Of course it is your brain is processing the data from your eyes. But it's still a cat, and it's still just a line. Thinking that the cat is no more than a bit of data processing misses its place in the artist's creation, the web page's design, the post I just presented and the argument about emergence.

Indeed, thinking of it as nothing more than your brain processing the data from your eyes is exactly the error that this thread is about. — Banno

What you say there is just you jumping to the conclusion that my view is much more simplistic than it actually is. I responded to you with a focus on the cat, because you yourself brought up the cat specifically.

Of course, I understand that we can associate a wide variety of things that we might wish to talk about, with the image. (And that is just another thing that is quite understandable, given a connectionist perspective.)

You seem to have a rather, "Don't look at the man behind the curtain." thing going on here. And your comment seems more gotcha rhetoric, than something I'd expect from a person willing to consider that he might have something to learn.

I'm lost. How does the past physically exist?
Just a word problem?
Past tense sort of existence?

It exists in the past. Physicalism states that only physical things exist. My the past exists in minds. Therefore, it must actually exist, as an actual physical thing (that it has passed, i suppose is no matter to the principle - either could be argued by whomeveer held the view)

I do not hold to this view. I am not a physicalist, I don't think.

Hopefully more than a word problem, though that's possible.

Fossils are a good example. Did they just happen to form, or are they present because they have a material past?

I believe many things about the past -- the before now -- which are about the physical world. So I figure that must be physical, even if not present. (That dodoes existed, for instance)

Well I didn't sign up either. It has its uses though.

You are missing the fundamentals. Or I think you are. Not going to argue with you.

Fair. No need for argument, and if I'm missing the fundamentals then I have homework to do.

Any suggestions on that front? No promises... too many interests and all that. But I'd like to correct myself if I'm missing fundamentals.

As I've noted, this conditions a lot of what you write. Hence, 'the blind spot'. — Wayfarer

Not really, it comes from me evolving my ideas from what is known and what is likely, not what is desired or believed. The idea of mind and body(brain) being two different things have no actual foundation outside religious ideas and spirituality.

I could stretch it to be a descriptive idea that aligns with me saying that consciousness acts as an "abstract" system and not an "object", meaning, a system that is an effect, much like a force in nature that doesn't exist as a tangible "thing", and instead something that acts upon, reacts upon and happens due to something. A consequence and a force that leads to other consequences.

But even so it appears out of and is linked to the body/brain, being a function by it and integral to it, and in every sense a part of it as a whole.

Calling it a blind spot is just as religious as when theologs use first cause arguments for God, pointing out that because science cannot explain the first cause, therefor it is as they say. Separating mind and body in the literal sense and not in a descriptive one, produces a similar predicament; a claim that something has transcended the natural world order of physical laws on grounds that cannot be explained or proven how or why. While a nondualist position points to a rational and logical unity of the mind and body, due to the massive empirical evidence that already do exist for what we know up to this point in research about evolution, our brain and body, the dualist has no actual empirical evidence that even hints at a duality between the mind and body exist, yet call out the nondualist to have a blind spot.

I would categorize that as a belief until there's actually anything to even hint in that direction. So far the evidence hints in the other.

Hence the mind-created world. — Wayfarer

I've read the entirety of your argument and it mostly just points out the limitations we have as humans in that our perception seem to block certain ways of understanding of reality. But that does not mean the mind and body are separated in the dualist sense, or that scientists are limited in the way you've argued (as I've counterargued earlier in this thread), it simply points out a limitation in our perspective and perception. A limitation that's built on externally observing scientists methods without insight into their active perceptions, perspectives and use of methods. As I wrote a few pages back; a mathematician or physicist well versed in math do not think about reality in the same way as people not versed in it. They structure concepts and ideas with other conceptual structures. We extend beyond our limitations and we can also not know what limitations can be overcome with future technology. Because of that those conclusions in your argument doesn't work. And pointing out that our perception is the source of how we believe reality to be isn't a revolutionary argument, it is true for those people who doesn't dwell on these things but that doesn't mean it is true for those who do, and it ignores the facts and operations that we use to control reality around us, facts that relate to what is actually there outside of our perception and which can be theorized, understood and controlled without us ever perceptually witnessing them. And the more knowledge one has of the physical laws of reality, the theories and how they play together, the more conceptually vivid it becomes and in such abstract ways that they do not reflect mere perceptually defined concepts.

