Seeing a cup in a location is your private perception. It lacks objective ground for anything being coherent. — Corvus

We couldn't possibly live in a reality that is not coherent.

It makes more crucial and important part of your experience is excluded from your premise, while relying on your personal subjective seeing a cup as ground for your belief on the contents of your experience being coherent. There is always possibility what you are seeing could be illusions. — Corvus

We couldn't possibly depend on our experiences if what we experience is a mere illusion.

When something is coherent, it is meaningful. demonstrable, provable and verifiable. — Corvus

None of these. Something is coherent when it is consistent.

Can you prove your seeing a cup is coherent? — Corvus

I don't need to prove it. It is a brute fact.

Beliefs and thoughts of people are part of the world which you experience in daily life. — Corvus

But beliefs and thoughts could be incoherent. That is why I want to exclude them from the discussion. That does not mean that the ultimate understanding of reality is incoherent. The ultimate understanding of reality has to be coherent but we don't have it yet so we have wait for it.

Computers are tools for information storage, retrieval and searches for information. They are also communication tools. They are not coherent or incoherent. — Corvus

Of course, your computer is coherent. Yet get on the screen what you type on the keyboard for example.

I think you refer to experience as a tabula rasa. — JuanZu

I didn't say that the experience is tabula rasa. The experience has a texture and is the result of the mind perceiving the object. The object has a set of properties one of them being Qualia, namely the property that appears to the mind. The object has other properties allowing it to interact with the brain as well.

But haven't you read Kant? — JuanZu

I haven't read Kant.

The subject structures that which provides us with the senses. — JuanZu

That is the duty of the brain to structure what the mind perceives, namely the object.

In that sense "coherence" is not given by the object, but in the interaction between the subject and the object. The subject is also active in the shaping of experience. — JuanZu

Well, excluding thought processes, all the mind perceives is unconditionally coherent and this is the result of the object being coherent. Of course, the object is coherent because it is shaped by brain activity.

On what basis do you say that experience cannot be "coherent"? That requires a demonstration. For it makes much more sense to see experience as composed of forms of sensibility (space and time) and categories of the understanding. Otherwise experience would be chaos of stimuli. — JuanZu

I didn't say that the experience cannot be coherent. I said that it does not have the capacity to be coherent. I think I should have said that the experience does not have the capacity to be coherent on its own (I changed the OP accordingly). That follows from the definition of experience as a conscious event that is informative and coherent. An event is something that happens or takes place so its coherence cannot be due to itself but something else namely the object.

P1 is not about subject and object. It predicates coherence to experience. — Banno

Correct. I however wonder how through existential generalization one can conclude the existence of the object from the experience. This is the first time that I become familiar with existential generalization so I need your help to understand this. Would you mind elaborating?

My question also. — Wayfarer

A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties or abilities. We have at least three substances in the case of the person, namely the mind, the object, and the body/brain. The mind is a substance with the ability to perceive and cause the object. The object is another substance that is perceived and caused by the mind and has its own properties, namely Qualia for example. The last substance is the brain which is a physical substance with properties that everybody knows. I have to say that the object is also a physical substance that interacts with the brain. It is however a very light substance so it cannot affect the brain significantly while it can be affected by the brain.

Subject of experience. Not simply human subjects, but sentient beings, generally. — Wayfarer

Ok, I see, I changed the argument slightly to avoid confusion between the subject that I used as a synonym as experience, and the subject as experiencer.

"I feel happy." (subject verb object) — PoeticUniverse

By the object, I don't mean a mental thing but something physical that exists and has a set of properties.

So, awareness experiences the qualia-form information given from the neural-form information. note that the information has two forms. — PoeticUniverse

There are indeed two substances (apart from the mind), namely the brain and the object, and each has its own properties. The properties of the brain are the location and motion of its parts whereas the properties of the object are Qualia. The mind does not experience the brain but the object.

It does not make sense to say, your seeing a cup with a set of properties in a location is  the ground for the experience being coherent. — Corvus

It makes perfect sense.

You are bound to have plenty of other experiences that are incoherent such as what other people feel, believe and think in their minds, and how they will act, decide or behave in the future etc etc. — Corvus

I am not talking about people's beliefs and thoughts.

