The diagram is not in the system, it's an outside view.
— Kenosha Kid

An outside view viewed by whom? — Isaac

Not an outside view, but an inside view at a different time. Guy goes about his business. Guy makes a mistake; guy does a good thing; guy does this; guy does that, all day, every day for his whole conscious life, all under the direct supervision of the system.

Something a guy might do, is ask about the mistake; ask about the good thing; ask about this; ask about that. It’s called reflection. Who’s he gonna ask, for certain answers that is, but himself? What’s he gonna ask, but the system. How’s he gonna ask, but with the system. Only the system can ask and answer, because the system did, what the system’s asking about.

Silly as that seems, it is in fact what we do all the time. Happens so fast we don’t notice, and is so common as to be unnoticeable most of the time, but once in awhile, we are forced by some relative severity, to actually think about something we did. Didn’t do. Said or didn’t say. Thought or didn’t think.

Not that hard to imagine, that given sufficient methodological reduction from some undeniable reality, we can actually arrive at some example or other, that represents our cognitive system, such that all the above is explained. Explained but not proven.

And the rest, as they say....is history.

Information is the only thing that fits in mind, so it is the only thing that can cause a thought ( The deeper question though is what causes the information to integrate?). — Pop

Which could be considered as just another iteration of what I’m talking about. If it is information responsible for causation and we still need to query the cause of the cause....we remain contending with that damnable infinite regress.
————-

This information must be interpreted. — Pop

Absolutely.

The mind is working with "raw information" — Pop

Common consensus, yes. Pretty much given something is working with the information. One camp says brain works with it, the other camp says mind works with it.

As it ever was......

Me: The cause of my thought can only be a thought.
You: What makes you think this?
Me: Simple: I don’t know the cause of my thought. I know I start with this (something), I know I end up with that (“basketball”), but whatever happens in between, is part of the system itself, and can never be examined except by the very system of which it is a part.
You: You're saying that you know you start at 1 and end up at 9, but you can't examine the boxes inbetween using the system itself. But how can you know that without having at least taken a glance at the diagram - you must have 'examined' the system to some extent to even be able to report as much as you have.
Me: EXCEPT by using the system itself. Examining the system, reporting on it, post hoc, is not the use of the system for its intended purpose.
——————

Not sure how this relates to the difference between cognitive science and metaphysics. Both are post hoc. — Isaac

It doesn’t, insofar as they are both post hoc. Yours is post hoc from an external perspective, mine is post hoc from my own internal perspective.

In fact cognitive science has the slight edge here in that third parties can contribute some data here without their examination forming a part of the process — Isaac

Which is exactly the problem. I don’t want data contributed exactly because it isn’t part of the process. Metaphysics is not and never was a science, hence cannot be examined scientifically. The system can only examine itself, with itself.
—————

But we are conscious of the transfer along nerves of the output of sensation and the input to the brain, at least I am. I've seen it with my own eyes in both fMRI and EEG. — Isaac

Then you are only conscious of the the representation of the transfer, and infer the correspondence between them.
—————

I'm not conscious of it at the time, but I've no reason at all to believe that all the times I'm not in a machine capable of detecting such things my body works differently to the times when is is, that would be unreasonable skepticism. — Isaac

Correct, you’re not conscious of it at the time of it, but you are also not conscious of it merely because of its visual representation. Also correct, in that there is no reason to think the body works differently pursuant to different representations of it. The body works as it works, however that is.
—————-

The first box is the instantiation of it, the last is the culmination.
— Mww

This seems to be making an arbitrary distinction. — Isaac

It would be, if not for its logical necessity. It is indubitable that whatever is in our heads is not the same as whatever is in the world outside our heads. Doesn’t matter what is, only that what is here is distinct from what is there.
—————

The System' in the context of our discussion is the mind and it's contents. — Isaac

