I prefer Spinoza to solip ism.

no probs noble and thank you for your kindness it (kindness) is both precious and rare. I am not easily offended, often offense can be quite informative. :)

When there is more than one person in the therapy, psychoanalysis generally begins to fail.

Please excuse the grammar I am using one of these ludicrous not-so-smart-phones

I agree lucid dreams ...,
"the pinnacle of spirituality"

Nice phrase.

I think we are in agreement.

Good psychoanalysis will provide the reasoning for the dream itself. However the process dreaming is the practical experience of freedom in that it is independent of the materially determined universe. You may not be free to influence the material nature of his and your existence, however you are free to dream and to feel, and to contemplate upon dream thought.

How do you know that you are not simply experiencing disciplined meditation during the process of lucid dreams? You don't need a yum yum tree and a shaved head to have disciplined meditation. Discipline in respect of lucid dreams might simply encompass the lucidity itself.

Being "aware" that one is dreaming is interesting in the sense that it is an example of meta-thought, thought upon thought.

One might ask, within the context of meta-thought can one be aware that one is aware that one is dreaming? Within this apparently infinite expansion one approaches Schopenhauer's 'Will to Will'.

Here is an example of the freedoms that are maintained within a super determined universe. The process of transition from thought to meta thought to meta-meta thought and so on, is the fundamental essence of meditation, both ancient and modern. This process attempts the impossibility of a union with pure consciousness and "god" by all definitions is 'pure consciousness'. God in this sense resides outside of the determined nature of a predictable material universe. God as such is pure thought AND pure freedom. In keeling with Buddhism and other proponents of a meditative approach to God, is the disciplined aspiration beyond the material and towards pure reason and pure consciousness.

M

If indeed the West ever was to become civilised, it would necessarily be a disaster because the event would be too little and to late.

I see no evidence of civilization merely the semblance of organized chaos.

As Will Durant often writes....man is a trousered Ape.

M

An American friend of mine once said, 'opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one.

200 years ago relatively few people were educated, and there were educated experts in every field. The actual and real paucity of these experts rendered their opinions to be of value. Things that are universally available are assigned little appreciation or value. Today there are experts who are valued because they have functional skills that are not universal, mechanics, surgeons, mathematicians etc. These activities are valued because they are not universal.

Any fool however can claim ownership of philosophy, and democracy preaches that all opinions have a certain equality of sorts. Therefore the philosophy that is truly iconoclastic is lost within a tsunami of idiocy, self serving anger, and ego. Because the mass of men are now at least literate, philosophy is attended by a mass of literate fools, all tanned and oiled with their equality.

Equality has murdered philosophy.

Today we are living in an intellectual dark age. Expertise, valued opinion is dead because all are self professed experts in the realm of thought. I am a family physician by trade. I do not spend my day offering diagnosis that is based upon my 'expert' opinion, for the most part my time is spent confirming the preconceived diagnoses I am presented with. I have given up trying to argue a long time ago. Life is easier that way and patients are generally happier. The drugs don't kill and they mostly entertain the patient whilst nature effects her cure.

My daughter once told me 'Dad who needs a family physician when you have a smart phone?' Almost all the purveyors of thought must behave the same; the architect must bring form to the vision of his client, so to must the designer, the philosopher too must align his thought to the idiocy of the herd if that philosophy is to be deemed of value.

True philosophy resides like Zarathustra, far from the crowd. It lives in the mountains where it is safe and inaccessible. Presently it resides in the thought of the old Masters and it speaks with the quantum physicist in a language that is alien to the great mass of stinking thinking plebs.

Soon it may descend from the heights with a new idea, and we will recognise this as truth as soon as the herd have sentenced it to death.

M

You may be right about the historical facts - I don't know my history too well. But God cannot change the laws of logic. A conclusion is called "necessary" if it logically follows from the premises, and the alternative is illogical. Thus logic is the criteria to determine if a conclusion is necessary or merely contingent. — Samuel Lacrampe

Whys is it that God cannot change the laws of logic?

He/she/it must have changed the laws of logic in order for the Universe to come into being.

Furthermore objective reality (Trump, Hitler, Suffering, ecological demise etc) would suggest that God is a big fan of the illogical.

