Do you mean you cannot understand your own perception? — Corvus

I am not talking about perception but coherence in perception.

Why do you think it is the case? — Corvus

Show me how idealism can explain coherence in perception.

That is an interesting article. I however think that the conclusion, assigning free will to neural process, is wrong. The main reason for this is that the conscious mind is absent during anesthesia. The subconscious mind is however active always. Stimulating the parietal cortex produces a pulse. This pulse then propagates to different parts of the brain depending on the exact point of the electrodes. When the subconscious mind receives a pulse coming from that center it acts accordingly and also registers the command in its memory. The person can only report the activities during anesthesia after she/he is conscious again. A conscious person however only has access to the subconscious memory therefore what he reports is not what he freely performed but only a memory that was registered in the subconscious mind during anesthesia.

Please don't confuse ideas and coherence of the reality. — Corvus

I am not confusing two. Please see the above post.

Idealism is not for coherent thoughts. — Corvus

I asked whether idealism can explain the coherence in reality. Yes, or no? If yes, then how? If not, then it is not the proper metaphysical theory of reality!

First, you experience a situation that requires decision-making. Once you're in such a situation, only then do you start examining options. Before that, everything was clear and certain (I was just going forward on this single path), and now I'm weighing my options at the crossroads, hence the uncertainty. — Zebeden

I am interested to know what happens at the neural level when we realize that there are two paths.

I'd like to comment but I'm a bit unclear on the nature of the connection that you wish to make between the two issues that you are raising in your OP. — Pierre-Normand

Ok, I will try to make things more clearer for you.

There is the issue of reconciling the idea of there being a plurality of options available to an agent in a deterministic world, — Pierre-Normand

First, I have to say that De Broglie–Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct since it is paradox-free. The motion of particles in this theory is deterministic though. By deterministic I mean given the state of the system at a given point in time the state of the system at a later time is uniquely defined by the former state. So, the motions of particles in the brain are deterministic as well accepting De Broglie–Bohm's theory. What bothers me is that we for sure know that options are real. We also know for sure that the existence of options is due to neural processes in the brain. Neural processes are however deterministic so I am wondering how options can possibly result from neural processes in the brain. I think we can resolve the big problem in the philosophy of mind, the problem is that hard determinists claim that options cannot be real. Of course, the hard determinists cannot be right in this case since we can obviously distinguish between a situation in which there is only one object and another situation in which there are two objects. I studied neural networks in good depth in the past. My memory on neural networks is very rusty now but I would be happy to have your understanding of this topic if you can explain it in terms of neural networks as well. Can we train a neural network to realize between one and two objects and give outputs 1 and 2 respectively? If yes, what does happen at the neural level when it is trained to recognize two objects?

and the issue of the cognitive development (and the maturation of their visual system) of an infant whereby they come to discriminate two separate objects from the background and from each other. — Pierre-Normand

Please let's focus on one object first. If we accept the Hebbian theory is the correct theory for learning then we can explain how an infant realizes one object. Once the infant is presented with two objects, she/he can recognize each object very quickly since she/he already memorized the object. How she/he realizes that there are two separate objects is however very tricky and is the part that I don't understand well. I have seen that smartphones can recognize faces when I try to take a photo. I however don't think they can recognize that there are two or more faces though.

Can you make your understanding of this connection more explicit? — Pierre-Normand

I tried to elaborate the best I could. Please let me know what you think and ask questions if you have any.

Can't comment on neurological development, but from how I understand what the option is, I would say that an option always requires another option for it to be an option. Only if I know that I can also take the left path, does the right path become an option. Otherwise, it's just a path. Or rather, the path, I should say. — Zebeden

I say that you have only one option available when there is only one path available to you.

So my answer would be that the fork always precedes the options. To understand an option, one first experiences a moment of unclarity. — Zebeden

Could you please elaborate here?

I'm sorry, but I can't follow you. Could you please write your opinion in plain English so I can understand what you're discussing?

Same meaning as yours, different words. Both of our words leave 'mind/mental' fairly undefined, leaving open a natural or supernatural interpretation of it. — noAxioms

Ok, I see.

I am sorry that he was banned. He is a knowledge person and I learned a few things from him. He will be missed.

You are connecting reasoning process to ideas as if they are necessary, but they are not. — Corvus

Reasoning is an analysis of ideas.