If you look back, you will find I don’t use the term “mind”. As far as I’m concerned, in the context of this discussion, all I need to talk about is the human cognitive system and its constituency, which cannot include mind. Even if we say the system is metaphysical, and “mind” is metaphysical, doesn’t mean they are the same thing.
(In the 700 pages of the CPR, mind is mentioned exactly four times, and then only as a general transcendental idea)

If you are aware of the instantiation and you are aware of the culmination, then by definition both must be part of 'The System' because you have no other means by which you can be aware of either than your mind. — Isaac

I disagree. I am aware of the external world simply from being affected by it. I don’t need mind to tell me there is something in my visual field. It is certain the reason makes mistakes, so it is irrational to suppose Mother Nature would require us to reason about whether or not we see something.

It is not the business of reason to tell me that there is something, but always and only to tell what the something is. Which also suffices for the distinction from another point of view, for that I am affected by a thing from its perception, is of a different time that being told what it is from the process of the cognitive system.

To be continued......Honey-Do time, doncha know.

With Hangar One, of course. Shaken, not stirred.

Tangueray for me, while you’re at it. Preferably Rangpur.

Noticed, and for which he owes you a cocktail of your choice.

HA!! Boy-howdy. I can’t even imagine total sense deprivation. I’m not even sure such a thing is possible at least while being conscious.

a song "playing" in your head isn't just a representation of the real thing (which is true of hearing it for the first time), but an approximation (recall is imperfect) to a representation (memory) of an approximation (memorisation is imperfect) of a representation (what I heard) of a real thing (what was played). — Kenosha Kid

Ahhh....another closet Kantian. YEA!!!!! C’mon, admit it. Release yourself to the Force, padawan!!!

“...For the manifold representations (recall, memory, what I heard) which are given in an intuition (what was played) would not all of them be my representations, if they did not all belong to one consciousness, that is, as my representations (...), they must conform to the condition under which alone they can exist together in a common consciousness, because otherwise they would not all without exception belong to me (be in my head)....”

That’s not at all what I’m saying. I have no wish to be attacked by a bus, anymore than my ancestors wished to be attacked by a grizzly. Considering the relative possibilities of each, I’d say my survival is less the problem than his.

Exceptions to a rule say nothing whatsoever about the rule.

but you can't examine the boxes inbetween using the system itself. — Isaac

EXCEPT by using the system itself. Also, as you must be aware, examining the system, reporting on it, post hoc, is not the use of the system for its intended purpose. When thinking about something, in the common course of cognitive events, to ask myself how it is I’m thinking it, isn’t in that common course. I may inquire afterwards, in which case I would retrospect using the very same system by which the original thought occurred. Check out how a car drives, whether it drives properly or there’s something wrong with it, by driving it, right? Check out the fit of a shoe......ehhhh, you get the picture.

In addition, part of the system is not in our awareness. Just as in the physical nature of brain mechanics, there is a gap between the sensing of a thing and the apprehension of it, that part in which the perception is transformed into material for the system. Much like we are not conscious of the transfer along nerves of the output of sensation and the input to the brain. Metaphysically speaking, the output of sensation into the nerve endings is phenomena, the transfer along nerves is imagination, the input to the brain is apperception. You know.....case you were wondering.

Are not 'start' and 'end up with' nodes in the system? — Isaac

Technically, no, they are not. The first box is the instantiation of it, the last is the culmination. Empirically, the first is perception, the last is experience. Rationally, the first is thought, the last is reason.
—————

I don't know what goes on in between"

Is that not a description of the system despite being a partial one? — Isaac

Description, yes, but not necessarily knowledge. Metaphysics describing the human cognitive system is a logical interpretation only. Say, experience is this, but only if that and that and that, are consistent with the possibility. But we do not know if the conditions speculated, are the conditions in fact. But that's ok, because science doesn’t know either. Hence.....the inescapable dualism.
————-

