I think that is all that is being said? — I like sushi

My reality is strictly constructed with my perception, sensation and imagination and belief. What I don't sense and perceive, I rely on my imagination and belief. There is no objectivity in there. Even my own perception and sensation can sometimes mislead me. There is no 100% guarantee that my perception and sensations are infallibly true. And what is more, what I perceive and sense is perhaps not even 0.0000000000001 percent of the world. How could I pretend to claim to know what the world is?

Now this is not a solipsism like some have been misled on the point. It is the critical nature of our perception, mind and reality under the philosophical analysis.

If you mean there is no physical proof of a metaphysical entity, then we're in agreement. — LuckyR

:ok:

Or I am here, pointing to the errors in your account. — Banno

You may well exist, I was not saying that you don't exist. There is a difference, and you don't seem to see the difference.

I don't have the perceptual evidence on the existence apart from your misleading posts. That is the philosophical dissection of reality. I am not taking into account all the hypes in the media about the world, and refusing to be non philosophical frame of mind of the ordinary folks on the street.

You only imagined a difference between your solipsism and the "perceptions" you imagine that you have. — Banno

If you claim that you have more than your imagination and irrational belief on the external world, then you are pretending. It is not a philosophical account.

Kant wrote his massive tome to show this is wrong. — Jamal

Yes, I agree. But I recall a book called "Imagination in Kant's Philosophy" by a German philosopher I cannot recall his name. The book was emphasizing the fact, imagination and belief is critical part for constructing reality and the external world. I was totally agreeing with his point.

I mean Banno does exist, surely he must. But I don't have any factual perceptual data on Banno. I know Banno from his posts in the forum, and that is all what Banno is to me. The rest of Banno is my belief and imagination about Banno, which might be totally wrong and fictional in reality. And I do accept my existence to Banno must be the same.

That is the reality of our reality. It is not a solipsism.

I assume you have also read Philosophical Investigations? What about the private language argument? — Colo Millz

It is still in my reading list.

If this post does not exist, then what is it you are now reading? — Banno

I never said the post doesn't exist. Where did you get that? I see the post, and I was responding to that. But I don't see you. I am imaging you might exist. There is difference between you do exist, and you might exist. To me, you are just a author of your post, and might exist. But I don't have any more perceptual data apart from it.

It is not a solipsism. You are not understanding the difference between solipsism and foundation for perceptual existence.

Moreover, that you are trying to communicate, to use language, demonstrates that there is more than your private mental state. — Banno

Private mental state is the core of your mind which is your perception. You build your extra mind with your imagination and belief. Remember the external world and other minds are just figment of your imagination. There is no actual concrete existence on these objects, but fleeting impressions and ideas.

It proves that Banno has never read Hume or Kant, and has been trying to discuss philosophy in the public forum with his very limited mind.

Can anyone prove a god, I enjoy debates and wish to see the arguments posed in favour of the existence of a god. — CallMeDirac

No. "God" and "existence" belong to different category of worlds. Existence negates God. God negates existence.

If the reality we experience is the only thing that we have experienced, how do we know that there isn’t anything beyond our reality? — an-salad

Our reality? All reality is subjective private mental state. There is no such a thing as "our reality".
Again all experience is private mental event. There is no other mind involved in an experience than "I" or "my mind.

When I say "cup", you immediately realize what I am talking about since the word refers to an idea. The sentence "the cup is on the table" contains many words; each word refers to an idea. The sentence, however, refers to a new idea, which in this case is a situation. — MoK

There is nothing new about any of those words. Everyone in the world knows what "cup" is, knows what "table" is. You were just uttering a sentence from what you saw. That is just giving a description of the content of your perception. New ideas should be something that is absolutely new, so no one knew what it was, no one has seen or heard about it before in history. That is new idea.

So, I am not able to accept the definition you provided. Wrong definition of the concept leads to misunderstanding and confusion in the arguments and discussions.

The thinking is defined as a process in which we work on known ideas with the aim of creating a new idea — MoK

Could you give some examples of known ideas and new ideas? How does it work?