Existence, reality... both have not been proven to be reasonable or even in accordance with any particular logic as opposed to the logic of illogicity (whatever that is when its at home)

M

The answer to the 'meaning or purpose of life is complex in that the purpose or meaning appears different for different people. Whether they get it wrong or right appears in my estimation to be relative to their respective experience of hapiness and the form quality and duration of that happiness.

Given the reality that life is meaningless in practical terms, that even the biological 'purpose' vis pro-creation is futile and short lived as the sun will fade and all of 'us' will ultimately disappear into meaningless obscurity life as an individual human being is indeed utterly meaningless. In fact history will undoubtedly judge us to have been a rather disgusting generation when one considers the suffering that could have been ameliorated by our wealth and technology, and the destruction of species that is consequenced by our materialism and greed. We are a disgusting excuse for a species and the Universe would undoubtedly fare better without us.

Suicide is indeed a moral and viable option relative to the criminal nature of our existence and the purely artificial basis of most of the relations we share with others and even with ourselves.

However self destruction, whilst somewhat morally valid is logically invalidated by the absolute meaningless of existence and indeed the inevitability of death renders its premature termination to be equally meaningless. To live and to die is ultimately pointless.

There are however two things that keep me alive, essentially two aspects of the same thing.. happiness and pleasure. Food, wine, sex and the continued refinement of my intellect.

I believe that material reality is determined and as such material existence has no real meaning. The Universe is a-temporal and in essence it was over the instant it began. however there is something distinct from the Universe and that is consciousness, aspects of which might well be free or undetermined. If this be the case then refinement of consciousness or the intellect may well be the primary purpose of existence and the pursuit of pleasure merely a secondary delusion that I am 'happy' to indulge myself in.

I suspect that consciousness is infinite and refinement of consciousness is the ultimate purpose of life. As such the purpose of life is to prepare for ones death and to enjoy the experience of the determined unfolding of the material universe.

Ultimately the practical material purpose of life is death. And one must tend ones garden in the intervening moments.

Darth
I love your post! Seriously... even if it is a bit narcissistic?

In summary, philosophers start from their sensibility and project this onto an phantom exteriority. Yet is has not been shown that meaning has any reality beyond sensibility, nor that sensibility carves the limits of reality. It has not been shown that humans have the right to form beliefs about the world. It has not been shown that humans are in positions of observation. It has not been demonstrated that demonstrations are reliable indicators of Truth. — darthbarracuda

You are correctly asserting that human 'truth' or Philosophical truth. Is not the measure of all truth and that many truths are possible, particularly in a subjective sense. Nietzsche insists that we should and actually do value un-truth as much if not more than truth.

You are right!

However we humans are united in our humanity and we are united in our physiological interface with 'phantom reality'. In this sense there may well be ONE truth that may well be arrived at by the process of (human) deductive reasoning.

Do not despair. A grand theory of everything may well be upon the horizon, as soon as the philosopher and the quantum physicist get over the nuptials and eventually consummate the union.

M

Whether a multi-racial society can survive as a nation-state is something we're still trying to discover, I think. My prediction is that the problem will disappear through genetic blending. Races only stay separate where there is something institutional to outlaw blending. — frank

I think that is a fair analysis Frank. One hopes that the multi-racial society will survive and ultimately consequence the demise of borders AND the ridiculous institution of the nation state itself.

However Trump's and Brexit's revitalization of Nazi type ideology would seem to suggest that currently social evolution is ebbing in the opposite direction, for the moment at least. Presently it is not race but ecology that is the emerging danger and interestingly this emerging threat has no interest in race or state.

M

Nazi preoccupation with purity of race evolved out of German frustration with their inability to create a cohesive nation-state like France or Britain. They located the cause of their failure in their culturally diverse landscape. They tried to force assimilation through public education. It worked with some of their Czech population, but it didn't work on the Jews. Their Jewish population stood out as a reason that they couldn't be great like Great Britain. — frank

I agree entirely.

M

streetlight

I doubt if you are really interested in dialogue. However thats fine by me, I Love engaging in discussion even when it affords the sole benefit of considering and reviewing ones own thoughts upon a subject.

Therefore thank you for the opportunity to think upon this matter as it is one that is dear to my heart. Nietzsche was in my estimation the last Christian to die upon the metaphorical cross. I have to declare that I enjoy his thought almost as much as my own.