This is why I'm skeptical to the notion that we are never going to be able to map this or explain it. Because its a problem of computational power. — Christoffer

We seem to have broad agreement. It is misguided to look for an algorithm that explains emergence; any such algorithm will simply be the reverse of a reduction.

Emergence is seeing something as..., as in the single-line cat drawing shown previously. It permits new terms to be used, and so greater complexity.

So I'll differ to you this quoted piece, since I don't think it's a question of computation.

Just what the physics profession thinks is the state of physical matter. I think quantum physics says matter exists in a somewhat fuzzy present 'moment'.

. And pointing out that our perception is the source of how we believe reality to be isn't a revolutionary argument, it is true for those people who doesn't dwell on these things but that doesn't mean it is true for those who do, and it ignores the facts and operations that we use to control reality around us, facts that relate to what is actually there outside of our perception and which can be theorized, understood and controlled without us ever perceptually witnessing them. — Christoffer

there is no need for me to deny that the Universe is real independently of your mind or mine, or of any specific, individual mind. Put another way, it isempirically true that the Universe exists independently of any particular mind. But what we know of its existence is inextricably bound by and to the mind we have, and so, in that sense, reality is not straightforwardly objective. It is not solely constituted by objects and their relations. Reality has an inextricably mental aspect, which itself is never revealed in empirical analysis. Whatever experience we have or knowledge we possess, it always occurs to a subject — a subject which only ever appears as us, as subject, not to us, as object. — Wayfarer

. We extend beyond our limitations and we can also not know what limitations can be overcome with future technology. — Christoffer

If you mean, scientific discoveries are made, then the answer is, of course! But the philosophical point about the inherent limitation of objectivity remains.

It exists in the past. Physicalism states that only physical things exist. My the past exists in minds. Therefore, it must actually exist, as an actual physical thing (that it has passed, i suppose is no matter to the principle - either could be argued by whomeveer held the view) — AmadeusD

On a perdurance view you would be a four dimensional being, with one of those dimensions being the time dimensions of spacetime. So from such a perspective, yes you have temporal extension.

Just what the physics profession thinks is the state of physical matter. I think quantum physics says matter exists in a somewhat fuzzy present 'moment'. — Mark Nyquist

And so World War 1 does not physically exist?

facts that relate to what is actually there outside of our perception — Christoffer

I recall a quote from a philosopher of science along the lines of facts being constructed like ships in bottles, carefully made to appear as if the bottle had been built around them.

Nice, there we go. I was not aware of what position would actually bite this bullet. Thank you.

It fits well with General Relativity as well.

the more knowledge one has of the physical laws of reality, the theories and how they play together, the more conceptually vivid it becomes and in such abstract ways that they do not reflect mere perceptually defined concepts. — Christoffer

If, by 'laws of reality' you mean 'natural law' or 'scientific law', are these themselves physical? I think that is questionable. The standard model of particle physics, for instance, comprises an intricate mathematical model, or set of mathematical hypotheses. But are mathematics part of the physical world that physics studies? This as you know is a contested question, so I'm not proposing it has a yes or no answer. Only that it is an open question, and furthermore, that it's not a scientific question.

Furthermore physics itself has thrown the observer-independence of phenomena into question. That, of course, is behind the whole debate about the observer problem in physics, and the many contested interpretations of what quantum physics means. I know that is all a can of worms and am not proposing to debate it, other than to say that both the 'physicality' and 'mind-independence' of the so-called 'fundamental particles of physics' are called into question by it.

If, by 'laws of reality' you mean 'natural law' or 'scientific law', are these themselves physical? — Wayfarer

If Christoffer responds to this and tries to correct your misconceptions, do you consider it likely that you will be inclined to tell him that his response was too long?

