↪Pantagruel Sorry I must be thick because I just don't understand this sentence.

"In other words, our mind is not simply our perception of experiences, but those experiences themselves.
— Pantagruel — ovdtogt

Not just the thoughts "Do this. I am doing this. I did this." The whole experience, the actions, the interactions. I think the notion "holistic" works. Like you said, the act of hammering, not reduced to an intention or a brain signal. The whole event and context.

Again, it depends on the type of interaction and there are many that are not limited to the surface of the skin. There is an excellent essay on perception and activation in the frogs eye. Similarly, the boundary between brain and body isn't straightforward, innervation and ennervation can take place at different locales, depending on the mechanisms and how they involved. When I read the essay in question, I had a really clear insight how the frogs eye was essentially just part of its brain (central nervous system). I have a photocopy of it somewhere, I'll take a look. It is just a logical extension of the concept of embodied cognition. The lines between environment and entity can appear to be clear cut, but they are not necessarily so.

Better than being wrong :) JK.

But the point is, what is a surface? It is an interaction with the environment. Digestion is a surface. Respiration is a surface. The skin is a tactile boundary. Some organisms can react to chemical concentrations that are extremely tiny and relate to sources that are extremely far away from them. Their "surface" can be quite some distance exterior to their physical shell.

Edit: ooo..the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought, that does strike a chord. Thanks.

To whatever extent he loses some operational capacity, perhaps so.

The professor quoted above goes on to say, if he is asked to describe the shore, it is neither land, nor, sea, it is both. Likewise, you really can't say where the boundaries of an organism are. It depends on which systems you are looking at, digestive, tactile, endocrine, etc. They have different interactive boundaries.

Yes. If one believes they themselves exist, they would then believe in the illogical. Because, consciousness is, in itself, illogical (how consciousness/subconsciousness functions together). Not to mention all the other metaphysical phenomena... .

So the statement : Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am), is in that sense illogical and/or an existential absurdity/tautology. — 3017amen

This makes no sense to me at all. Why is consciousness illogical? Consciousness is neither constrained nor defined by logic, which is only a tool. Consciousness is what it is. Its experience of its own existence is a primitive fact. Facts are not "logical," facts just "are".

So when I am hammering in a nail it is in fact my brain that is doing it, not my arms, hands and hammer? — ovdtogt

So, I am fascinated by your thought processes. I provide examples and arguments parallel or directly supportive of your positions, and you seem to repeatedly misinterpret them as contradictory or antagonistic. Maybe you are a little defensive?

No, the exact opposite, when you are hammering in a nail it is a holistic experience. Exactly what the UCLA professor says, which I have always believed, as a proponent of embedded cognition.

Edit: Sorry, it is frustrating enough to be misinterpreted by someone with whom you disagree, let alone someone you don't!

I have mentioned "embedded cognition" before, it didn't generate much interest. So I cut a quote from a UCLA professor of psychiatry, also arguing for essentially embedded cognition. He describes how a key feature of mind is "the emergent self-organizing process, both embodied and relational, that regulates energy and information flow within and among us." Which implies "In other words, our mind is not simply our perception of experiences, but those experiences themselves. Siegel argues that it’s impossible to completely disentangle our subjective view of the world from our interactions."

As it happens I'm also currently doing a lot of reading on systems theory, which is the emergent self-organizing processes he is describing.

Show me a human whose brain has been removed that is conscious. I can refer to cases where humans are conscious whilst lacking numerous organs (except the brain). Evidence matters. — I like sushi

A human who has had his heart removed is not demonstrably conscious either. The brain may be integral to the operation of the organism, the organism may still be, in the broadest sense, conscious, in the sense that consciousness is actively engaged in an ongoing information exchange with the environment in many different ways.

Or a parasitic consciousness clinging to the peripheries of existence.

You know that I was arguing in support of position that a belief has a different existential status than a mere claim, right?

sn't a meme a culturally transmitted disease? If you are looking for the origin of memes, you need look no further than PR. They are the great purveyors of memes. — ovdtogt

Without any real quantifiable criteria of "fitness" or "value" too, other than the fact that they spread. If they are significant at all I'd say it is as the "low-watermark" of cultural consciousness....