Your various two liners.. don't give much grist for the mill, but I do enjoy your anger. Nietzsche was (as we know) an angry man for all the right reasons. Hitler too was angry for all the wrong reasons..

The subject of this thread refers to the ideology of the Nazi's and the philosophy of Neitzsche as it pertains to the organized State. I use the words carefully as the Nazis had more of an ideology than that which might be correctly referred to as a Philosophy.

There are similarities, and the question as to the basis of similarity is not a new one. To understand the similarity we must consider the crucial difference.

The crucial difference between Nietzsche/Hitler's emergent notion of State, and that of other political systems vis: Communism or Socialism or Democracy etc., Is that in accordance with Nazi ideology and Nietzsche's philosophy, a valid 'State' is dependent upon and emergent out of 'spiritual' (Hitler's word, not mine) and or physical human qualia.

For Nietzsche the state (the best Government that is least) arises out of a supremacy of the intellect, and a subsequent independence from the state. Both apriori qualia might themselves be considered as emergent from the 'will' or the 'will to power'. Whilst Neitzsche's is rational and intellectual, the Nazi ideal correlates reason (as derived from the will) with racial purity. Nietzsche would not have succumbed to this kind of illogical correlate.

German soldiers might well have carried copies of Zarathustra, because they may have believed they were establishing a 'state' upon Nietizschean principles. This may not have been an entirely foolish assumption on their part. (hence the subject of this thread)

Other political philosophies do not recognize these complex qualia apriori as the impetus for the emergence and subsequent validity of the 'true' State. Other political philosophies see apriori common- 'needs' (health, education, justice, food etc) as the primary reason for an imposition of 'State' upon the governed. Hitler and Neitzsche see 'will' and not 'need' as the primary determinant of social order. In this they are alike, however they are grossly different in their definition of 'will' and or the will to power.

Other political philosophies value 'freedom', but do not define that freedom outside of the general freedom to do what one wishes as long as it harms no one else and is in keeping with an established moral code. All political philosophy struggles with the practical moral reconciliation of freedom and obligation to state and its imposed moral code.

Both Hitler and Nietzsche dismiss the notion that the state should impose pre-structured qualia in the form of; religious dogma, Communistic Sharing of wealth, Socialism, Nationalism, etc UPON the governed, but rather that the state (Nationalist or otherwise) should emerge out of inherent qualia that are apriori for both Hitler and Neitzsche.

In this sense both the ideology and the philosophy are predicated upon a rejection of religious dogma. In this sense both Neitzsche and Hitler are totalitarian and are entirely disinterested in (as you put it) : "the negotiation of political criteria of exclusion". For Hitler and for Nietzsche there is no negotiation. There is merely the Master and those beneath the master.

(Interestingly Donald Trump operates within a similar philosophical frame of non-negotiation on the assumption of various apriori, that are reminiscent of Race and Masters. (but this is another days work))

The current and previous Communistic or Socialist or religious notions of Statehood do not regard these inherent apriori qualia (race/philosophy/intellectual independence) as a basis for organizing the state, but rather impose the notion of 'equality' for all or most citizens within the State, regardless of physical or intellectual frailty.

Within Democracy all opinions no matter how unpalatable have equal rights (even yours). However within Nietzsche and Hitler's view all opinions are not equal in their rights. Nietzsche dismisses the right to an opinion if indeed that opinion is not philosophically sound. Hitler dismisses opinions if they are not originated by members of a 'superior' race. Although the intolerance is different, both the ideal and the philosophy are intolerant, and Nietzsche's philosophy would be as intolerant of cruelty as it is intolerant of wanton stupidity.

Personally I am not so intolerant of stupidity and enjoy banging my head against it, until it starts to hurt.

M

Nietzsche, sic passim. So peddle your fucking ignorance elsewhere. — StreetlightX

This type of input into the discussion is most informative. It reminds one of the the selfish anger of the herd that proved most potent in the 1940's.

Anger is good! Angry people make things happen!

But Neitzsche would have you channel it into the quality of your thought, rather than simply letting it expire into the air as the brute exhalations of used gases.