The object is a model itself — Isaac

This is exactly right, and oh so Kantian, for it is the purpose of his entire tripartite treatise, to show the objects we perceive are given their modeling by us. The only way it could be otherwise, is to deny the representational nature of the human system. Science will never be able to do that, because the very laws which promise the certainty of its paradigm, automatically prevent its denial, re: conservation of energy. Thing is, in the physical system, the energy is the same throughout and compensation for energy loss in the transfer from one medium to the other occurs downstream, but in the metaphysical system, where the energy of sensation is completely lost, everything downstream is prevented from being a direct correspondence to the object perceived. This is how we are allowed to claim we don’t know what a thing is, immediately upon the sensing of it. It merely constructs as an internal representation, in accordance with the affect the energy of the perception, has. And that which is constructed, is a phenomenon. The object becomes a model.

Philosophy.....ain’t it grand????

Still all good, but having to do with anthropology and sociology and such. Just because I’m trapped in some relative influences of them, doesn’t mandate a personal interest.

allow me to give the short version — Olivier5

I’m good with that version.

But still, there are other uses for thinking than survival alone, aren’t there, at least nowadays, when survival isn’t as big a deal as it used to be.

Information is the cause of your thought. — Pop

Not from this armchair. Information is what the thought is about, not the cause of it.

Information, if anything, is the affect on the brain from perception, which we call sensation.

The cause of my thought can only be a thought
— Mww

What makes you think this? — Isaac

Simple: I don’t know the cause of my thought. That which cannot be known, can still be thought, hence, the cause of my thought can only be a thought, or, it is nothing. Hence....infinite regress, if the former, and from either, no answer is at all possible.

I know what a thought is. As a scientist, a thought euphemistically represents the relation of a stimulus to a reaction by means of an electrochemical medium. As a metaphysician, given a specific theory, a thought is the relation of an object to its cognition by means of a speculative rational system. To say I know the relation between a cognition and an object, which may or not be true, does not give me warrant for claim to know the cause by which the relation is brought about. All I can say is....that’s how this particular rational system works. I know I start with this (something), I know I end up with that (“basketball”), but whatever happens in between, is part of the system itself, and can never be examined except by the very system of which it is a part.

It is catastrophically erroneous to say the object in the relation is its cause, for the object is necessarily simultaneous with the thought of it***, which eliminates the time absolutely necessary for the principle of cause and effect. There is no such thing as an empty thought, every thought is about something, by which the notion of simultaneity (Kant calls it spontaneity) finds its support. It follows as a matter of course, that given the absence of the time necessary for cause/effect, my thoughts are not caused by nor an effect of, the relation it represents.

Nahhhhh.....cognition is the effect, object is the cause. My thought merely unites one to the other, and it is called......wait for iiittttttt......understanding. More precisely, understanding is the uniting, judgement is the united. Theoretically.

*** not to be confused with the perception of it, which is always antecedent to the thought.
————-

Modeling the cause of thought implies making better humans.
Modeling the content of thought implies making a human better.
— Mww

Woah - left-field, where did this spring from? — Isaac

Modeling the physical cause of thought can possibly lead to manipulation of its electrochemical constituents. Behavior modification is a real thing, right? More likely behavior modification manifests as beneficial to humanity in general, I would hope. Hence....better humans.

Me, modeling the content of my thoughts, meaning “this is what I think about that”, and providing I wish to benefit myself by rearranging what I think about that....hence making me a better human.

Where it springs from....damned if I know. Sounded profound at the time. Ego or superfluous bullshit....take your pick.
—————

Feel free to ignore this. — Isaac

I much favor responding to proper intellectual inquiry, rather than pathological ineptitude.

You win.

I don’t see how you end up with infinite regress. — khaled

That I must use thinking, in order to think to that which causes my thinking, is the epitome of infinite regress. The cause of my thought can only be a thought, which is caused by an antecedent thought....never to arrive at the unconditioned cause of any thought.