So my view would be: we should avoid unnecessary harm wherever it occurs, but we must prioritize preventing the most intense and obvious suffering. And right now, that means reducing and eliminating the killing of sentient organisms when we can live well on plant-based foods. — Truth Seeker

It sounds like you are projecting your own personal value or psychological state onto the nature and the eco system unduly and with some emotional twist. The nature works as it has done for billions of years. It operates under the system called "survival for fittest". Lions always used to go and hunt for deers, striped horses and wild boars. If you say, hey Lion why are you eating the innocent animals killing them causing them pain? And if you say to them, hey you are cruel, bad and morally evil to do that. Why not go and eat some vegetables? Then it would be your emotional twist and personal moral value projected to the nature for your own personal feel good points.

Lions must eat what they are designed to eat by nature. No one can dictate what they should eat.
Same goes for human. Human race is not designed to eat rocks and soils, just because someone tells them it is morally wrong to eat meat, fruits or vegetables because they may suffer pain, and they might have minds and consciousness.

The bottom line is that it is not matter of morality - right and wrong. It is more matter of the system works, and what is best and ideal for the nature. If it is healthy - keep them fit and keep them survive for best longevity, and tasty for the folks, then that is what they will eat.

Why wouldn't the murder of 80 billion sentient land organisms and 1 to 3 trillion sentient aquatic organisms per year by non-vegans and for non-vegans be morally wrong when it is possible to make vegan choices which prevent so much pain and death? — Truth Seeker

Some plant and fruit lovers might say to you that how could you kill the plants pulling them out from the field, cut and boil or fry them, and eat them? You are killing the innocent living plants. Same with the corns and fruits. They were alive and had souls. But you took them from the fields, cut them and boiled them, and ate them killing them in most cruel manner. The panpsychic folks believe the whole universe itself has consciousness and souls. Even rocks and trees have mind. What would you say to them?

— Corvus

I already defined thinking in the OP. — MoK

I went back to the OP, and read it again, but there is nothing which sounds like, or resembles a definition of "think". Could you reiterate it here clearly? Thank you.

Exactly. But behaviours and words can be repeated by a robot without consciousness. In that sense, all we can know is that a robot acts AS IF it were conscious. But that knowledge is not enough to know that it has consciousness. — JuanZu

But a robot wouldn't repeat beaviours and words without valid reason or request or situation put onto it. If it did, then it is not a smart robot. AI robot is supposed to be smart and intelligent. If it is not, then it is just a machine, not AI robot.

You think the mind if a process, right, an action not a thing. Well, are ideas processes to? — RogueAI

All mental events are private. No one is aware of what other mental beings are having in their minds.
If AI can think, then we are not supposed to know about it. We can only guess if someone or being is thinking by their actions and words they are taking and speaking in proper manner for the situation or not.

Therefore AI cannot think, is not a well thought out claim.

Vegans say that veganism is right and non-veganism is wrong. Non-vegans say non-veganism is right and veganism is wrong. They can't both be right. How do we decide whether veganism is right or wrong? — Truth Seeker

It sounds like both of the vegans and non-vegans are confused with the issue. It is not matter of right or wrong. It is matter of one's own preference and suitability for their taste and health conditions.

"AI cannot think"

What do you mean by "think"? What is your definition of "think"?

Is there any way to know for sure what is right and what is wrong? — Truth Seeker

Observations on the circumstances with evidence, reasoning and logical analysis on the case are some tools we can use in knowing right and wrong.

Do you ever wonder about the issue of your own personal significance and is it useful to question?. — Jack Cummins

If I had not existed, then I couldn't have a chance to think about the possibility that if I had not existed.

Its possibility is plausible in a idealist perspective, especially in esoteric spiritual ones. — Jack Cummins

Esoterically and spiritually of course even gods and after life and heaven and hell all exist. But it is another realm of thoughts or world if you like. In philosophical analysis, not sure if they are thought of valid existence.

Not denying the existence of time reading system such as the western solar based 12 month 365 days a year 24 hr in a day what have you, as some sort of civil contract. Of course they do exist, and we use them in daily life. But time itself as some sort of being or existence is a daft illusion propelled by SF or the silly physicists.

Death involves the question of existence outside of space and time. — Jack Cummins

I have been thinking hard on the topic i.e. existence outside of space and time. Wouldn't it be a contradiction? Existence outside space and time would be non-existence or unperceived existence. Would it be meaningful object in ontological and logical sense?

