I would say that Mary has complete knowledge of seeing red iff she has seen red. — RogueAI

Yes, that's called a sound argument in basic logic. That's right, for something to be, it must be.

Learning the physical facts of seeing red alone is not sufficient. — RogueAI

Red is an experience, not a fact. It is a data integration on the part of the brain. It isn't itself real, it is the representation of a wavelength that brain can detect and differentiate objective fact values with.

Mary doesn't learn new information, she gains a new ability: what seeing red is. — RogueAI

Yes, it's a function of the brain. Either you have it, or you don't. A bit like paralysis. Either your brain still has access, or it does not.

but this seems too tautological to be considered some new fact about that world. — RogueAI

All sound and all valid arguments are tautological. It is your first clue that you're on to something that could be objective. If the argument is sound, then it is objective, which is exactly what I pointed out to you in the syllogisms. The first one was invalid entirely, and the second one had to incorporate it being sounds, actually true, for it to work. Meaning all that was done with the syllogism was prove that only that which is true is true, which is exactly what logice demonstrates to us.

It also might not be true, since Mary doesn't know what seeing red [in the broad sense] is like. None of us do. We only have access to our own particular experiences. — RogueAI

Sure, but there's nothing to be drawn from an observation that cannot be tested. It cannot be tested because thoughts and perceptions are not themselves real, they are functions of the brain.

Now consider where your thoughts come from. What is the source and origin of thoughts? — Garrett Travers

I understand where you are coming from. But you redirected the intent of the OP, to change the controversial subject to one less debatable. OP seems to assume the existence of brains. So his question regards the conditional existence of "thoughts" -- e.g. what do they consist of?. If mental phenomena are included in your personal model of reality. in what sense do they exist? Is there more than one way to be? If thoughts are not existent in some sense, why do we have a noun name for them? It's a theoretical philosophical query, not an empirical scientific slam-dunk.

Some people go so far as to reverse the hierarchy of material existence, postulating that Mind is more fundamental than Matter. Of course, they have no empirical evidence to support that position. So, it's just another age-old philosophical conundrum. Why then, does the notion of an immaterial aspect of reality persist in this day & age? It's easy to haughtily label such childlike questions as coming from ignorance or stupidity. But some proponents of a separate realm for invisible & intangible Ideas & Thoughts are manifestly of high IQ. Some are even highly credentialed mathematicians. Are they insane, or is there some philosophical meat to chew on?

My personal worldview is not Either-Or, but BothAnd. So, I can see the reasoning behind both perspectives. Which is why I accept that both Science and Philosophy have valid roles in human culture. And Quantum queerness has just added fuel to that long-burning fire. So, why can't we have an adult conversation about an idea that won't go away? :smile:

Mathematical Reality :
Andreas Albrecht of Imperial College in London, called it a "provocative" solution to one of the central problems facing physics. Although he "wouldn't dare" go so far as to say he believes it, he noted that "it's actually quite difficult to construct a theory where everything we see is all there is".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

And a sentience.

I understand where you are coming from. But you redirected the intent of the OP, to change the controversial subject to one less debatable. — Gnomon

The OP is literally a response to a discussion him and I had for over a week on the axact same subject. And yes, it is less debatable, because that happens to be what is going to our knowledge.

what do they consist of? — Gnomon

All evidence points to no corporeal existence. That they are themselves perceptions of the computations of the brain, which is the material aspect of thought.

If mental phenomena are included in your personal model of reality. in what sense do they exist? — Gnomon

As expressions of the human being, the human will. All expression for the entirety of the brains existence and operation.

Is there more than one way to be? — Gnomon

Be? Yes. Be the entity that exists? No.

If thoughts are not existent in some sense, why do we have a noun name for them? — Gnomon

Oh, because of Kant, and Heroclitus, and Descartes, and all manner of people who didn't understand that mind and body weren't seprate, but the very same entity. Thus, the term thoughts is just a name we gave to a phenomenon we didn't understand was actually the brain perceiving its own computations.

But some proponents of a separate realm for invisible & intangible Ideas & Thoughts are manifestly of high IQ. — Gnomon

Not when they posit assertions with no evidence of any kind to ever emerge in the history of science to support them. Then, they manifest a high level of the opposite of intelligence.

