieces. I would imagine that was possible because his muscle memory was so complete he wasn't thinking about the music he was performing at all. Which would free his mind for thinking about other music.

I believe singing is different. You can press a key on the piano without thinking about anything at all musical. When singing, however, you are actually producing the music. That can't be done without thinking about the music.

It's a very interesting topic. I will have to experiment on this.

I will also have to experiment in non-musical ways. I'm going to try doing some math while writing sentences. The only muscle memory that could be involved in that is the writing of individual letters, and possibly words. But there couldn't be muscle memory for entire sentences, Unless they are sentences I have written many times, like a student being punished in school by having to write something on the board 100 times. I don't remember ever having to do that, but certainly I won't pick anything that could conceivably be an example of that.

I tried writing "four" whilst speaking "four". The problem was that it took me four times as long to write "four" as to speak "four", meaning that it was difficult to know whether I was thinking about writing the word at the same time as I was thinking about speaking the word. — RussellA

I did not try writing what I was speaking so that I would not be wondering that very thing. I also suggest both things be of longer duration than one word.

You must come up with at least some premises which are objective i.e. omnipotent being(s) as God in the traditional religions, which we know of in their properties of the deities. — Corvus

Neither the title of the thread nor your OP mention God or religion. I thought the idea would be to discuss the concept of omnipotence. I didn't know you are only interested in discussing God, and how omnipotence fits a particular religion's needs. I have less than no interest in such a discussion. But we are all entitled to discuss what we want to discuss. This is your thread, so have at it, and enjoy! :grin:

That is my logical inference. If you think it is not correct, then prove it. — Corvus

I don't have to prove my logical inference any more than you have to prove yours. There is no reason to think an omnipotent being cannot choose to ceasr to exist.

Talking about a non-existing hypothetical being with omnipotence is not really going you get you anywhere. — Corvus

Talking about non-existent deities, and the characteristics people made up for them, is going to get you exactly the same place. Any ideas we come up with for our hypothesized beings are as valid as the ideas people in the past came up with for their hypothesized beings.

If a being is omnipotent, then the being cannot die. If being can die, then it is not an omnipotent being. — Corvus

Do you have any support for this idea?

You seem to be talking about an omnipotent being which doesn't exist. — Corvus

Of course that's what I'm talking about. I have literally said I'm talking about a hypothetical omnipotent being. I said it twice, in fact.

If there was such a being, would I have any justification for thinking there are limits to what it can do, or what forms it could take?

However, if you have ever taken a look at how this multitasking actually occurs, you'll see that there is constant switching of which act receives priority.
— Metaphysician Undercover

That is exactly what I am saying, attention is switched between events, first one, then the other. But not at the same time. — RussellA

I try to test this on myself from time to time. For example, I just wrote "Four score and seven years ago" while singing Yesterday. I sang continuously. There were times when I stopped writing after one word or another, but I kept the song going, and started writing again.

I'm often amazed beyond description by the speed and scale at which things happen. So I can't guarantee I don't switch back and forth every few microseconds. But it certainly doesn't seem that that's the case.

I can have the thought of coldness, and can then have the thought of hotness, but the question is, is it possible to have a single thought of both coldness and hotness at the same time. — RussellA

Yes, that's the real question. I'm just saying you can receive conflicting feelings from your finger simultaneously. I wonder if, if the ice and match are close enough together, it might feel as though the conflicting feelings are coming from the exact same spot.

If it were possible to have two contradictory thoughts at the same time, then I could feel pain in my finger and not feel pain in my finger at the same time. — RussellA

That's having contradictory feelings in your finger at the same time, not having contradictory thoughts at the same time. If one part of your finger is touching an ice cube, and you hold a match to another part of your finger, then you would be feeling hot and cold in your finger at the same time.

If I had not been born, then I would not be writing this post
I am writing this post
Therefore I was born — RussellA

If you did not exist, then you would not be writing that post. Perhaps you were created in a lab. Or you are a computer program. Or you are an eternal being that has always existed, and you erase your memory every so often in order to remain sane.

I guess it depends on your definition of God. But I'm not talking about that. I'm taking about whether or not an omnipotent being can commit suicide. I don't see why it would not be possible.