I have thought about how time began in my world. There was no such thing called time in my own world when I was a child. Time didn't exist at all in my world. It was only when I went to school, I had to learn how to read time because teacher kept on teaching us how to read time.

When I learnt how to tell time from the watches and clocks, I knew keeping time was important in daily life and survival because everyone was moving and doing things around the time table. That is how time began to emerge in my little world from my reflection.

Now I have been inclined to believe time doesn't exist. Time is one of the worldly contract between folks that has been in force for thousands of years which started by a some bloke who were powerful in the ancient time somewhere.

The world might decided to call it off, and start new time system from tomorrow starting year 0, if they wanted to by another some powerful bloke who has power to do so. There are numerous different timing systems in use by different countries even now e.g Chinese Lunar calendar, Japanese royal family based calendar ... etc.

This is incoherent. People scream "ouch" because pain hurts. The salient feature of pain is that it feels bad. Any definition of pain which does not reference the subjective experience of hurting is incomplete. Imagine two old people from thousands of years ago talking about their various aches and pains. They know nothing about what the brain does or is. Are you saying then that their statements about their pains are nonsensical? Obviously, they can converse intelligently on the subject because when people talk of pains, they're almost always referring to the mental state of "being in pain" and not neurons and c-fibers. — RogueAI

You utter the word "ouch" for the pain in your body, but you don't know what the state of the neurons and electrons inside your brain is for your utterance of the word. What is clear is that it is a physical state in your brain and body, not something called "pain" exists as some objects. That's what I meant.

For finding out what conscious mind is, we need to trace how it comes into existence. Is mind posited by something or someone in your brain? It is emerged, or generated? Or embedded into your brain when you were born?

To me, mind is just the physical state of brain, which is perceptual, evolutionary and also intelligent. Because of this fact, AI is coming into the world. AI and computers are 100% physical from the body to the intelligence and capabilities they present. There is nothing mental about them.

If mind is not physical, then it should survive physical death of the body it resides in. No mind has ever done so. Mind always dies when body dies, and the death is eternal.

So again, where did this new knowledge of the book come from? Not from the ink. Not from the paper. Not from new physical facts. The “aboutness,” the meaning, seems to exist in a different category not reducible to physical properties alone. — RogueAI

You seem to be digressing into books from the original topic conscious mind. But think again. If there was nothing in the world, i.e. no paper, no ink, no humans, no physical objects whatsoever (imagine a place like Mars - a field with just rocks and hills), can a story of Sherlock Holmes exist? Whatever idea or story it might be, it needs to be in the form of physical media, DVD or ebook or physical book for it to exist. With no physical objects to contain ideas or books or music, nothing can exist.

In that sense, they are all some form of physical objects. Ideas, minds and consciousness or whatever abstract objects you might be thinking, talking or imagining, they are in some form of physical existence - they need to be read, spoken or played by the physical beings and instruments. They might be different category of physical objects which are invisible, odourless and silent. But they are all some form of physical existence in nature and origin.

There is no such a thing called pain. You have your biological body which feels the sensation of pain when hit by some hard object. You call it "pain" when no such thing exists in the whole universe. It is just the state of your body cells with neurons which sent some electrical signals into your brain, and from your education and upbringing and customs, habits and cultural influence, you scream "ouch", and utter the sentence "I have pain." or "It is bloody painful."

Your mind will be gone pretty much the moment you die. — Patterner

I would imagine so. My mind dies every night when I fall asleep too. But it resurrects every morning thanks to living body waking up. But when body gets old, and no longer waking up, mind can never resurrect.

Saying the brain is mysterious or not fully understood today is just an appeal to ignorance. Complete knowledge of a person's brain should equal complete knowledge of their mind, right? — RogueAI

When you open your hard drive, and look into all the parts inside the drive, you will see nothing which even remotely resembles the data you stored in it.  You will see some electronic parts, capacitors, motors, transistors, chips and connectors on the magnetic platter.

Likewise, if you open your brain, and look into it, you will see nothing which even remotely resembles your feelings, images, memories and sensations or consciousness.  You will see a grey matter / organ full of veins and body mass with the neurons inside.