You won't quite be sure why you dreamt what you dreamt in your sleep, and you won't know what you will see in your dreams in the future etc etc. — Corvus

I am not talking about dreams here but our experiences when awake. Dreams are an example of incoherent experiences though so it should make sense to you when I speak about coherence in our experiences when we are awake.

Another problem is just saying, your seeing a cup in front of you, cannot be the object ground for your experience being coherent, because no one knows what you are seeing or perceiving in your mind just by listening to your statement or claim on what you were seeing. — Corvus

Then consider your computer. Is your experience of your computer coherent?

There is also possibility that what you were seeing was an illusion, not real perception too. — Corvus

I am talking about my experience to be coherent only.

A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties or abilities. The physical substance has a shape, location, etc. as its properties. The object has the properties of the so-called Qualia. The mind has the ability to perceive and cause the object.

So then the mind is physical? — DifferentiatingEgg

No, the physical substance is another category, such as my body, a cup of tea, etc. so to summarize we have at least three substances, the mind, the object, and the physical.

How do you know they are coherent? What is the ground for your experience being coherent? — Corvus

I already elaborated on the coherence in reality when I discussed my cup of tea here.

Is Mok a substance? He exists and has a set of properties. — Corvus

My body is a substance, it is a physical substance. There are two other substances that are discussed in the OP, namely the mind and the object. The mind is a substance with the ability to perceive and cause the object. The object is another substance with a set of properties so-called Qualia.

Where is the objects then? What does the object denote in actuality? — Corvus

The object is a substance that is perceived by the mind. Please see the last comment.

What is mental substance? — DifferentiatingEgg

Up to here, I introduce two substances, namely the mind, and object. The mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause the object whereas the object is a substance with a set of properties so-called Qualia.

It doesn't—stiumulus happens at the extroceptors (external senesory organs). And moves internally...through physical substances. Perceptions ARE physical realities. — DifferentiatingEgg

Without the mind, we cannot possibly perceive anything.

In other words, the subject consciousness' substance content is qualia, which the object subconscious substance doesn't have, but if the brain's internal language is qualia, then when the qualia is broadcast at large, the brain indirectly learns about the information the object contains. — PoeticUniverse

I think we have three substances when it comes to a person, namely the brain, the object, and the mind. The object has a set of properties so-called Qualia. The mind directly perceives the object and gets informed about the content of the object. The object is subject to change depending on neuronal processes in the brain.

I think I can see what you're trying to prove here, but it's very garbled. — Wayfarer

Thank you very much for your interest and understanding. I am glad that you understand what I am trying to argue here.

The first three terms, 'experience, subject, conscious event' are all very philosophically thick terms that by themselves have been subject to volumes of literature. — Wayfarer

I studied the philosophy of mind to a good extent. I know the literature is very extensive on each of these terms.

Conjoining them in such a dense sentence doesn't do justice to their meaning. — Wayfarer

I am aware of that. I normally try to provide a condensed OP as a base for the discussion and elaborate later when it is necessary.

So, is 'the subject' an 'event'? I would think not, because 'events' exist in time, they have a discrete beginning and end. Subjects of experience are different from events on those grounds in that they are persistent through time and even through changes of state. — Wayfarer

By event, I mean something that happens or takes place. The event could have duration depending on the subject of focus of the conscious mind. Perhaps there is a better term for what I am trying to say.

Experiences are undergone by the subject, and they are coherent insofar as the subject is able to integrate them with their previous experiences, so that we know how to interpret the experience. — Wayfarer

What do you mean by the subject here? Person? If yes, I agree with what you said. I however use subject as a synonym as experience. Please reread my argument given my definition of the subject and tell me what you think.

Notice that 'Substance' in philosophy has a completely different meaning than it does in regular discourse. Generally 'substance' is a 'material with uniform properties' (e.g. a liquid substance, a metal substance etc). In philosophy, the word has a different meaning. It was introduced as the Latin 'substantia' in translation for the Greek 'ousia', which is nearer in meaning to 'being' or 'subject'. — Wayfarer

By substance, I mean something that exists and has a set of properties or abilities.