Some are even highly credentialed mathematicians. — Gnomon

Precisely. Their preoccupation with symbolic figures that may or may not correspond to reality has led them to abandon reason in other regards. Case in point: String Theorists.

s there some philosophical meat to chew on? — Gnomon

If your philosophical meat leads you to concluded that reality is not real, or that elements of reality imply its own negation with absolutely no evidence, you are no longer in the realm of philosophy, but mysticism. Kind of like how when you start thinking made-up start shapes in the sky can tell you things about your life, you've left physics. Or, again, String Theorists.

"it's actually quite difficult to construct a theory where everything we see is all there is". — Gnomon

But, be damned if it ain't so that that's all we can seem to find, or have ever observed. An abundance of "aLl ThErE Is." Again, reduction fallacies, argument from ignorance fallacies, it's all the non-materialists have to go on. It's complete bullshit. No man, it is moronic to conclude that complexity and vastness of reality isn't sufficient to explain all there is. There's just no way that that ocean is only filled with that amount of water. Yep, sure is, it's quite a lot, too.

Explain how the brain functions if you're going to insist it functions in such a way that everything is perfectly as it seems (to you.)

You're a little ant building a hill, oblivious to the mountain behind you.

"To say there are no thoughts" (which is a thoight) would be as nonsensical as someone saying 'I do not exist'. — 180 Proof

:up: Is Wittegenstein relevant? p-zombies? Does a computer that displays the string "I'm not thinking" or plays the prerecorded message "I'm not thinking" thinking? Re: Descartes' cogito ergo sum.

Is Wittegenstein relevant? p-zombies? Does a computer that displays the string "I'm not thinking" or plays the prerecorded message "I'm not thinking" thinking? Re: Descartes' cogito ergo sum. — Agent Smith

Maybe.
No.
No. No.
:chin: Rather: cogitatio fit, ergo cogitatio est. (P. Gassendi?)

Maybe.
No.
No. No.
:chin: Rather: cogitatio fit, ergo cogitatio est. (P. Gassendi?) — 180 Proof

:confused:

cogitatio fit, ergo cogitatio est — 180 Proof

cogito ergo sum. — Agent Smith

Ah, Latin classes! Good memories when I was in school.
ego sum alpha et omega, initium et finis.

"Credo quia absurdum." :sweat:
In nomine Patris
et Filii
et Spiritus Sancti ... wtf.

Explain how the brain functions if you're going to insist it functions in such a way that everything is perfectly as it seems (to you.)
You're a little ant building a hill, oblivious to the mountain behind you. — theRiddler

If everything looks perfect then there is nothing that needs explaining. The mountain is not my problem.

:up: :100:
dicens, advena fui in terra aliena. :flower:

I grok it! :up:

Materialism becomes idealism.

We have eyes, therefore we cannot see -> we have brains, therefore we cannot think.

cogitatio fit, ergo cogitatio est
— 180 Proof

cogito ergo sum.
— Agent Smith

Ah, Latin classes! Good memories when I was in school.
ego sum alpha et omega, initium et finis — javi2541997

Requiescat in pace! :death: :flower:

Credo quia absurdum." :sweat:
In nomine Patris
et Filii
et Spiritus Sancti ... wtf. — 180 Proof

:rofl: Now, now 180 Proof, be nice to the religious nutcases! :rofl:

Requiescat in pace! — Agent Smith

Si vis pacem, para bellum:eyes:

Si vis pacem, para bellum:eyes: — javi2541997

Miseram pacem vel bello bene mutari! :zip:

quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum :death:

quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum :death: — javi2541997

:broken:

Explain how the brain functions if you're going to insist it functions in such a way that everything is perfectly as it seems (to you.)

You're a little ant building a hill, oblivious to the mountain behind you. — theRiddler

Oh, am I a little ant? Are we sure the little segmented insect isn't the person who just used such an absurd insult to someone instead of just making an argument? Let me help you little spiny orb:

The brain is the apex manifestation of computation in all the known universe. It is an evolutionarily produced and adapted, multi-structural, interlocking-network of computational systems of bodily regulation, data integretagtion, behavioral information and conveyance, and conceptual abstraction that is responsible for ALL human capacitance, including consciousness itself. It is composed of particularly white and gray matter, neurons, proteins, water, blood vessels, and glial cells, all arranged into different specialized structures with sophisticated pathways of transmission between themselves, that relay information to one another via electromagnetic and chemical processes that when operating together in symphony produce the whole of individual human experience as the emergent will; self-sustaining, self-regulating, and self-motivated.