To see your data from the hard drive, you must run some software which talks to your hd, and transfers the data in bits which are electrical signals into the screen.

Likewise for your brain to present you with the memories, feelings and thoughts and consciousness, it must be in your body as it has been for many years living and learning, communicating with the full sense organs in your body.  Without that physical setup and symbiotic workings in your whole body, you will have no mind.   

Mind is just a reflection or expression or perceptual state of your own physical bodily state.  When your physical body is no longer existent, your mind will also evaporate into thin air.  

Why are brains conscious but hearts and livers aren't? — RogueAI

Good point, but a daft question. It is like asking why tables and chairs don't work as phones or computers? They are not designed / made to do those jobs.

Why are only some brain processes associated with consciousness? — RogueAI

This sounds like a question for the biologist and neurologist.

If the mind is identical to the brain, and I'm picturing a purple flower in my mind's eye, wouldn't that entail there's a purple flower in my brain? — RogueAI

A purple flower and an image or representation of the purple flower is not the same existence.

If minds are physical, then by studying someone's brain, I should be able to gain access to the contents of their mind, right? — RogueAI

Not all physical objects are replaceable and transparent to our understanding. Many physical objects such as radio waves, atoms, cells and the black holes, space ... etc are not things that we can fully understand what they are. Many of them are also presupposed and imagined objects from the effects or events in the world.

We can read the radio waves on the frequency counter, we still don't know what they are. We know how to generate, transmit and receive the radio waves, but we don't see or hear them direct. We only know the audio data they carry in them, but the actual existence of the waves are unknown.

Likewise, we don't know how our brain works as they do, and brain is not replaceable. Only thing we know is that conscious mind cannot exist without working brain. Hence it is very likely physical state in its nature. There is no such thing as conscious mind as mental existence.

I agree. Information processing - thinking - is a physical thing. I just posted this on response to ↪Manuel
: — Patterner

:up:

"Who am 'I' and what is the relation between mind and body? According to my understanding, there exists a specific, changeable state of some components in my brain. — Pieter R van Wyk

Could it be the past memory of the individual and reasoning ability in the brain, which tells and confirms the person with the self identity? Past memories and experience of one's life must have been stored in the form of some chemical deposits on the neuron cells in the brain just like computer can store data into its ROM and RAM and Hard drives. When search function is performed, some central processing mechanism in the brain must be able to pick out the relevant memory and place them on the reasoning organ in the brain (central processor in case of computers), from which it will be able to tell and confirm their relevance and accuracy for the given search functions performed under the request for the queries.

One's past memory can be wiped out or transformed into fantasies and illusions by physical traumas or chemical injections (by taking drugs or medical substances), which proves mind is matter which are subject to be changed or destroyed by the physical causes.

I agree. The mind turns off at times, like deep sleep or general anesthesia. — Patterner

I am even thinking that mind could be physical in its nature, i.e. mind is not different existence from our bodies. Because mind can only exist when body exists as living agent. Hence body is the precondition of mind, and mind is actually a part of body.

Just because we cannot see it or touch it, it is not physical or material? That sounds too simple.
Think of your mobile phone. Your phone rings. Someone is calling you, and the phone rings. Do we see anything coming in through your window in the sky? Nope. Radio waves are invisible, inaudible and untouchable, but it still travels through space connecting folks communications. The radio waves can be measured and captured via the device called frequency counter.

Could mind be some kind of existence like radio waves? Our senses feed the information received via our sense organs into the brain, and brain perceives the external world, feels pains and pleasures, thinks and reasons. Just like what happens in the computer processors.
Mind could be some type of electrical processing in the brain, which is totally physical and biological? No?

I don't think it was a reduction of any sort. When you reduce something, you make it less or simpler. I didn't make anything less or simpler in the point.

My point was to stress the place where we find the existence of time. And it is not any where in the world, or indeed any physical or material objects which is called time. But time exists in our perception when we notice the changes in the world which happens in regular manner e.g. the Sun sets and rises, the change of seasons, births and deaths of people ... etc.

But our consciousness is about far more than just our physical bodies. — Patterner

But without body, our consciousness evaporates into nothing. Our brain falls asleep every night, and when it does, the whole world of ours disappears into nothing too until bodies waking up in the morning. Bodies keep on living without conscious minds, but no conscious mind can exist without the living body which it could be emerged from.