Omnipotence is just one of the alleged properties of God, and before we could discuss about omnipotence, it would be clearer, if you let me know which God you are talking about, and what type of existence your God has. — Corvus

I am not talking about any God/god/deity at all. I am speaking about a hypothetical omnipotent being.

From this perspective, God could be a force, which was omnipotent.  The force cannot be killed, because it is not a biological bodily existence.  Could it kill itself?   How can it kill itself, when it is impossible to be killed? — Corvus

Is the statement "The force cannot be killed, because it is not a biological bodily existence" an established fact? Perhaps a natural law? If so, I would be interested in hearing about it.

First, we need to make clear which God we are talking about, and then what type of existence the God has, before going on to talking about the other properties of God. — Corvus

Being omnipotent, I would think the being could assume any type of existence it wanted, at any time it wanted, and still be able to do whatever it wanted at any moment. Assume the form of a grain of sand for a million years. Then human form for a billion. Then the form of a cluster of galaxies for a few minutes. Then a solar flare. A rainstorm. On and on. I would think the important aspect of the being at all times, regardless of the form it assumes, is it's omnipotence.

The bible says he is the almighty God, and he has demonstrated some miraculous events in the bible, but do you have any evidence to support that story? — Corvus

I do not. Nor do I believe that story actually took place. I also don't believe the Marvel story of the Beyonder.

But then is God in bodily existence just like humans? No, my reasoning tells me it isn't. If God was a biological bodily existence, then s/he will get old and die just like humans. — Corvus

I would say this depends on the particular belief system. For example, the Bible says man was made in God's image, and that Adam and Eve hid when they heard the sound of God walking in the Garden. So it is possible some people believe God was in human form. In Marvel comics, the omnipotent being known as the Beyonder put himself in human form. I don't know of a reason an omnipotent being could not be in human form. Do you?

However, stipulating a hypothesized omnipotent being is not in human form, but is "force and spirit," I am not aware of a reason this being would not be able to die. Or, if this being cannot be said to be "alive" in the first place, but exists, then I am not aware of a reason this being cannot cease to exist. Are you?

You definitely said they are invalid. Hence this talking is going on now. — Corvus

Yes, I did. I am no longer saying they are invalid, and have not said it in several posts. Can we move on?

Why should assumption be supported or clarified? Assumptions are made so they could be either verified to be right or wrong. — Corvus

Ok, they are not to be clarified, they are to be verified. How do you propose to verify whether they are right or wrong? What is the method of achieving verification? Would it involve saying why you make these assumptions? Or saying anything whatsoever beyond making the original statements? Or is stating the assumptions the beginning and end of the verification process?

I am not saying they are invalid. I have not used that word in several posts. I have backed things up. I am asking if you can support or clarify these assumptions. I don't understand why you are assuming these things. Can you help me understand why you are assuming them?

Yes. I now understand they are not your concluding claims. They are assumptions. I'm asking if you can support or clarify your assumptions.

force and spirit is outside of the boundary of physical death. — Corvus

Can you support this? I an not familiar enough with beings of force and spirit to know why they cannot die/cease to be.

Omnipotence means that it is powerful to win, resist or make anything possible. If omnipotent being could be killed either by itself or others, then it means that the omnipotent being was not omnipotent — Corvus

Can you clarify this? I don't know why an omnipotent being could not kill itself. If its idea of "winning" is no longer existing, could it not make that possible?

you must supply the reason why they are invalid. — Corvus

You need not supply the reason why your statements are valid in the first place, but I must supply the reason why they are not?

Your assumptions are just assumptions. If you support them, I might be swayed. Or I might not be swayed, and might offer a counter argument.

But if you don't support them, there is no conversation regarding them to be had.

In essence, that's what I just said to you. You are making claims without logical or evidential support. What evidence is there that an omnipotent being cannot commit suicide? What evidence is there that only physical beings can die?

At 1pm a person has the thought to reach out for a cup of coffee.

Free will means that at 1pm that person could equally have had the thought not to reach out for the cup of coffee.
— RussellA

Free will is not about the thoughts, it concerns the acts. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. Free will means, regardless of what actually happened, whether the cup of coffee was picked up or not, it could have gone the other way. Unlike a pool table, where, once in motion, the balls can only end up in one exact arrangement, due to the laws of physics. The same with all the air molecules in a room. We know statistically how they will behave. But we can't calculate even one molecule's position one minute into the future, because there are more factors involved than we are capable of keeping track of. But all of those factors determine where each molecule will be in one minute, and there is no possibility that they can be anywhere else.