There's the short rub of how it works, boychik. For individualized operations regarding currently known and observed neural phenomena, you may ask me in specificity on a given topic and will find you something available to discuss. Otherwise, proceed to your own research about the subject and you will quickly discover the truth of everything I'm telling you, and have been telling people about the brain for a very long time. You can start here if you would like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroeconomics

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043598/

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00359/full

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5586212/

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness

https://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_03/i_03_p/i_03_p_que/i_03_p_que.html

https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-functions/visual-perception

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542184/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10870199/


Plenty here to demonstrate what I said.

Oh, because of Kant, and Heroclitus, and Descartes, and all manner of people who didn't understand that mind and body weren't seprate, but the very same entity. — Garrett Travers

If mind & body are the same entity, shouldn't they have the same properties? Yet, we give them different names & meanings because we perceive a significant difference between them. The body/brain has physical properties, and the mind has "non-physical" qualities. We detect the existence of physical objects via our 5 senses. But we infer the existence of "non-physical" non-things by deduction from circumstantial evidence.

I don't know anyone who denies that there is a causal relationship between Brain & Mind. But, the function of a machine is "non-physical", so we can't see it, and only know it by what it does. Which is how we know there's such a thing as Energy. It has no physical properties, only physical effects. That's also why Kant, Descartes, et al, made a categorical philosophical distinction between Mind & Body.

The Mind/Body problem only arises when some people attribute "non-physical" properties to Mind/Soul that are not rationally inferred, but emotionally imputed : such as Immortality & Ghosts. It's those unverifiable attributions that are debatable, not the intuitive functions such as verbally communicable Thoughts and Ideas. Yet, we can't find physical evidence to support or deny "non-physical" existence.

We simply take other people's thoughts for granted, because of our personal experience with the phenomenon of thinking. But, lacking direct experience with Immortality, we can only argue its existence by comparing opinions & beliefs. We may debate the mysterious hows & whys of Ideal existence, but that's also true of such presumably physical objects as Quarks & sub-quantum Strings. :smile:

If mind & body are the same entity, shouldn't they have the same properties? — Gnomon

The do in chemical and elemental nature, or material. But, no, the individual human being is a complex system of systems with different structures and functions, all contained to the same entity and regulated by the brain. There is no distinction.

Yet, we give them different names & meanings because we perceive a significant difference between them. — Gnomon

Most of our language has been in use long before we understood what I just relayed to you, which is consistent with every piece of experimental data in modern cog-sci.

The body/brain has physical properties, and the mind has "non-physical" qualities. — Gnomon

No, it doesn't. It only has physical qualities that produce the integration of data recieved from other physical properties in the world to inform behavior. The process, just like all processes in the universe that we know, or have any evidence of, are all physical properties and functions.

We detect the existence of physical objects via our 5 senses. But we infer the existence of "non-physical" non-things by deduction from circumstantial evidence. — Gnomon

Senses are a neuronal function. And if your inferences lead you to deduce the existence of non-things, you are not deducing anything, and just playing make-believe, exclusively. There is no such thing as non-things.

But, the function of a machine is "non-physical", so we can't see it, and only know it by what it does — Gnomon

No. You need to brush up on cog-sci, this is an utterly unscientific assertion. Yes, we can see it through functional mri.

Which is how we know there's such a thing as Energy. It has no physical properties, only physical effects. — Gnomon

No, photons have mass, what are you talking about? Light and energy are material forces.

That's also why Kant, Descartes, et al, made a categorical philosophical distinction between Mind & Body. — Gnomon

Yep, and they were wrong, all of them. I wish I could say it to their faces.

The Mind/Body problem only arises when some people attribute "non-physical" properties to Mind/Soul that are not rationally inferred, but emotionally imputed : such as Immortality & Ghosts. — Gnomon

All non-physical properties are make-believe, and come from 2000 years of Christian vitiation and oppression of actual philosophy. And is predominantly the inspiration for most modern systems of ethics, even the one's that claim atheism.

It's those unverifiable attributions that are debatable, not the intuitive functions such as verbally communicable Thoughts and Ideas — Gnomon

The thoughts are in fact the functions. There are no "thoughts," just computations which are observed through executive function, another brain function. It's a trick of the light you see. It's like saying movement is somehow different from the brain function in humans, it's completely not true.