If there is no human mind, then there is no time. Time will end, if the last human dies on the earth.

Well, that is a loaded statement, you know. There is so much philosophy in this, one barely knows where to begin. Kant wasn't wrong (though the Critique can be argued endlessly. Was Strawson right? Here and there, yes), but seriously incomplete; such is rationalism. — Astrophel

My ideas seem to be based on natural logic rather than science.   I don't deny science, but always be aware of the limitations of science.  But yes, I do like pragmatism and intend to read Dewey, James, Pierce, Whitehead, and Strawson too.

How do we have knowledge?  I feel idealism and materialism and realism all have their points.  But they all seem to have limitations too.  Phenomenology seems interesting, but it too, seems to be only emphasising on the experience side of perception and knowledge, while mentioning the significance of body, consciousness and intentionality, they don't seem to go deeper into those areas.  I could be wrong here. I must admit I hadn't read a lot on phenomenology, and my idea on it is purely from guessing.

It is definitely correct that our senses feed us with the external world as a phenomenon i.e. appearance, but there is more than just phenomenon and appearance in the world.  There are actual facts, matters, objects and changes.  Kant was definitely correct in saying that there is the boundary of our senses, and out of the boundary there is the world of the unknown.

But knowledge is far more than just sense perception.  We apply our thoughts, logic and reasoning on the contents of perception in order to build knowledge.  Some knowledge becomes the foundation for further inference and reasoning other knowledge, hence knowledge keeps expanding.

We know that science, math, logic and language are the tools for describing, verifying and expanding our knowledge.

But going back to OP, our most foundational criteria for knowledge is sense perception. We only doubt sense perception when there is discrepancies in the perception which doesn't make sense due to possible illusion or mistake on the perception. So, the OP's premise that we tend to doubt sense perception in most cases is incorrect. Our contents of thought have more chance of going wrong due to the folks' faulty reasoning or mixing the thought process with their personal irrational emotion. Hence we often see folks making false claims and statements on others ideas, and also making bad decisions on their own affairs too.

So I would ask you, if you like, to ask Rorty's question of how things out there get in knowledge claims, just to begin showing the strength of phenomenology. It begins with the question of epistemology. — Astrophel

I have not read Rorty, hence I cannot comment on his philosophy at this point. I owned a book by Rorty titled "Mirror of Nature???", and read a few pages. But the book has gone missing, and cannot be located. Will try reading it again if and when I find the book. From my memory Rorty was mentioning a lot of Heidegger.

Sure, we can make those observations, but replicating human thinking in a computer program seems impossible. — Carlo Roosen

Why would it be impossible?

To make the move into how this constitution can be analyzed, one has to read the kind of philosophy that does just this, phenomenology. — Astrophel

Problem with phenomenology is that it is another Kantian idealism without Thing-in-itself.

For example, in what sense does "earth" in language capture the reality of the earth, being 12,714 km in diameter and having a mass of 5.9722 × 10^24 kg. — RussellA

Most folks wouldn't need such information in their life on the earth. Especially if you were a Zarathustra in the remote mountain cave living alone, the earth is a place where you are born, find food, cook, lie down for sunshine and enjoy watching the stars in the night sky. All these activities can be performed without knowing language.

For Wittgenstein, the world is not totally separate to the language that we use to describe it. — RussellA

I would rather agree with the world of Heideggerian or MP's, of which the structure or existence is disclosed or revealed by language. The world will happily keep existing without language or humans. Perhaps language and humans cannot exist without the world? It seems the case that the world has existed prior to the existence of life for long time.

I mean, think about it: what is scienctific knowledge and how does it present to me the moon as it is? One has to look not at the quantification, for this doesn't give us anything but relational structures in a system that is ontologically distinct from the presence of the moon itself. — Astrophel

Science can only describe what are observable. The hidden and unobservable parts of the world for them are same as metaphysics i.e. conjecture, inference and abstraction. Knowledge has limits, and all existence has both knowable and unknowable aspects which are the inherent properties of them.

Quantifications on the objects will make the knowledge more objective, but not absolute or ultimate.