The idea that each one of us is a part of a larger whole is the illusion which makes selfishness incomprehensible. Selfishness is the reality though. — Metaphysician Undercover

Selfishness is real, but so is the tendency to cooperative endeavour. Some individuals are more selfish, some are more cooperative. There is ample evidence for both. So your assertions about one being real and the other an illusion are false, to the extent that they do not reflect empirical facts.

Of course not, but that is the very point. A claim need not be believed in order to be exist. — creativesoul

But this was my point. There is a world of difference between a belief upon which you would stake your life, and one that you just cook up. The one you cook up really doesn't qualify as a belief at all, it is just an arbitrary statement.

I think that beliefs must meet some minimum standard of actual commitment to qualify as beliefs. People stand up for their beliefs. Or they act upon their beliefs. They are judged upon their beliefs. They live by their beliefs.

So a belief has a different kind of ontological status than a statement simpliciter.

The universe was created by my imaginary friend, the invisible pink and black unicorn. — creativesoul

And do you genuinely believe that? I think that ad hoc falsification or verification is the bane of true philosophy. People genuinely believe things for genuine reasons relevant to a real engagement in life and the universe. I am prepared to seriously evaluate any belief that someone is prepared to adopt from a committed and meaningful standpoint - I call this "ontological commitment". Otherwise, it's just playing games.

Given any set of things, no one arrangement of things is antecedently more or less likely than any other. So if the things are arranged to form, an arrow, for example, or the number 4, it is the information itself which makes the arrangement "informative."

As I said, I really only wanted to pose the question, I think it can be approached from various directions, but I definitely do not think there is a simplistic answer. Anyway, if you don't think my example makes sense let's just leave it at that.

From communications theory, information is a message transmitted on a channel.

https://www.britannica.com/science/information-theory/Classical-information-theory

No 7 says the opposite of what you are saying. No 7 says information is the creation of form. Which makes sense, otherwise you end up in an endless regress. Number 3 describes a process.

This isn't intended as a direct response to your point, but I have read a lot of information theory, starting with Pierce's early work. And I'm trained in coding. I don't think there is necessarily a facile answer one way or the other, it is a complex question, particularly when you consider the case of 'natural information'.

By definition, form (code) precedes information. — Galuchat

What definition are you referring to?

For me the interesting question is this: is the form preserving the information, or is the information preserving the form? Bearing in mind that the same information can be preserved, probably in an infinite variety of ways.

Got it. I guess having eggs for breakfast would fall into the category of an atomic fact. It seems like those are highly verifiable though so not subject to skepticism in the same way as "meaningful facts."

I think the case that may mirror reality is this:
We are all working in a world of provisional/approximate facts. Science is constantly evolving. So while there are such things as 'atomic facts' (the wavelength of red light) these are not really meaningful, except in conjunction with a whole lot of other facts (context, hermeneutics). So, as we live our long lives and gather more and more facts, many of which will be based on experiences that are idiosyncratic, we begin to develop an awareness of overarching facts, facts at a larger scale. Presumable the 'knowledge of god' could be one of those.

I'm not suggesting when or how other people's "intuitions of larger truths" become intersubjectively valid, only a possible framework.

That is actually very useful to my own efforts. Thank you very much.

Ok, I kind of see a point there. If you are saying that consciousness exists in a kind of collective milieu, in which the most highly developed minds have managed to implement/effect mechanisms which facilitate control over material reality, and that some other minds not as, self-controlled, let's say, then can exert superior control over material reality than over their own thoughts....

Yeah, potentially, yeah. I do tend to think in terms of "best case scenarios" or logical bottom lines.

I guess we both could be correct in a way. Yes, you do have a point.

If you can't control your intentions you can't control anything. What is your point? — ovdtogt

That was my point. Ergo, a fortiori, the thing over which you exert the highest degree of control is always going to be your own thoughts, or consciousness.