M

It is (one would hope) commonly understood that Nietzsche was obviously not a proponent of statehood. There is little in his writings that describe the ideal state whereby 'philosophers of the future' might emerge.

Hitler considered the state to be the thing that is consequenced by the will of a pure race. The purer the race the more powerful becomes the emergent state.

The comparison being contained in the notion that state is an emergent concept for both Nietzsche and Hitler. State arises as a consequence of will to power, and not as a communist socialist or paternal institution that fosters weakness and disability.

The distinction between the two ideals is in the notion of that which an emergent state considers as the qualia of human superiority and human weakness. Human equality in respect of ability was as much an anathema for Nietzsche as it was for the Nazis, the distinction being the grounds for this assumption or recognition of human inequality, for Nietzsche it was intellect for the Nazis race and physical purity.

If Nietzsche had a vision of state it might well have been along the lines of that envisaged by Thoreau, government being best which governs least. In Nietzsche' social order the need for state becomes diminished as the governed evolve beyond their weak dependencies upon both church and state.

Nietzsche, and Hitler sought to transcend human weaknesses not preserve them within the state. The horror lies in what Hitler misconstrued as weakness.

Both Nietzsche's and Hitlers political systems are 'emergent' they emerge from superiority and power rather then the current model of universal equality.

The power and appeal of Nazi ideology in a political state-generating sense is that upon the basis of race it is inclusive of all members of a pure racial and physical cohort. Therefore it has mass appeal and contains within it the implication that members of said cohort are superior upon the basis of their race.

Nietzsche considered the individual 'thinking -man' the philosopher, as the superior being. For Nietzsche the 'quality' or 'purity' of the thinking-man's thought, is generally correlative to the degree that it differs from that of the collective, and thereby it contains an inherent rejection of almost all pre-existing and presently existing social orders.

Nietzsche might well have smiled at Wilde's assertion that: 'I would never belong to an organization that would have me as a member'.

The Nazis were politically inclusive on the basis of race, Nietzsche was politically exclusive upon the basis of the intellect, which as it (the intellect) becomes more refined, it necessarily becomes more exclusive and more solitary.

Here are a few choice lines from Mein Kampf. One hopes that one does not have to remind others that there is neither a promotion nor an apology for Nazism here.

The question at hand pertains to the use or appeal of Nietzsche to the Nazis.

Nietzsche's calls to humanity to rise above itself and its delusions finds parallel in Hitler's notion of the state and the purpose of the state being to contain and facilitate a "higher form of civilization"

Hitler departs from Nietzsche on many levels, but of particular interest here is the departure when Hitler seeks to construct this 'higher form' out of a raw material of 'racial purity'. I do not believe there is any evidence to support the notion that Nietzsche placed any particular value upon racial purity. However Nietzsche undoubtedly felt that there were or are inferior beings worthy of contempt 'the herd', 'the stink of small people' etc. Whilst the Nazi's strove for a higher human form upon the basis of race and physical purity.. Nietzsche appealed for 'Philosophers of the Future' who arguably might posses an intellectual purity of sorts. As such it is not too difficult to see how Nietzsche's ideas or at least some of them could have been commandeered by the Nazi's

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

"The current political conception of the world is that the State, though it possesses a creative force which can build up civilizations, has nothing in common with the concept of race as the foundation of the State. The State is considered rather as something which has resulted from economic necessity, or, at best, the natural outcome of the play of political forces and impulses. Such a conception of the foundations of the State, together with all its logical consequences, not only ignores the primordial racial forces that underlie the State, but it also leads to a policy in which the importance of the individual is minimized.
Mein Kampf 316


any new movement which is based on the racial concept of the world will first of all have to put forward a clear and logical doctrine of the nature and purpose of the State.
The fundamental principle is that the State is not an end in itself but the means to an end. It is the preliminary condition under which alone a higher form of human civilization can be developed, but it is not the source of such a development.
Mein Kampf 324

The State is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose is to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred. Above all, it must preserve the existence of the race, thereby providing the indispensable condition for the free development of all the forces dormant in this race."


M

No the whole post is trash from top to bottom. — StreetlightX

Sounds familiar.

A similar type of dialogue was once equally disinterested in philosophy. It just put all the 'trash' into piles or ovens and burned it all, rather than suffer the indignity of having to think or justify its dictates. Thankfully most of us have moved on.