In many discussions of 'substance' in philosophy, this distinction is lost, leading to the question of what kind of 'substance' the mind might be, which is an absurd question. It is the fatal flaw in Cartesian dualism, one which Descartes himself could never answer. The mind is not a 'thinking thing' in any sense other than the metaphorical. Reducing it to a 'thinking substance' is an absurdity. (This is why Aristotle's matter-form dualism retains a plausibility that Cartesian dualism never exhibited.) — Wayfarer

The mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause another substance, the object. The object is a substance with a set of properties, so-called Qualia.

Might be an existential generalisation: Experience is "informative and coherent" therefore something is "informative and coherent"

Experience is coherent, therefore something is coherent. — Banno

I am not a logician but from what I read on Wiki P1 and C1 are not an example of existential generalization since the subject and object are two different things. Here, I want to argue the existence of a substance that carries the information and is coherent from the fact that experience is informative and coherent.

...is pretty obtuse. However, a thermostat "perceives" the temperature, it's content. If the information is not "perceived" by the thermostat then it could not turn on the heater. — Banno

By perceiving here I mean the object gets access to the content it carries, the information, in the form of experience. The thermostat in this sense does not perceive anything since its perception is not a form of experience.

And here's the rub; if substance dualism is correct, and there are two different substances, then the problem becomes how they interact. If mind is a seperate substance to body, how is it that a body can be perceived by a mind, and how is it that a mind can change a body? — Banno

In this thread, I am interested in answering the first question. I will open another thread in the future to answer the second question. We have three substances here, namely the brain which is a physical substance, the object, and the mind. The brain to the best of our understanding is a set of connected neurons. The function of the brain can be understood from the behavior of neurons though. The mind, however, does not have direct access to the brain or neurons by this I mean that the mind does not directly perceive the brain or neurons. Therefore, there is a substance, the object, which intervenes between the brain and the mind. The object is the substance and it changes depending on the neural processes in the brain and is the substance that the mind directly perceives. The object has a set of properties so-called Qualia simply the texture of our experiences. I have to say, that in this thread I was initially interested in discussing the mind and object only. This means that we are dealing with two substances hence the substance dualism. When it comes to a person, we however need three substances at least. So I have to discuss the brain as an extra substance since you asked for the interaction between the body and the mind.

Then there is no more to be said. — Banno

I meant that thoughts/reasons are not a good example of our experiences since they could be right or wrong, coherent or incoherent. Here, I am mostly interested in those examples of our experiences that are coherent, our experiences of reality for example.

In that case, it is nothing to do with coherence. You cannot claim coherence from experience when you are not interested in right or wrong. Something is coherent if it makes sense. Making sense is possible when something is reasonable. — Corvus

As I said, the reason can be right or wrong, so it is not a good example for our discussion. The rest of our experiences are, however, coherent. For example, the cup of tea on my table has a specific location, shape, and color. These properties are not subject to change unless I intervene and change the location of the cup, for example. The cup does not move on its own, it does not disappear, etc. When I move the cup, the motion is as I intended. To summarise, our experiences are coherent, excluding thoughts that are sometimes coherent and sometimes not.

What is the substance? — Corvus

A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties.

Would it be objects in your experience? — Corvus

I perceive the object by this I mean I get access to its content, the information that it carries. The object is not in my experience.

Why use the word substance? — Corvus

Because it is needed for the sake of discussion.

The word substance is not clear in the context. — Corvus

I hope it is clear by now.

Dido - Do You Have a Little Time



Dido - White Flag

The coherence must be from your reasoning. — Corvus

I am not interested in reasoning here. The reasoning could be right or wrong. What I am interested in is reality as we experience it.

What is the substance in your experience? We don't see or know anything about a substance in our experience. We know about the content of experience, not a substance. — Corvus

I don't have direct access to the substance, the object here. I am arguing in favor of it. I have direct access to my experiences only.

Our experience is not always coherent. Some are, and some are not. So, it is already unclear from the start. — Corvus

Our experiences, excluding our thoughts, are always coherent. Just look around and give me an example of a single experience that is not coherent. Reality is coherent hence our experiences too.

You did. — Corvus

I said: "Which premises, P1 or P2, do you have a problem with?". I was referring to the premises rather than you.