You see drink in a cup, and think it is coffee. The idea of drink in a cup itself doesn't tell you truth or falsity on your thought. You must drink and taste it to be able to tell it is coffee or tea. Truth or falsity is only possible by your judgement on sense perception (in empirical cases) or thought process (in analytic cases).
Images and concepts themselves don't tell you about coherence of reality. — Corvus

I asked, how is coherent thought possible in idealism?

Ok.

It is your choice since it is a function of your mental processes. — noAxioms

To me will is an ability of the mind. What do you mean by mental processes here?

Reasoning is not ideas. — Corvus

I didn't say that.

Reasoning is a thought process. — Corvus

How is the thought process possible in idealism?

You seem to confusing between idea and reasoning. — Corvus

Not at all. The reasoning is based on working on the ideas.

If you have an idea of tree, then the idea itself cannot tell you it is correct or not. It only gives an image of tree. — Corvus

What do you mean by correct here? If you have an idea of a tree then that is just an idea.

I am not sure to say that idealism is not correct is a correct statement. — Corvus

Why not? Does idealism explain coherence in reality?

Ideas are just copy of the objects in the world. — Corvus

What do you mean by this?

Of course, it wouldn't be able to tell you whether they are correct or not. You need your own thinking process, observations, confirmations and logical affirmation to be able to say your ideas were correct or not. — Corvus

I already argued against idealism.

Math can only do so much. There is a gap and there isn't a gap. There is separation but not such that there is no smooth motion. Sometimes philosophy and logic have to step in where math fails — Gregory

I said what I should have said.

There are always multiple options. Your examples don't bear that out well since there's one obvious correct answer, but correct answer might not be the reply you want. — noAxioms

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I was trying to be simple explaining the existence of options as a mental phenomenon. We are on the same page if you agree that options are real.

Idealism is not about explaining the coherence in the reality. It is about how we see the reality. — Corvus

I am saying that idealism should not be accepted as a correct metaphysical theory if it cannot explain the coherence in reality.

And that is a naive depiction of idealism. No idealist philosophy of record will claim that ‘the world is all in the mind’ as you are claiming. — Wayfarer

According to SEP, there are two main forms of idealism, namely ontological and epistemological, wherein the reality is merely mental in the former whereas in the latter the existence of mind-independent things is accepted. I am arguing against ontological idealism here only since otherwise we are dealing with a form of substance dualism once you accept mind-independent things as well as the mind.

If you want to illustrate the point you’re attempting to make, you’ll need to back it up with some citations from recognised idealist philosophy which say what you’re claiming it says. — Wayfarer

My knowledge of idealism is limited to what I read from SEP and Wiki a while ago. To the best of my knowledge, the coherence in reality is not discussed in any form of idealism. I would be happy to know if you can cite a form of idealism that discusses coherence in reality.

Rob Zombie - Speed Demon

Ok, first idealism. As I said idealism is false because it cannot explain the coherence in the reality that we perceive. Let me give you one example: Let's assume that you now put the cup of coffee that you just sipped from on the table. If you want to drink more coffee you know where the cup is, you get it and drink from it. For example, the cup of coffee just does not disappear. It is where you left it. You then approach it with your hand and grab its handle with your fingers. Move it toward your mouth and drink more coffee as you please. So we are dealing with a set of ideas, what we perceive, but there is a coherence between them. Idealism cannot explain the coherence in reality therefore it is false. I have more examples but this one is sufficient to deny idealism.

And now, physicalism. Physicalism looks correct at first look since things are lawful within physicalism. So for example the cup of coffee is where you left it since reality is lawful. That, lawfulness, is however its weakness as well as I illustrate later. The first issue that physicalism suffers from is the existence of experience. Experience cannot be denied yet it cannot be explained in physicalism. The second issue is related to the correlation between mental and physical. For example, when you decide to have more coffee your hand moves appropriately. You then grab the handle of the cup with your finger, then move it toward your mouth, and drink as much as coffee you please. So we see fantastic correlations between mental and physical all the time. The problem is if physicals are lawful then they move according to the laws of physics. There is however no room left for mental to intervene since accepting that mental has a causal power leads to overdetermination which is not acceptable. So you have to choose, either mental has no causal power which means that you cannot explain the fantastic correlation between mental and physical, or mental has causal power which is contrary because overdetermination is not acceptable.