You post is as relevant as it is irrelevant.

Well done!

M

Perhaps a little bit of evidence or even a specific criticism of the assertion would be a little more intellectually courageous than a simple stone throw from a safe distance?

Although not PC, I think that there was some beauty contained within the horror of Nazi ideology. This 'beauty' a love of social order, a rejection of religious power in favor of science pragmatism and logic, the power of the individual, before a subservience to creed, the subjugation of capitalism or the market to the service of the socialist state,. All of these ideals would to a greater or lesser degree have appealed to Nietzsche.

As zizek states the problem with the Nazis was not that they went too far but rather they did not go far enough. If one extracts the antisemitic thought from mein Kampf, its content is very much in keeping with much of Nietzsche's 'gentle' thought.

Tyler

You appear to me to be attempting to justify a common place conclusion, rather than allowing the known facts direct you towards a new view or an evolution of the current paradigm..

Your alignment with the pedestrian notion that consciousness is caused by brain activity is boring, in the sense that it is commonplace and predictable.

Indeed there is a correlation between both neural activity and consciousness. It is very easy then to join the herd in the assumption that consciousness is the 'effect' and private neural activity is the 'cause'.

I have already pointed out that this view is homocentric and does not address the reality that neural activity and the identification of such activity is both contained and consequential to, consciousness.

If you liberate yourself from the commonplace and consider consciousness with impartiality we can then consider the fundamental question pertaining to its creation of the experience of material reality. This starting point is more interesting because it reconciles many profound philosophical questions, principally because we do not venture into assumptions that result in the need for further false assumptions.

Consciousness as an entity outside of or uncaused by neural activity, becomes relieved of temporality, and therefore satisfies Hume's critique of casualty itself. It also satisfies the empirical nature of determinism and offers the possibility of an evolved view of the universe and the reconciliation of quantum mechanical paradox.

Wilful adherence to the old but persistent paradigm does not advance the agreed correlation between consciousness and neural activity, it merely reasserts the current paradigm.

That is interesting all good philosophers are banned at some point!

Any idea why?

Tom

I await your reply?

M

> Do you mean agreed facts are that there's no evidence that consciousness is related to brain activity?
If so, I don't agree to that, as I believe there is lots of evidence that thought processes correlate with brain activity. I did provide suggestive evidence of this, which you didnt seem to refute. — Tyler

The issue at hand is your presumption that brain activity is the cause and consciousness the effect.

There are two flaws with this logic both of which serve the contemporary bias of 'self' construction. This is a bias that we have yet to evolve out of, and indeed it takes a degree of courage to do so and this courage is not commonplace. The first flaw is the extension that is applied to the word 'correlation' as you use it. Indeed there may well be a correlation between brain activity and consciousness, but this in no way implies the euphemistic application of correlation with the notion 'cause'. The contemporary paradigm would have us believe that consciousness is indeed correlated with brain activity, yet there is no evidence to suggest that it is caused. All attempts to apply causation of consciousness to brain activity have failed. Yet the paradigm persists out of a rather homocentric if not egocentric love for the delusion of self.

I might just as easily assert that brain activity is in fact caused by consciousness, and indeed despite the unpalatable nature of the assertion, it resolves the paradox with greater ease than might its self serving inverse.

The second flaw is in the very notion of cause and effect itself, this relationship has already been sufficiently undermined by Hume.

Please expand upon what you mean by 'The stationary space-time block'

This is your phrase (not mine), and you have suggested I am happy with it?

Please allow me the courtesy of a definition, prior to the assumption of my contentment with it's philosophical content.

M

QM is a fully deterministic theory. — tom

Agreed. So lets get on with the essential business of providing an intellectually valid Universal construct that combines the determined and atemporal nature of the Universe with the phenomenon of thought and avoid the self serving delusion of multiverses.

M

It is impossible in principle to know which futures you will inhabit, not even a "god" can do that. Also, it is possible to set the quantum amplitude of certain futures to zero by the application of knowledge. — tom

This mode of discussion, smacks of the new religion of the materialist. One feels as though one is at an inquisition of sorts, questioning the almighty God of modern materialism. The 'which future' rejoinder leads one to a reductio absurdum and cannot be escaped, just as the almightly absurdity of God was medieval ne plus ultra of the dark ages.