Yet, we can't find physical evidence to support or deny "non-physical" existence. — Gnomon

That's because that which does not exist leaves no evidence of itself having not existed, except the absence of evidence existence itself.

We simply take other people's thoughts for granted, because of our personal experience with the phenomenon of thinking. But, lacking direct experience with Immortality, we can only argue its existence by comparing opinions & beliefs. — Gnomon

We actually can't even do that. There is no argument for it, any premise generated will be one from ignorance, or a fabrication of some kind. Which is to say "opinions and beliefs," devoid of correspondence.

We may debate the mysterious hows & whys of Ideal existence, but that's also true of such presumably physical objects as Quarks & sub-quantum Strings. — Gnomon

Everything but Strings, yes. The domain of ideal existence exploration is here, right here on earth, with me, with you, with facts, reason, evidence, data, empiricism, and the primacy of the Human Consciousness as an inviolable entity. That's where our only hope lies, and the hour is late. I say we get to it, brother.

Red is an experience, not a fact. It is a data integration on the part of the brain. It isn't itself real, it is the representation of a wavelength that brain can detect and differentiate objective fact values with. — Garrett Travers

The experience of seeing red certainly is real. So is being in pain. To deny the reality of experience is extremely counter-intuitive, and something I can't get on board with. I think your claim is more along the lines of experiences are illusions. Is that more accurate? Very Dennettian, if so!

The experience of seeing red certainly is real. — RogueAI

No, it's a computational perception, or sensation. It is the computation itself that is real, which gives rise to sensation.

So is being in pain. — RogueAI

Same thing. Pain is a mechanism used to accurately determine that which constitutes homeostasis inducing experience, or reinforce the avoidance of homeostatic disruptions. It is in fact the computations of the hardward itself that is the real thing. The neuronal processes that send the messages.

To deny the reality of experience is extremely counter-intuitive, and something I can't get on board with. — RogueAI

I don't deny experience. I deny the strange amorphis reduction that is "experience isn't neural function," but is instead some thing, without corporeal form that we feel, and is real itself, with material properties, that are never described by anyone at all, including any known science. I regard experience as MORE valuable than most people, because I understand where it comes from, how it is detected by us, at why it is happening as an instrinsic function of our nature. My perspective is far more beautiful, poetic, liberating, and marvelous than some quack mind/body dichotamy that has never made any sense other than, "well, that's the only way I can imagine it, so it must be true." It isn't.

I think your claim is more along the lines of experiences are illusions. Is that more accurate? — RogueAI

No, experiences are the result of 3.5 billion years of evolution to produce a computation piece of organic hardware more sophisticated than any in the known universe in accordfance with natures strictures, that it may use such experiences to not on achieve homeostasis, but maximize it for, not just the individual experiencer, but all who were willing to participate in the reality which fashioned us its beholders. You seeing what I'm saying to you know, brother? Perhaps it will really sink in if you spend a day, just one day, dedicated to trying to disprove this thesis with experimental research reports on these matters. I guarantee you that you will find nothing that contradicts what I have said here that isn't motivated by an agenda, reductionist, ignorance fallacy laced, or just plain woo. I beseech any and all to join me in the marvelling at this actual miracle that we were designed by the objective laws of reality to be and enjoy.

There is no distinction. — Garrett Travers

For a biologist there may be no distinction, because he's interested in mechanisms, not functions. But for psychologists and philosophers, the meaning in a mind is the "difference that makes a difference". :nerd:

No, photons have mass, what are you talking about? Light and energy are material forces. — Garrett Travers

Photons only have mass when they slow down and transform into matter. Besides, Mass is not a material object, but a mathematical function otherwise known as "inertia". It's defined as a "property" of matter, but not as matter per se. A property is a mental attribution, a thought.

Energy-in-general likewise transforms into mass only when it slows from lightspeed into velocities our senses can detect. They are different forms of the same fundamental force, which is neither light nor matter, but the potential for both. Their distinct measurable properties are how scientists distinguish between each form and give it a special name. For example, an electron is intermediate between photon and matter. Hence, deserves its own designation.