What are the relevance between P1) and C1)? How does C1) derive from P1)? — Corvus

First, we have to agree on two things: 1) Our experiences are coherent, and 2) This coherence cannot be due to the experience itself since the experience is merely a conscious event. If we accept these two, then we realize that there must be a substance that the experience is due to hence C1 naturally follows from P1.

Which one would you like to discuss first? And I didn't say that you have a problem!

Which premises, P1 or P2, do you have a problem with?

You can even doubt whether your thoughts are yours or a Demon put them in your mind. What you cannot doubt is that you are an agent with the capacity to experience.

C1 and C2 follow from P1 and P2 respectively, each is a form of Modus Ponens.

Whether there is a God who is all-powerful is the subject of debate. The reality is that we are left with our own so if we have to achieve Utopia if it is possible at all. Living the life as it is is interesting. We learn things. We become wiser after we realize our mistakes. It is through challenges that we become stronger. Etc. It seems that God if we accept that It exists couldn't possibly create Utopia since living in a Utopia requires all-wise Creatures, namely Gods. It seems that humans' destiny is to become Godly on our own if that is possible at all, even if we accept that God can create Gods.

Good and evil are fundamental features of reality and they are both necessary. Humans mostly are inclined to prefer good over evil though but that does not mean that we could live with good only. For example, you feel pain when you are hurt. You look for a cure as the result of pain so it is right to feel pain.

Scientific work also works with possibilities, but the scientist believes that what is represented in the imagination is going to happen. This implies that one thinks in possibilities precisely because the becoming is not given. The fact that the becoming is not given is the opportunity to be right or wrong in predictions. But a prediction is never a given. They are ontologically different things. — JuanZu

Physical behavior has been the subject of careful examination for almost 400 years. To date, there has been a fantastic correlation between physical theories and experiments/observations. Moreover, nature has always behaved in a deterministic way; without this, no form of life was possible.

We would have to say the opposite of what You say (ad consecuentiam btw) that the fact that becoming is not given is that which obliges us to do science with the difference that we must believe in the uniformity of nature, but this is a belief that can never be confirmed universally, because becoming is never given. No matter how many experiments we do, the possibility of failure is always there. It is a possibility, like that of succeeding in our predictions. — JuanZu

Ok, so let's wait for that day!

Mariah Carey - Without You



Mariah Carey - Hero

I think you have missed my point. If you tell me that there is a deterministic system that will end up in X state you are making a prediction. — JuanZu

I am saying that given the system in the state of X and the laws of nature, one always predicts and finds the system in the state of Y later.

But if the system is not in its state X the system prediction cannot be confused with reality. — JuanZu

I don't understand why you assume the system is not in the state of X. The system cannot be in another state but X which was predicted.

That is, the prediction is a representation not reality itself. — JuanZu

The prediction is about what is going to happen in reality and the system always ends up in Y given X in a deterministic system.

The prediction is one possibility among others, even if it is confirmed. — JuanZu

The is no other possibility in a reality. The determinism is tested to great accuracy.

And this is due to the non-givenness of becoming. We could only be absolute determinists if all the processes of reality were already given. — JuanZu

We don't need to test all processes of reality to make sure that reality is deterministic and that is not possible too.

No matter how many experiments you do, predictions will always be imagined representations of what will happen, i.e. possibilities among others. — JuanZu

We couldn't possibly do any science if this statement was true. For example, the computer you are using right now always works in a certain way. It doesn't work in one way one day and in another way another day.

I'd like to see the world being a single democratic state. — bert1

Yes, please!

Yes, I am talking about Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. The first treatment is 30 sessions each day once. Then twice a week if the first treatment was not successful. Then once a week if the previous treatment was not successful. Etc. I strongly recommend you give it a try even if you have to have a short trip. Hopefully, that would help you.

Have you ever tried RTMS? I went through the whole treatment. It didn't help me but I found out many people happy with the treatment!

Christina Aguilera - Genie In A Bottle



Christina Aguilera - Fighter

:100: :up:

Yes, I have my medications routinely. I was hospitalized three times because I was out of my mind and had unbearable depression. I was under electroconvulsive therapy a few times too.