Pretty straightforward, I should think.

to seek its causes, is to necessarily use the very thing already caused.
— Mww

So? What’s the issue with this? — khaled

Infinite regress.

the discussion from this point and on is useless for me. I hope you can see that. — Alkis Piskas

Saw it from the beginning.

Have a good day.

it tells me specifically about myself from within
— Mww

It claims to. By what measure do you assess that it actually does. — Isaac

Cognitive prejudice. Given a set of theoretical conditions, assessing the degree of satisfaction with them. Now, one might be inclined to say, yeah right, in that case you’re no more than being led by the nose, which usually is the case, considering the lack of empirical warrant, unless the theoretical conditions are so rigid, so complete, encompassing all readily apparent circumstances......and never once contradicting Mother Nature Herself......granting to it due authority causes no harm. In short, it’s a comfortable rendering of something for which no certain knowledge yet repeals.
—————

Most of all, my metaphysical paradigm doesn’t need to juxtaposition disabilities or physical damage in justifications for my normative mental goings-on
— Mww

Again, that it doesn't is not evidence that it doesn't need to. — Isaac

My metaphysics is an exposition on the possibility of a priori knowledge on one hand, and an exposition on the grounds for moral determinations on the other. That being given, I have no wish to know what doesn’t work, but only that which does, and why such should be the case. Thus it is, that whatever juxtaposition does arise, merely exemplifies the consequences under which these expositions themselves are somehow defective, and not what happens when the internal physicality responsible for their manifestation, somehow are.
—————

It depends, I suppose, on what it is you want to achieve. If you're just looking for a story that answers "why do I think like that?" then metaphysics is certainly an easier route to find one. — Isaac

Exactly right. I am Everydayman. Makes no difference whether true or not, there seems to be a little tiny world contained in my head, and wherever it directs, I go. As do you, and even while looking to arrive at the same answer by a different story, you arrive in the exact same way as I, in whichever way that actually is.
————

The task, it seems, is to model the causes of our thoughts. — Isaac

My metaphysics doesn’t do that. My thoughts are given, it makes no difference what causes them. That I think is a condition of my biology, and to seek its causes, is to necessarily use the very thing already caused. I can never ever think to a cause of thinking. Better to examine what a thought is, what a thought contains, where it fits in some overall system, rather than its causality.

Modeling the cause of thought implies making better humans.
Modeling the content of thought implies making a human better.

Then I can’t hold them responsible for the network that makes me to detest Lima beans.

what more-or-less technical aspect in philosophy shows up in your personal life? — Manuel

Reason.

I am aware of the facility of quotation marks. If I didn’t use them, I didn’t quote anybody.

Descartes/Kant 101 merely indicates a synopsis relevant to the topic.
—————

if you say to me that you live in Hawaii, I cannot doubt either that you are telling the truth or you are lying. I have no evidence for either case. So, I certainly can't say that it is true! — Alkis Piskas

You cannot doubt I said I live in Hawaii, so you can say it is true I said it.
You cannot doubt I am telling the truth or I am lying, so you can say it is true I am telling the truth or I am lying.
You can doubt that I live in Hawaii, so, yes, agreed, you cannot say it is true that I do. You also cannot say it is true I do not.
—————

By finding my reasoning agreeable, did it add to, or change, yours?

which would give you a useful picture of what going on between the ears — Isaac

Admittedly, yours gives a much more useful picture than the mathematics which grounds the elementary physical mechanisms. Between speculative cognitive metaphysics and empirical cognitive psychology, however, I will put my gambling profits on the former, for the simple reason that it tells me specifically about myself from within, whereas the latter is being told to me from without.

Most of all, my metaphysical paradigm doesn’t need to juxtaposition disabilities or physical damage in justifications for my normative mental goings-on. I mean.....the very last thing I want to know, is how something that’s broke in my head, explains something that isn’t. I understand clinical diagnosticians find that useful, but if I have a serious enough disability, my metaphysics is useless automatically, whatever the reason for it, which is ok because I won’t have a use for it anyway.