Unfortunately, Mind & Thought have no measurable properties apart from their associated material or energetic forms. Their existence must be inferred indirectly. :smile:

What is Mass? :
mass, in physics, quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force.
https://www.britannica.com/science/mass-physics

"But, the function of a machine is "non-physical", so we can't see it, and only know it by what it does" — Gnomon
No. You need to brush up on cog-sci, this is an utterly unscientific assertion. Yes, we can see it through functional mri. — Garrett Travers

That assertion is a category error. It confuses the function of an MRI machine --- to display the Effects of a magnetic field on the iron molecules in blood --- with brain functions. MRI images require a human Mind to interpret that feedback in terms of malfunctions. :worry:

Yep, and they were wrong, all of them. I wish I could say it to their faces. — Garrett Travers

It's too bad that you can't argue with dead white men. But you could in theory tell Neurobiologist Christof Koch that he's wrong about The Feeling of Life Itself. The "feeling" he refers to is not a physical object, or a neuronal computation, but something else entirely. He calls it a "hack", but it's essentially an emergent Quality, which can't be measured, but can be experienced. He even toys with the notion of Panpsychism (i.e. widespread). Is he "wrong", in your expert opinion? You could suggest that he "brush-up on cog-sci". :wink:

The Feeling of Life Itself :
Why Consciousness Is Widespread but Can't Be Computed
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/feeling-life-itself

The thoughts are in fact the functions. There are no "thoughts," just computations which are observed through executive function, another brain function. — Garrett Travers

A "function" is a mathematical concept, not a tangible object. See the Koch quotes above & below for his opinion on thoughts as computations. In what sense is a computation a material thing? :grin:

Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist :
What links conscious experience of pain, joy, color, and smell to bioelectrical activity in the brain? How can anything physical give rise to nonphysical, subjective, conscious states? . . .
In which I muse about final matters considered off-limits to polite scientific discourse: to wit, the relationship between science and religion, the existence of God, whether this God can intervene in the universe, the death of my mentor, and my recent tribulations
http://cognet.mit.edu/book/consciousness

That's because that which does not exist leaves no evidence of itself having not existed, except the absence of evidence existence itself. — Garrett Travers

You, perhaps deliberately, missed the point of "non-physical existence". If ideas & thoughts are experienced in your reality, then they have an existence of some kind. It's just a question of labeling. Consciousness researchers refer to "ideas", not as material things, but as immaterial "representations" of both objective things and subjective thoughts. Long after the idea or feeling is gone, we can recall then in the form of Memories, which are also subjective Thoughts. :nerd:

Representationalism :
philosophical theory of knowledge based on the assertion that the mind perceives only mental images (representations) of material objects outside the mind, not the objects themselves.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/representationism

"Immortality, we can only argue its existence by comparing opinions & beliefs." — Gnomon
We actually can't even do that. — Garrett Travers

If you can't compare opinions and beliefs, what are we doing on this forum? Are we teleporting physical objects over cyber-space? :cool:

Everything but Strings, yes. The domain of ideal existence exploration is here, right here on earth, — Garrett Travers

Are you denying the existence of "Strings" & "Loops". You may not be able to see them, even in principle, but the idea of such entities certainly "exist" as thoughts or feelings in the functioning minds of earth-bound mathematicians. They don't attempt to prove their existence empirically, but merely ask you to take it on faith, until they are eventually able to use the power of Strings to cause changes in the real world. Meanwhile, their only evidence is long strings of abstract numbers & symbols that are intended to "represent" unseen things. :joke:

For a biologist there may be no distinction, because he's interested in mechanisms, not functions. But for psychologists and philosophers, the meaning in a mind is the "difference that makes a difference". — Gnomon

Thought, all thought, what you call the "mind," is a function of the brain. There remains no distinction, until one can be shown. Philosophy does not ignore established science, it abstracts from it and applies it to the philosophical framework with which he/she is operating. For this "difference that makes a difference," to be anything other than other than fabricated woo, each difference is going to have to be clearly explained, and then shown to exist outside of neural function. I'll wait for any explainer on earth to provide me this information. Hint: I'll not be getting any.

Photons only have mass when they slow down and transform into matter. Besides, Mass is not a material object, but a mathematical function otherwise known as "inertia". It's defined as a "property" of matter, but not as matter per se. A property is a mental attribution, a thought. — Gnomon

Mm, no. Mass is a desginated term to describe the functional, objectively verifiable effect that matter has upon space and time as a ubiquitous propert of all matter, stick with science, it's better than make believe. But, it doesn't need to be defined "as matter, per se," to be a property of matter, just like your brain is matter. A property is a mental attribute. Mental attributes are generated by the brain.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mass.html

Energy-in-general likewise transforms into mass only when it slows from lightspeed into velocities our senses can detect. They are different forms of the same fundamental force, which is neither light nor matter, but the potential for both. Their distinct measurable properties are how scientists distinguish between each form and give it a special name. For example, an electron is intermediate between photon and matter. Hence, deserves its own designation. — Gnomon

You're doing nothing but describing the properties of matter, which is what I said, all variations of which have mass and relate to eachother in material terms . Mass is itself energy. I don't understand where this is going. There is nothing in reality that is non-material.