Very well said! Being a conscious being is not easy since you are subject to suffering soon or late. Being conscious, however, is a unique experience. You love, you then lose your love. You hate those who abused you. Even if you are a healthy adult and have a joyful life, you become old and suffering is awaiting you. I however strongly believe that each human being has huge potential so we can manage any situation regardless of how difficult it is. People complain about how hard life is because they don't realize this inner strength. Once you find out this strength through regular practice then will realize that nothing can break you.

I have been suffering from Schizophrenia and deep depression for almost 30 years. The month I don't remember, LOL. My life is not easy too but nothing could possibly prevent me from fighting and keeping a positive view of life. I become stronger each day by facing new challenges. I am a fighter and I think you can become a fighter too! :wink:

The existence of possibilities is that which follows from the fact that any course of action is not given in advance. That is, that in a sense the world is always in play. No matter how well our expectations or predictions are fulfilled there is always something not given in becoming. We can foresee that the sun will die in X years, but nevertheless it is not given. To the extent that there is something not given, thought is able to think of possibilities, there is always something left over that escapes prediction. — JuanZu

The standard model was confirmed experimentally and it is a deterministic model. The experiment is performed very carefully so we are sure about how particles interact with each other. That is however true that when it comes to a system we cannot know the exact location of its parts so we cannot for sure predict the future state of the system but that is not what I am talking about. I am mostly interested in understanding how we could realize options given the fact that any physical system, for example the brain, is a deterministic entity. I am sure that the realization of options is due to the existence of neurons in the brain but it is still unclear to me how neural processes in the brain can lead to the realization of the options.

The determinist has to explain how the future is given. But that is something that cannot be done, since predictions are always possibilities and are representations of becoming. How does a prediction turn out to be true? Even if it turns out to be true, it is still a representation of becoming and not becoming itself. That is why we cannot say that things are determined, because they are only determined in the representation but not in becoming itself. — JuanZu

We can for sure say that the physical systems are deterministic since physicists closely examine the motion and interaction of elementary particles. Anyway, the purpose of this thread was not to discuss determinism but to understand how we can realize options given the fact that we have a brain.

Easy. By not asserting that I have the kind of free will that you define. I make decisions for reasons. You apparently assert that you don't, which I suppose explains some things, but doesn't explain how you are alive enough to post to a forum. — noAxioms

Haven't you ever been in a situation where the future outcomes of options were unclear to you? How could reason help you in such a situation?

Making a choice based on what you want is doing it for a reason. — noAxioms

By want I don't mean that you desire an option for a specific reason but just choose an option.

if there isn't a reason for something that happens, it's random. — flannel jesus

We have been through this in another thread. The decision seems random from the third perspective but not the first perspective since it is up to the person want to choose one option or another.

So if I ask "why did this happen?" and there's an explanation for why it happened, "it happened because of this and this and this", that's not random - or at least not entirely random. — flannel jesus

It does not happen to you, it is you who makes the decision. Of course, you fall into a troublesome situation looking for where this decision comes from if you believe in a monistic view, physicalism for example, so you have to assign a sort of randomness to the physical while accepting that they are deterministic. Of course, this coincidence, making a free decision, and randomness in the physical cannot be explained in a monistic view either. All the troubles are gone if you believe in a dualistic view where the mind is the observer and decision-making entity.

But if I ask "why did this happen?" and there's no reason at all - not just no known reason, ontologically no actual reason - it's random. — flannel jesus

That is the mind that makes the decision always so it doesn't happen to you.

So it's odd that people have been trying to dispel me of the notion that libertarian free will isn't about randomness, and here you are affirming the notion. — flannel jesus

Of course, the physical is deterministic. How could we possibly depend on reality if it was random?

But also it means we don't have free will when it comes to very important ethical decisions. If I choose to save a baby's life, and I have reasons to do that, then you say I'm not free. — flannel jesus

No, you can always make decisions based on reason, saving a baby's life for example. But you can do otherwise. It is exactly because of this ability that we are responsible for our choices.

And if I decide to murder a bunch of babies, and I have reasons to do that, then you say I'm not free. — flannel jesus

I say that you are free but your decision was unfree. You could do otherwise despite having a reason to murder them and that is why you are responsible for your actions.

So I don't have free will in those moments and am not responsible for them? Weird. — flannel jesus

Of course, you are responsible for your actions since you are a free agent.

Ok, as you please. I am glad to see that you agree that options are real and life is not a domino though.