But if the existence of God is non-bodily existence such as force or spirit, then self killing would be impossible, because force and spirit is outside of the boundary of physical death. — Corvus

I don't see any reason to assume this. We can't know such things about a being of force and spirit. And we don't know that death cannot come to non-physical things.

How can one kill someone who is omnipotent? Omnipotence means that it is powerful to win, resist or make anything possible. If omnipotent being could be killed either by itself or others, then it means that the omnipotent being was not omnipotent, hence it is a paradox to believe that omnipotent being could kill itself. — Corvus

I imagine killing an omnipotent being would be more than somewhat difficulty. I don't know why an omnipotent being couldn't kill itself.

These things seem to be axioms of your position. But I don't think they are valid.

I don't see why an omnipotent being couldn't commit suicide. I agree, there's no puzzle.

I disagree with the assertions that an omnipotent being can do paradoxical or logically impossible things. I don't know why that would be. Perhaps this being could create a reality in which a square circle is not a contradiction, although I don't know what such a reality would be like. Similar enough to our own that such concepts exist, but where they can both be embodied in one item? I'm skeptical.

But no amount of power can make such a thing in our reality.

Oops. Typo. Matt = not.

My point is that just because said omnipotent being can arrange to be reincarnated doesn't mean they must.

Surely if a being is omnipotent, then he can reincarnate himself too. — Corvus

This is not the same as:
Surely if a being is omnipotent, then he must reincarnate himself too.

Yes, that happens all the time. I couldn't guess all the reasons for it, but I'm sure there have been many studies done. A few possibilities...
-Sometimes someone didn't really see, and they fill in some details. They kind of assume what must have happened, and embrace the story to the point that they think it's what they saw. I think the term is confabulation. Not lying, because they believe it.
-Sometimes someone doesn't remember as well as someone else.
-Even if two people are on the same corner, they aren't looking at the exact same thing at the exact same time from the exact same angle. It's impossible, and sometimes it's very different. They could have been looking at different cars. Or paying more attention to the driver that they thought was cute than what the driver was doing.

Anyway, that's not at all what I'm talking about. I mean take a pad and pencil into a room in a building you never saw before, and describe and draw what you see. Have another person who has never seen that building do the same, and compare your drawings and descriptions. Or each of you take different cameras. Have the other person put their photos with a bunch of photos taken elsewhere, and see if you can pick out the ones that the other person took of that room that you saw.

There is an objective reality outside of our minds. Our senses reveal at least certain aspects of it, so we can navigate it.

Do you know there's a realm lying beyond yours and other persons perceptions that's analogous to those perceptions? — ucarr

I do. If there wasn't, we wouldn't perceive the same thing. No matter how we test or verify it, we see the same thing. The reason is because we independently perceive the same thing outside of our minds. That's the function of our perceptions. Why would we have these gelatinous orbs that seem to let us know what is out there, a conclusion which all of our scientific methods of studying confirms, if that wasn't what's going on? We can philosophize about it all we want, but that's what's going on.

Anyway, I think I've explained my position about as well as i can, — Janus

I had hoped for some specifics. If what consciousness seems to be is an illusion, what is it really? What is the explanation for the existence of the illusion? How do the physical properties of matter and laws of physics give rise to the subjective experience of the physical processes that they are obviously acting out, as opposed to those physical processes taking place without the subjective experience (as Chalmers says, "in the dark")?

But if you're done, perhaps others will give their ideas. A thread dedicated to any physicalist explanation would be great. Of course, every thread begun to explore any particular approach to the issue soon turns into a debate. I wonder if there's any chance mods would enforce rules for such a thread.

Although I might be the only person who thinks such a thread might be valuable.

Sorry for misinterpreting you. Looking at your previous posts, I see what you meant, and am rather annoyed with myself.

It certainly doesn't seem otherworldly to me — Janus

As it's in this world, it's obviously not otherworldly.

and this world definitely seems physical through and through. — Janus

Since there is no physical explanation for consciousness, it's possible consciousness is not physical through and through.

From a neuroscientific perspective it does seem to be a physical process. — Janus

The physical is certainly an essential ingredient.