Unfortunately, Mind & Thought have no measurable properties apart from their associated material or energetic forms. Their existence must be inferred indirectly. — Gnomon

Right, they have to be measured to the best of human ability from the perspective of their source, which is the brain according to all scientific observation. Any ideas what else it could be, if not the organ that regualtes all functions of the body?

That assertion is a category error. It confuses the function of an MRI machine --- to display the Effects of a magnetic field on the iron molecules in blood --- with brain functions. MRI images require a human Mind to interpret that feedback in terms of malfunctions. — Gnomon

Is this an argument? We already know which areas of the brain are which. We use fMRI's to investigate the functions of those areas. Are you actually implying that, not only are these methods not permissible evidence of function, but that such an assertion is an argument for brain functions not producing what you don't want them to be responsible for producing? Is that what you're getting at here?

It's too bad that you can't argue with dead white men. — Gnomon

Why would the term "white," make its way into this statement?

He calls it a "hack", but it's essentially an emergent Quality, which can't be measured, but can be experienced — Gnomon

An emergent quality, for which he can provide no evidence to demonstrate the existence this hack with, but it is understood that if his brain stops functioning, then it stops emerging....... He should probably replace the h with a q.

Is he "wrong", in your expert opinion? You could suggest that he "brush-up on cog-sci". — Gnomon

That would help him very much, yes this is clearly complete bullshit. I see minds in every place except the one that seems to be the source and is in contol of all other bodily functions, emotional regulations, and behavioral patterns. Yes, dear fellow, it's the definition of complete bullshit, and science can no longer help him if he does much more than entertain this. In fact, it's probably science keeping him from doing so, as it would with all reasonable people who don't believe made-up concepts.

A "function" is a mathematical concept, not a tangible object. — Gnomon

No, it's this, this is the definition: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.

Let's stop the bullshit dude.

In what sense is a computation a material thing? — Gnomon

Because computation happens via chemical and electromagnetic interactions, comprise of elements and energy, in material structures through material fibers. Just like how when your computer turns of, it has no more function. Bit like that, same thing happes to your brain when its material functions stop, just teensy exponetial bit more complex than a computer.

What links conscious experience of pain, joy, color, and smell to bioelectrical activity in the brain? How can anything physical give rise to nonphysical, subjective, conscious states? . . .
In which I muse about final matters considered off-limits to polite scientific discourse: to wit, the relationship between science and religion, the existence of God, whether this God can intervene in the universe, the death of my mentor, and my recent tribulations — Gnomon

Luckily the answer is, there's no such thing as non-physical. Subjectivity is the result of individual data accrual from an individual brain, within individual environmental conditions, just like all variations in reality. And this is exactly the mysticism clouding your mind here, this god business. There is none.

You, perhaps deliberately, missed the point of "non-physical existence". — Gnomon

No, I missed the evidence, thought I made that clear.

If ideas & thoughts are experienced in your reality, then they have an existence of some kind. It's just a question of labeling. Consciousness researchers refer to "ideas", not as material things, but as immaterial "representations" of both objective things and subjective thoughts. Long after the idea or feeling is gone, we can recall then in the form of Memories, which are also subjective Thoughts. :nerd: — Gnomon

Yes, that's because with Emperor Constantine, Christians took state power in Rome and murdered the Empiricists who had postulated consciousness as a physical process over a thousand years ago, and since then, science, philosophy, and language have been burdened by mystic nonsense that keeps them from understanding that "ideas," are functions of a brain that controls everything else in the body, and no longer performs those functions when key structures of it are traumatized, or cessation of operation happens. And a big part of this problem is that, of 320 million or so people that live in America, abot 240 million are Christian, and the rest are some form of variation of religious, and to learn that consciousness was a physical process, would be the end of their worldview. So, all of those old ideas originally given rise to by mysticism, are all still here ruining everything. And memory recall and storage are functions of the brain. This is all retrievable information.