Interesting look inside, nonetheless.

Ah, I see. Useful for explaining something previously unexplained. — Kenosha Kid

I mentioned it doesn’t matter what the entailment is, that determines why one system would be thrown away before the other. From that, it can be deduced that explanation isn’t the reason. Besides, explanation implies understanding, which is quite obviously not the case in math generally, and quite apparently not the case in metaphysics generally.

It’s something else, underpinning both systems.

I'd say it is more the capacity for pattern recognition that makes us see the triangles than it is reason. — Janus

Agreed, in principle, but I don’t think pattern recognition is enough; we still have to do something with the patterns over and above recognizing them.

the answer to the question as posed is probably Kant. — Isaac

Cool.

So likewise, if I may — Isaac

While accommodating the fairness of the request, I deny the expense.

Got something this virgoyankeebabyboomer don’t gotta pay for?

As for QED generally, it wouldn't surprise me if it proved crucial — Kenosha Kid

Absolutely, but it remains.....crucial for what? It’s quite irrelevant what the math entails, just as it is equally irrelevant what a moldy tome on metaphysics entails, the point being, the average smuck on the street will most likely throw down the math, yet give the book at least a cursory read before throwing it.

Then it merely becomes a matter of....why? For which there is a rather obvious answer.

But you've made an unwarranted jump from something which is useless to me (on account of my ignorance) to something's being useless sensu lato. — Isaac

Oh no, you don’t!!! I know you. No need to over-analyze such a simple mental exercise.

Peruse this, peruse that, judge degree of explanatory content relative to a given condition.

Well...there ya go. Wasn’t that complicated after all, was it. As a legitimate survey participant, you’ve concluded the first is a model for the absolutely useless, the second is a model for guesswork. And by admitting to the possible commission of your own guesswork, you’d tacitly acceded to the second-order usefulness of the one in form if not in content, over the absolute uselessness of the other.

Well done.

Welcome back, by the way. Where ya been the last few weeks?

What measure of utility would you want to use? — Isaac

It’s not complicated; each participant answers as he sees fit.

Configuration of neurons are brain states, but changes in neuron configurations are mental states?
— Mww

Mental process, not mental state. — Kenosha Kid

Yeah, sorry, my bad. C & P, write, edit, (Invisible Fence guy), edit, (Non-Stop Talker neighbor), edit (dinner time), edit, post......I lost track of the original.
—————

It's convenient to think of them as physical processes, but in fact they're just terms in an infinite sum that describes a physical process. — Kenosha Kid

Ya know what? I’d like to take a survey, of people in general, after a quick perusal of this:

https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~vadim/Classes/2012f/vertex.pdf

.....followed by a quick perusal of this:

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4280

.....with the survey question being, which one of these is the least useless, with respect to a theoretical description of goings-on between the ears of the human rational animal.

I'm not of the 'mind is an illusion'/'consciousness is an illusion'/'qualia are illusions' camp of physicalists. — Kenosha Kid

Cool.

Mind comes under that: configuration of the neurons in the brain (brain states) and changes in those configurations (mental processes). — Kenosha Kid

Configuration of neurons are brain states, but changes in neuron configurations are mental states? Why isn’t the configuration a mental state? And why isn’t a change of configuration a brain process? I don’t see how it’s valid to call one this and the other than, merely because of a change. Seems like a few steps missing, to me.
—————

The Principle of Complementarity?
— Mww

I'm guessing this is an example rather than a definition. — Kenosha Kid

Yeah, pretty much. Up/down, right/left, right/wrong, ad infinitum. Physical/non-physical. In the human cognitive system, for any possible conception, the negation of it is given immediately. Whatever a thing is, its negation is not that. Whatever physicalism is, non-physicalism is not that.