I'm just not following -- why is situation (b) but not situation (a) an illusion? — J

Because we are talking about options. If I present you with one ball, there is only one option available whereas in another case, when you are presented with two balls there are two options.

Idealism is false since it cannot explain coherence in the ideas that we perceive. Physicalism also is false since it cannot explain mental phenomena and the correlation between mental phenomena and physical ones.

I am not talking about the decision here yet since I didn't ask you which ball you pick from the two. I am saying that we can distinguish between situations (a) and (b) so saying that situation (b) is an illusion, what hard determinists say is nonsensical!

Sorry, could you clarify? What does "realize between two situations" mean? — J

Situation (a): I present you with one ball and ask you how many balls you see. Your answer is one for sure.
Situation (b): I present you with two balls and ask you how many balls you see. Your answer is two for sure.

Could you realize the difference between the situation (a) and (b)?

As Hegel says in the lesser logic, you must think of the continuous mixed with the discrete in order to understand either one. — Gregory

That is correct. Any real number has decimal and integer parts each is a set of digits, 0 to 9 for example. Digits are of course discrete while the number is continuous.

The continuous is illogical I say. — Gregory

I don't think so. I already presented two arguments against the existence of the gap.

I am not talking about decisions here but only the existence of options. Could you realize between two situations in which you are presented with one ball or two balls?

1 Hour of Dark Vampiric Music

Have you ever been in a maze? If yes then you realize that options are real when you reach a fork. The options are however a manifestation of neural processes and they are deterministic. Therefore, you could have options in a deterministic world. How we realize options as a result of neural processes is not well understood yet!

Great! You at last agree that reductive physicalism is possible. — Relativist

Sure I agree with this. :wink:

Rewrite this while Incorporating the mind's "vertical causality. — Relativist

I don't understand what you want me to do. I explicitly mentioned that the Mind experiences and causes a string. By this, I certainly mean vertical causation.

OK, that gives a continuity for electrons consistent with a form of perdurantism. But that's a particle, a simple object. Now consider a complex organism, like MoK. There's not a fixed set of particles that comprise comprise you, so you can't base it on particle continuity. I suggest you accept perdurantism for this, instead of essentialism - it would be more consistent. — Relativist

An object that is made of parts also can be explained and its motion is continuous as well. First, think of an object that is at rest for the sake of simplicity. Its parts are in constant motion and these motions are continuous as I discussed earlier. But parts of the object move in such a way that they persist to exist in the location of the object, let's call these motions M1={m1,m2,...}, where m1 is the motion of the first part, m2 is the motion of the second part, etc. Now we can discuss a moving object. The difference between a moving object and a static object is that parts of the static object have motion M1 only whereas the parts of a moving object have another motion M2. So, the motions of parts of a moving object are N=M1+M2 such that N={n1,n2,...} where n1=m1+M2 is the motion of the first part, n2=m2+M2 is the motion of the second part, etc. I have to say that the object in different instants of time is not the same even if it is at rest since its parts are in constant motion. The object just seems to be the same.

Discrete doesn't get lost in itself but takes the step further — Gregory

If the space is discrete then it means that there is a gap between two points in space. The gap is the absence of anything or nothing. So there are two arguments here against the existence of the gap: 1) The motion has to be discrete if there is a gap. But discrete motion at least within physicalism is not possible since a particle that is subject to motion and exists in the first point cannot possibly cause another particle in the second point because of the gap. 2) If the gap is nothing then two points must be immediate.

It would be possible for the thinking to exist without a thinker. — Kranky

Thinking is a complex topic, but we can for sure say that it exists. Thinking, however, is a coherent mental phenomenon. To develop a thought one needs to constantly retrieve memories of thoughts accumulated in the past, and work on thoughts to produce a new thought. Thoughts therefore must be memorized somewhere. Idealism cannot provide an answer for where thoughts are stored and how they are retrieved when it is appropriate. Therefore, idealism is false.

Even if my own existence cannot be proven, can awareness/experience be proven for certain? — Kranky

Experience for sure exists and everybody agrees with its existence.

Right now, at minimum, there is a belief that I am existing, a belief that I am typing this post.
I might not actually be typing this post, nor am I certain to exist.
But it is certain that there is a belief that I exist. — Kranky

The reality is coherent. Therefore, Idealism is false since it cannot account for the coherence. Therefore, you are a person who is typing your thoughts. By person, I mean that you have a body and at least two minds, so-called the conscious and subconscious mind.