If you can't compare opinions and beliefs, what are we doing on this forum? Are we teleporting physical objects over cyber-space? — Gnomon

I cannot functionally compare a belief with or opinion with no substance with anything. One can simple play negation, which isn't comparing, or debating. Which is what that anti-realists do here quite a bit. And no, your teleporting virtual representations of code through material, using material laws of physics.

Are you denying the existence of "Strings" & "Loops". — Gnomon

Are you providing any evidence of the existence of strings and loops?

You may not be able to see them, even in principle, but the idea of such entities certainly "exist" as thoughts or feelings in the functioning minds of earth-bound mathematicians. — Gnomon

The functions do. Theories are concepts, they don't exist, they have to be embodied, or employed upon the objective world in behavior. It's why you can't fly, even if you generate a theory of you having wings. See how that works, there?

They don't attempt to prove their existence empirically, but merely ask you to take it on faith, until they are eventually able to use the power of Strings to cause changes in the real world. — Gnomon

Um... No. No, is my answer to that request. When they can demonstrate, I'll change my tune immediately.

Meanwhile, their only evidence is long strings of abstract numbers & symbols that are intended to "represent" unseen things. — Gnomon

Sounds just like a bible verse I know about... You know the one, eh? Something... Something is the reassurance of that which goes unseen..... Something like that?

For this "difference that makes a difference," to be anything other than other than fabricated woo, each difference is going to have to be clearly explained, and then shown to exist outside of neural function. I'll wait for any explainer on earth to provide me this information. Hint: I'll not be getting any. — Garrett Travers

I agree with that last prediction. You won't be getting any empirical evidence for mental phenomena. Not due to absence of evidence, but to categorical rejection of Reasoning as evidential. It's also a rejection of common sense & intuition as evidence of something unseen, but obvious. Such hard-evidence skepticism is a good policy for scientific exploration of classical physical phenomena. But it breaks down at the Quantum level, where the evidence is mostly inference from circumstances. For example, atom-smashers don't directly reveal sub-atomic particles. Instead the existence & properties of such things must be inferred from circumstantial evidence (e.g. tracks in a cloud chamber). So, scientific knowledge of such ephemeral entities depends on agreement between the opinions of experts doing the experiments. The rest of us must take their word for the existence of Quarks & Neutrinos. They can't show us the evidence, because it exists only as subjective ideas in their minds.

Likewise, no-one can show us direct evidence of other minds, because it's circumstantial & inferential. We know our own minds directly by the feeling of thinking (cogito ergo sum). The epistemological question of Solipsism only arises when we look for tangible evidence of Other Minds. We can cut their skulls open to see if they have a brain. But, even zombles have brains; which is, presumably, why they have to eat brains to keep their resurrected bodies going. Since you are holding out for empirical evidence of res cogitans, the only evidence you will find is for res extensa. That's why nobody doubts the existence of Brains, but a few hyper-skeptics will demand sensory evidence of Minds. They take their own thinking-thing for granted, but demand objective proof for all other minds. That's what we call Solipsism.

A solipsist seems to think of himself as a machine, running a program. In which case, he is a robot, and has no Will of his own. His cause & effect logic is impeccable, except that he denies the First Cause : the Programmer. Are you self-programmed? Do you think for yourself, or as directed by some outside force, such as Destiny? The Mind/Body problem turns on the question of Free Will. They go hand-in-hand. If you doubt your own Willpower, you will also doubt your own Mind. But, that's OK. According to the Constitution, brain-eating Zombies have equal rights with law-minding citizens. Except for the brain-eating thing : in a court of law, the mindless defense will not get you off for a murder rap . :confused:

Clear explanation of The Difference :
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bateson/

circumstantial evidence, in law, evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence

problem of other minds, in philosophy, the problem of justifying the commonsensical belief that others besides oneself possess minds and are capable of thinking or feeling somewhat as one does oneself.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence

Why do most neuroscientists remain strict materialists? :
There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Neuroscientists, like all scientists, are quantitatively driven. If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. Since you can't measure mind, you can't quantify mind—so by definition, it's not physical. . . .
This debate dates back to the early 1900’s and the quantum era, when physicists like Einstein and Heisenberg were exploring the tools we have to measure objective reality, and realized that there is a point where humans can never transcend their subjective assessment of reality. It’s impossible. There is no way out of that matrix, if you will.
___Dr. Jay Lombard, neurologist