Show me where I stated you can't control your thoughts. — ovdtogt

I think I offered a pretty robust explanation of the linear connection between control of thought and control of what is external to thought, plus the a fortiori justification, so I'm going to have to assume you are just quibbling now and aren't really interested in furthering the overall argument. I don't do that.

t does not require high degree of thought control to flip a light switch. — ovdtogt

Right, and you pointed out that whole mechanism was the product of prodigious thought effort.

Reverse the argument. If you can't control thought, you can't logically be said to control anything else. It isn't a parallel process, it is linear.

I agree. In the end it is about practising what you preach. If you believe in solipsism, why are you talking to people? If you believe in the categorical imperative, show the world how its done. Proof is enacted.

But if A controls thought and thought controls B, the extent of control exerted by A on B can only be equal to or less than the extent of control exerted by A on thought. In order to turn on a light I must intend and choose and will to do it. Thus the degree of control I have over the light is contingent on the degree of control I have over my own intentions. It is a classic a fortiori condition.

Scientists and engineers are also conscious, so the same question applies to them. If the scientist is able to create a theory that facilitates external control of some thing, a fortiori the scientist must be controlling his or her thoughts.

I would say I am a dedicated Pragmatist. Ever since encountering Pragmatism, I have discovered it to be the most useful methodology that works in any field or situation. And it is one that is conducive to adopting as a "state of mind", I would say.

Given any "disagreement" between objective reality and my experience of it, I can always try to change objective reality, but odds are most of the time it is going to be more productive to alter my own opinions. I guess, bottom line, I am always hoping to discover or encounter an idea that will fundamentally change my perspective. Which is why I think communities of thought are so important. Books can only give you so much. At the end of the day, it is all too easy to discover what you are already looking for in a book. People can hold you to a higher standard.

Ok...so you mentioned control. Perhaps I just don't understand the distinction between controlling something external to consciousness, versus controlling consciousness.

Since consciousness is doing the external controlling, wouldn't consciousness itself first have to be controlled to do the external controlling?

Absolutely concur.

Our ability to control our thoughts is vastly inferior to our ability to control light. — ovdtogt

Egad! I've never met anyone who could control light with his or her thoughts before. You must be barrels of fun at parties!

Since I haven't seen it mentioned yet, there is a well-studied cognitive phenomenon called either "embedded cognition" or "embodied cognition" which quantifies the extent to which cognitive processing is actually a function of environmental cues. ie. consciousness exists 'in situ'. I first encountered it in a book called "The Embodied Mind". I think the principle has merit, and, to the extent it is true, has interesting implications for such things as "collective consciousness", which is one of my pet concepts.

Ok, I get that you are focusing on the process, but doesn't aren't the nature of the process and the nature of the contents intimately related?

We have far more control over light than we have over consciousness. — ovdtogt

Would you not consider your ability to direct your own thoughts to be indicative of a high degree of control over consciousness?

Absolute truth does not exist — ovdtogt

Let's see. The "truth" of anything resides in a statement or at least a cognition "about" something, right? So for there to be truth of any kind, there must bare minimum be something about which the truth is true. That would be a Kantian Transcendental Argument.

Now, what is the difference between "truth" and "absolute truth"? Well, nothing really. I think that the sense in which @leo is using the term "absolute" is, most basic or fundamental, or general. A truth that is applicable to the most broad set of referents. If A is true, and B is true, and C is true, then there must be some common aspect of A and B and C such that you can say (A,B,C) which is the intersection the A,B, and C, is true. Quarks exist. Mathematics exists. Thought exists. So there must be something common to them all, maybe "Reality" of which it is "universally true" to say "Reality exists". Kind of a tautology. Or is it a synthetic a priori? Either way, I'd go along with this general line of reasoning.

Universals are not a result. What ‘emerges’ if anything is the capacity to comprehend universals. But they don’t come into existence purely by dint of being comprehende — Wayfarer

This is true. Universals qua consciously comprehended entities is the more accurate description. I stand corrected.

"virtual objects"