There is no problem when you do it with numbers. The trouble is when infinite digits are linked to spatial slices — Gregory

Well, it depends if space is continuous or discrete. Which one do you pick?

Each digit represents a slice of space hence infinite space. — Gregory

I am talking about the decimal part of a number. Consider a very small number with many 0 digits and a 1 at the end, like, 0.0...01, where the number of 0 digits is M. If you divide this number by 2 you get, 0.0...05 where the number of 0 digits is M+1. You can do this forever.

Of all the arguments i've amassed over the years, the one that says "something can't be discrete because that implies space which implies parts/slices, and so the descent" has to go. — Gregory

Space itself is continuous. I don't understand what you are talking about here.

There has to be a basic unit. — Gregory

There are basic units for length for example.

This treats strings as fundamental, consistent with reductive physicalism. — Relativist

Correct. But strings are not the only fundamental entity. The string is a one-dimensional Brane. In principle, you can have a d-dimensional Brane which moves in D-dimensional spacetime, where D>d.

But all these "laws of physics" are a consequence of the fundamental laws of strings. — Relativist

Correct.

There is no particle-particle continuity. Each particle is brand new, with no history and no future. — Relativist

There is. I already illustrated it. A stationary electron is a vibrating string, let's call this vibration V1. The string related to a moving electron has another vibration mode due to the motion of the electron, let's call this mode of vibration V2. The Mind experiences both vibrations of the string, V1 and V2, at time t0 and as a result, causes another string at time t1 at a position that is dictated by V2 while keeping V1 the same. The history of the string is held in the subjective time. Its future depends on V2 and the position of the string in the future. So the process of motion of the string is continuous.

Makes no sense. The particle at t0 has properties; this particle (with its properties) is annihilated a t1. A new particle exists at t1 that has the same properties, but it's not the same particle. — Relativist

It makes sense if you accept that the Mind experiences the string with V1 and causes another string later with the same mode of vibration namely V1. And the string is not annihilated in my theory but just created in the immediate future. So the history of the string is preserved in the subjective time.

Every electron in the universe has the same intrinsic properties. So when a specific electron at t0 is replaced by a "duplicate" at t1, what maked this particular electron the same identity? See my second picture and description, below. — Relativist

It is V1.

All you claims are just vague allusions. The most common bases are: 1) essentialism - which associates an identity with an essence (a subset of properties that are necessary and sufficient for constituting an individual identity) — Relativist

It could be essentialism. For example, look at this.

2) perdurance: an identity consisting of a connected series of temporal parts.

Because you embrace identity of the indiscernibles, you don't have the essentialist option. So you need some form of perdurantism, but you need to define what connects the temporal parts. The problem is that you have no direct causal connection between temporal parts. Here's a depiction of what you seem to be claiming with your "vertical causation": — Relativist

I already mentioned that a part of our brain is hardwired which means it does not change over time. The other part is subject to change always. It is due to this part of the brain that we can memorize new things over time, basically most of our past experiences. The memories however are held in synapses. You might find this article interesting, especially the section about memory.

The mind is creating electron/brain/body at each instant of time, with no direct connection between the "temporal parts". There's an indirect connection through mind, but the mind is simultaneously recreating every electron/brain/body. Let's focus on electrons: there's a universe full of electrons coming into existence at each instant of time. Here's a depiction of 3 electrons (electX,electY, electZ): — Relativist

The Mind as I discussed above keeps continuity in motion of each electron, quark, etc. Therefore, It keeps continuity in the motion of any object.

ElectX@t0->mind->ElectX@t1 is indistinquishable from
ElectX@t0->mind->ElectY@t1 — Relativist

Electrons are distinguishable to the Mind since each electron has a specific location in space.

Why must motion be infinitily divided? — Gregory

If it is not then there is a situation in which the motion becomes discrete. This is against the continuum hypothesis. Therefore, any continuous motion no matter how small is infinitely divisible.

How can you fit infinity in the bounds of anything finite? — Gregory

I am not proposing that I fit an infinity in something finite but saying that any finite distance no matter how small can be divided infinitely. That is what digits are about.

You have to deal with infinities if you accept that motion is continuous.

Janelle Monáe - Dance Or Die



Janelle Monáe - faster