"Which future" from this assertion one must conclude that within each of these futures there are also an infinity of futures and within each of those futures an infinity of futures... and here at last the materialist can cling to the the desperate notion of free will. The 'which future' is the rabbit hole down which an escape for the new God of self and free will might be effected.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

One Universe one past and one future. You can certainly have a multiplicity of Universes if one finds this notion pleasing, however the suggestion that this Universe (big bang to present) contains a multiplicity of futures would be contingent upon its possession of a multiplicity of pasts, which it does not
contain.

A single universe with a multiplicity of futures must also contain a multiplicity of pasts, an infinite number of such pasts each different. If there is such a thing as an objective real basis to this (our shared Universe) we cannot observe different pasts. We can only observe the past, a single history confined to our single shared Universe. One past might only be derived from one future. We do not know what the precise nature of the single future is and as such we might say or feel that it has infinite possibility, however the possibilities can only be assigned to the event components that we cannot as yet predict. Our inability to predict certain determined future forms of the universe does not lend the future any additional futures. One past is the consequence of one determined future. Multiverses and multiple futures are a veritable rabbit hole.

Why do we rush to hide down the rabbit hole when the temporal structure of our single and relevant Universe is so obvious?

M

If the future exists apriori how can our personal future be open.?

This multiverrse stuff sounds like a sophisticated version of the god delusion... A nice way of filling in gaps and silencing critics. Other Universes are not relavent to our universe and discussions as to their existence are just another example of atheistic gods.

Bell himself felt the ultimate question is one of determinism, and the only problem with determinism is the fact that people are afraid of it and don't know what to do with it, and cannot reconcile it with thought, or free will. It (determinism) is readily reconcilable with SR and QM, it its less reconcilable with the fear of its intellectual import.

One does not need QM to prove the absence of free will. Special relatively already achieves this without equivocation. Temporal shifts at high velocity travel have proven special relatively correct. The future already exists and as such free will is precluded.

I don't think philosophy has anything to do with preference. Although preference determines one's philosophy. The lure of good philosophy is that it remains oblivious to preference and maintains truth as its objective. Preference almost always obscures truth but it is always a temporary obscurity.

Each age might well be defined more by its mass delusions than by its comprehension of truth. The future will laugh at the delusions we hold to be the truths of today. It is not a difficult thing to do, to close ones eyes and move into the mind of the future and laugh or cry at the delusions of today. To do so one need only posses a modicum of intelligence an that rarity that is the capacity for an independence of thought and an independence of preference.

I suggest that this position is a consequence of a; pleasing, tempting, fashionable, contemporary and entirely materialist bias.
— Marcus de Brun
> This could be true, but it is also the most logical position, as I explained. So thinking that consciousness is not brain activity, may be just as bias toward an alternate explanation. — Tyler

If we consider that 'bias' is the process of adopting a view that is outside of or in contradiction of the evidence presented, and that bias can generally be considered to be a view that serves an ulterior motive outside of the facts; my position cannot be construed as containing a bias as my view strictly accords with the agreed facts (ie there is no material evidence for the endogenous manufacture of human thought/consciousness). My position is also your position, unless you have some evidence to contradict my view, you can only contract that view upon the basis of an assumption, or negation of fact (BIAS)

My view does not contain any assumptions of fact other than the given truth that thought itself exists (this has not been refuted) . To suggest that this thought is contingent upon material process is THE contention that contains bias as it adds to the existent fact that 'thought exists' with the additional entirely unproven assumption that thought is emergent from or contingent upon material processes. All of this amounts to nothing more than self serving assumption and lies outside of the facts.

Why the passion for self serving delusion?

To assert that my refutation of the agreed position that there is as yet no evidence for the silly presumption of an emergent or contingent basis for thought is not bias, it is an assertion of an agreed fact. Bias lies only in the negation of fact in favor of unfounded or unproven assumption. To assert that one is bias because one identifies bias and disagrees with the presumptive nature of that bias borders upon the ridiculous.