Non-physical means non-real, basically. — Kenosha Kid

Yep, sufficient to explain why non-physicalism makes little sense as a concept. How would non-physicalism be studied that isn’t already studied under metaphysics? Leave the real out there, bring the valid in here, let it go at that, I say. That it seems real in here is still just that....a seeming. Talk of the real is empirical, talk of the valid is only logical.
————-

Isn’t a single Feynman diagram depicting the interaction of one electron with one positron, or the interaction of two electrons, exact? In what way is it not?

Ok. Thanks.

Are ATP molecules considered major neurotransmitters?

I only know enough about this stuff to get myself in trouble if I talk too much.

I believe this thing is on my right side.
I then have a reason to believe that same thing is on my left side.
It is not true that I must now doubt the thing is on my right side, although I might.
It is true I cannot say I know the thing is on my right or on my left.

Descartes 101: that which can NOT be doubted, must be true. You are saying for that which can be doubted, its negation must be true, which does not hold.

Kant 101: no belief is ever sufficient for knowledge. You have no logical authority to claim affirmative or negative knowledge when given only reasons or no reasons to believe. So in effect, under the given conditions, you are correct in saying you cannot claim to know you are not a fool, but you would be equally correct in claiming you cannot know you are.

“...quantum coherence lives as long as 300 femtoseconds at biologically relevant temperatures...”

Support for Penrose/Hameroff, “Orch-OR”, 1998, rejection of refutation by Tegmark, 2007?

I thought Tegmark nailed it, but apparently he didn’t. Our mental imaging is pretty damn quick, but still........femtoseconds??? YIKES!!!

I see both the white and black triangles on the screen. Both triangles have portions of their boundaries missing. — Janus

Technically, we can’t, because they aren’t there. Reason constructs them for us, probably just so we don’t waste time trying to figure out what the picture might represent if the oddball stuff wasn’t consolidated into something residing in intuition already.

Classic transcendental illusion: reason informs us a priori that a triangle is and can only be a very particular enclosed space, then turns right around and informs us a posteriori of an unenclosed space which we immediately intuit as a triangle. I mean, even the three little black pointy configurations aren’t enclosed sufficiently to form a triangle.

Not only that, but notice that we don’t intuit those things that look like cheese wheels with a wedge taken out, as fully formed circles. Yet we intuit an undefined empty space as a fully formed triangle.

AARRRRGGGGGG!!!!!!

If there is no reason to believe that I am a fool, it means I know I am not a fool. — Alkis Piskas

Since when has a mere contingent cognition (belief) justified a certain cognition (knowledge)?

(Sigh)

At last. Someone realized M was there.

non-physical doesn't make sense as a concept — Kenosha Kid

Non-physicalism is contended. — Kenosha Kid

Cool. If you’d said “non-physicalism doesn’t make sense as a concept” to begin with, I would’ve agreed and had nothing else to talk about. So....thanks. I guess.
————-

Supervenience is a post-modern analytic construct...
— Mww

Intrigued, but pretty sure this is entirely untrue. — Kenosha Kid

I should have stipulated “(...) construct...” in philosophical discourse, re: Morgan, 1923, in conjunction with the early 20th century emergence debates with respect to consciousness, behaviorism and mental activities generally. I always thought of it as a way out of the effect/affect dualism. Another dumb-ass joke played by the OLP of the day, and considering the word isn’t used these days as Morgan implied in his.
————-

But precisely because the mind is physical...... — Kenosha Kid

Errr.....what?????

Am I going to be embarrassed in the morning? — “Kenosha Kid

I should hope so.
—————-

Which is impossible, because it is the case that he must necessarily employ the very things he is attempting to revoke.
— Mww

This assumes what it seeks to prove. — Kenosha Kid

It would, except for the contextual qualifier, i.e., “....given a pursuant methodology...”, in which the necessary employment (of the categories) is established.

You should have no issues with the fact all theories are only logically proved when empirical validation is impossible.
————-

How would one define or identify the non-physical?
— Tom Storm

I've been trying to get an answer to this for years. — Kenosha Kid

The Principle of Complementarity?

Ok. Thanks.