You won't be getting any empirical evidence for mental phenomena. — Gnomon

No, you misunderstand, I have loads of empirical evidence of that. I need empirical evidence that would suggest that not only is all of the current empirical evidence for my position not applicable, but that it in fact is another source of mental phenomena for which evidence can also be provided, you see? You'll need both sets of data. Or, it is nothing but woo.

but to categorical rejection of Reasoning as evidential. — Gnomon

You can't do that, because you just used your reason to state a fact about evidence, therefore your reasoning cannot be trusted in this assertion of yours on the nature of evidence, as reason is not evidence and cannot be used to conclude such a fact about evidence. The actual truth, is that reason does contitute evidence, and I'll be needing to see some for woo to stop being woo. I'll wait.

But it breaks down at the Quantum level, where the evidence is mostly inference from circumstances. — Gnomon

No, it does not. There are aspects of quantum mechanics that are not understood yet, ut nothing about the nature of empiricism breaks down, and nothing about our models of reality break down. Quantum mechanics is an incorpoarted aspect into the existing paradigm of physics conducted to this point that has been verified, and it is specifically empiricism that reveals any understanding whatsoever about the nature of quantum mechanics, which is a compatible feature of the macroscopic reality to which it contributes. Furthermore, a break down, even if it did exist, would not constitute evidence of wherever you think this non-coporeal source of consciousness is, you will still need to provide evidence of that to make the claim, not just negate empiricism, which you have done in no way.

So, scientific knowledge of such ephemeral entities depends on agreement between the opinions of experts doing the experiments. — Gnomon

Which the conduct using reason and empiricism.

The rest of us must take their word for the existence of Quarks & Neutrinos. They can't show us the evidence, because it exists only as subjective ideas in their minds. — Gnomon

Mm, no, dude. The evidence is empirically observed and is being verified more and more each year. There is only the concensus in the scientific community that the universe is material. Particularly material as opposed to anti-material. You're just making things up. Stop it: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200415133657.htm

Likewise, no-one can show us direct evidence of other minds, because it's circumstantial & inferential. — Gnomon

No, it isn't. Cognitive neuroscience has revealed to us that the brain controls everything about the body. There is no reason why anyone would conclude that it is not the source of the "mind," or whatever it is you mean by such. This is mainstream shit:

https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/Patient-Caregiver-Education/Know-Your-Brain
https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/3-2-our-brains-control-our-thoughts-feelings-and-behavior/

Since you are holding out for empirical evidence of res cogitans, the only evidence you will find is for res extensa. — Gnomon

No, it is exactly you who are holding out for evidence of something, and me demanding that you present evidence for your claim. My claim has already been established by science, with no need to add anything else to the model.

That's why nobody doubts the existence of Brains, but a few hyper-skeptics will demand sensory evidence of Minds. — Gnomon

The brain and the mind are not different, never been. The brain is the source of ALL functions of the body, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

That's what we call Solipsism. — Gnomon

And what call what you're claiming to believe, is religion. And no, that's not what solipsism is, bud:

solipsism: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

I'm claiming the exact opposite.

In which case, he is a robot, and has no Will of his own. — Gnomon

Any evidence of that? Sounds like reduction. What would make him a robot, your feelings on the subject? Your mere assertion? You have to qualify the shit you assert, dude. You'll not be getting away with just saying things with me, your talking to the real deal here.

Are you self-programmed? Do you think for yourself, or as directed by some outside force, such as Destiny? The Mind/Body problem turns on the question of Free Will. — Gnomon

Yes. No. And, no it doesn't, there never has been a free will or mind/body issue. Will is the manifestation of any and all functions of the individual brain that is equipped with self-generating conceptual hardeware used to navigate reality, and no evidence suggests otherwise.

brain-eating Zombies have equal rights with law-minding citizens. — Gnomon

What are these? Aren't these mythological creatures?

There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Neuroscientists, like all scientists, are quantitatively driven. If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. Since you can't measure mind, you can't quantify mind—so by definition, it's not physical. . . . — Gnomon

See empirical evidence to the contrary here, and come back when you have some evidence of something:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043598/

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00359/full

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5586212/

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness

https://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_03/i_03_p/i_03_p_que/i_03_p_que.html

https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-functions/visual-perception

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542184/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10870199/

I love my daughter Sally and talked to her about riding bikes while flying a kite yesterday.

The physical world is only as strong as the string. The truth is, something so abstract can't be meaningfully defined by its physicality.