Not certain which argument you are referring to. My original and current point is that mind or consciousness has not been shown to arise from material interactions and the inverse is most likely the case. Objects that interact at an atomic and even sub atomic level must be conceived or perceived to do so. The interactions between matter and its relations to entropy involve a quantum leap out of the subject that is consciousness and into the realm where a material self has been assumed.

I believe the relations between mind and matter are difficult to comprehend because an appropriate theory of mind has yet to be formulated. Such a theory would be dependent NOT upon mind matter interaction nor matter matter interactions, such speculations are based upon the presumptive notion of an 'I' or material self and thenceforth upon an assumed objective material reality. I am not saying that material reality does not exist, I am merely saying that we have only the uncorroborated testimony of mind to vouch for this and at best we are not getting the full truth. Mind or thought exists, we can be certain of this much. However to jump from mind to matter without a sound theory of mind is to begin with an enormous assumption that leads to a Universe of material assumption.

We can be certain the mind exists, and when this was proven to be such, Descartes has also inadvertently proven that there must equally be conditionalities for the existence of mind. These conditions have hitherto been believed to be material, but they are clearly not, and they (material conditions) have not been uncovered. I believe this is because we are continually looking in the wrong place (matter) As such it is inconsequential if entropy is positive or negative and if it is contradicted by material life processes.

It is likely that the sole conditionality that must contain mind is a temporal one and not a material one. Again I am not saying that material existence is not real, I am saying that it is merely a byproduct of the mind and mind conditionalities. The conditions that contain thought or mind are at least temporal and if this is true then we have something definite to work with vis the relations between thought and time. A million philosophers have spent an ocean of ink upon the relations between thought and matter, and this approach is futility incarnate.

I have a suspicion that material reality is produced as a consequence of the relationship between thought and time. I have written an paper on the subject and if permitted to do so I will publish it here under the article's section. I don't pretend that it has all the answers but I think it begins to ask some of the right questions, and I would be grateful for some Philosophical input.

I don't know about you but I am bored senseless with the never-ending debate about mind-matter and would love to see the question take a new direction without material assumptions. Let the physicists have their entropy it may well be just another entertaining delusion.

one small breech in the dam and an eager philosopher rushes to the spot and sticks his head in the hole. For a time the job is oxo, until the next crack appears and another rushes to apply his head to the same problem. The catastrophe will apparently be avoided for as long as we have a supply of philosophers to use their heads and protect us all from the truth.

Let's take our heads from the cracks and return to the water. The entropy of contained or uncontained processes is equally contingent upon mind. It (entropy) is equally contingent upon temporality. Therefore the interacting a priori are time and mind. When Descartes proved the existence of thought he equally proved the existence of time. These are the universal building blocks. An appropriate understanding of the relations here, must be completed before one applies ones head to the dam and speculates upon the dirty stuff that is matter and the ephemeral 'laws' that night pertain to its interactions.

Since there is that unexplored potential, it seems most logical to assume that with further investigation of brain activity, using science, we will then discover the explanation of consciousness. — Tyler

I suggest that this position is a consequence of a; pleasing, tempting, fashionable, contemporary and entirely materialist bias.

Consciousness in Philosophical parlance would appear to cause and or contain brain activity, in the same manner that it may contain our perception of 'objective' reality. — Marcus de Brun

Yes, and wouldn't you consider "perception of 'objective' reality" to be the basic concept of "consciousness"? — Tyler

The word I use is 'objective' you have negated the fact that the word is contained within apostrophes. IE there is no objective reality, merely that which consciousness offers as suggestion that, there might be something external to the mind. Nothing more. Objectivity is an entirely subjective experience. Berkley has thoroughly explained this aspect of reality.

M

Not my definition, but in any case, I'm not sure life contradicts entropy. It doesn't contradict the second law of thermodynamics (at least not obviously) since we are not usually dealing with isolated systems when we are dealing with living creatures and their physiology. — MetaphysicsNow

You can be certain that life contradicts entropy.
Entropy -> Chaos
Life -> Order

There is no equivocation here.

M

There is a contradiction between your equation of life force and entropy. Entropy is a tendency towards disorder. The singular mystery of life is that it contradicts entropy and is defined as a contrary tendency towards molecular cellular tissue organ system species and ecological order.

Objectivity does not exist as it is entirely dependent upon subjectivity, which itself is rather dubious,as it must first presume the self to be an object.