If so, it would be considerate to say so now.

If Christoffer responds to this and tries to correct your misconceptions, do you consider it likely that you will be inclined to tell him that his response was too long? — wonderer1

I don't think it was too long. I made that remark in a different context where I felt it appropriate.

I don't think it was too long. — Wayfarer

You haven't seen his response yet. :chin:

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the post I responded to. We'll see.

There's the difference between a house and a home, perhaps, to rub the point in.

Emergence, if it is to help us here, has to be akin to "seeing as", as Wittgenstein set out. So once again I find myself thinking of the duck-rabbit. Here it is enjoying the sun.

The duck emerges from the rabbit? — Banno

It seems obvious to me that there is no duck or rabbit until a mind observes the drawing and attaches meaning to it. This then leads me to think there is no information in a string of 1's and 0's unless a mind attaches meaning to the string of digits. For anyone who thinks information can exist independent of minds, where am I going wrong? IS there a duck or rabbit even when no one is looking at the picture? How does that work?

Physicalism states that only physical things exist. My the past exists in minds. — AmadeusD

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say memories of the past exist in minds?

Where do you stand on the possibility of consciousness emerging from collections of pipes, vales, water, etc.? Even I would grant that it's logically possible. But suppose we have an infallible consciousness meter, and (bear with me) someone has created a planet-sized system of valves, pipes, pumps, water, etc. that is functionally equivalent to a working brain. I would give astronomical odds that when we point the consciousness meter at the plumbing, it's not going to register anything. What kind of odds would you give?

Where do you stand on the possibility of consciousness emerging from collections of pipes, vales, water, etc.? Even I would grant that it's logically possible. But suppose we have an infallible consciousness meter, and (bear with me) someone has created a planet-sized system of valves, pipes, pumps, water, etc. that is functionally equivalent to a working brain. I would give astronomical odds that when we point the consciousness meter at the plumbing, it's not going to register anything. What kind of odds would you give? — RogueAI

I don't see any reason to think such a system couldn't in principle be conscious, but it would be an extremely low temporal resolution sort of consciousness, and would require an enormous input of energy to power the pumps. This is related to what I pointed out Kastrup showing ignorance about, with his claim that the relationship between fluid flowrate and pressure, is the same as the relationship between voltage and current expressed by Ohms law.

So your conciousness detector would need to be able to detect a consciousness, for which one of our years was but a moment.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say memories of the past exist in minds? — RogueAI

Hmm, a good point prima facie. I'm not sure what a memory is, exactly, so I'm unsure how to couch this, but... It seems it's a representation of something (the past state of affairs being recalled) received as empirical data, in the past, so I can't see the 'real' difference between the past, as experienced, and the memory.

If we're saying the past is mind-independent and that 'the present moment' is what constitutes the physical, in totality, it's a serious issue.

Maybe 'time travel' is confined to an approximation around memory though viz. you could have a 'conscious experience' of the past, such that it is the same, phenomenologically, as the present moment, but is in fact, a pale shadow.

Might it be a bit more palatable to say that the past exists in past minds..? Or does the mind endure?

This is related to what I pointed out Kastrup showing ignorance about with his claim that the relationship between fluid flowrate and pressure is the same as the relationship between voltage and current expressed by Ohms law. — wonderer1

What's the catch there? I don't really understand the correlation, so I can't pick out the problem.

What's the catch there? I don't really understand the correlation, so I can't pick out the problem. — AmadeusD

Ohms law is v=i*r where
v represents Voltage
i represents electrical current
and r represents electrical resistance

So for any given resistance, the relationship between voltage and current would be graphed as a straight line at some angle.

Fluid flow is much different with something more like p=r*q^2 where
p represents pressure
q represents flow rate
and r represents something crudely analogous to electrical resistance we can call "pipe-resistance".

Graphing p vs q for a given pipe-resistance (according to this simplistic equation) would result in a parabolic curve.

Fluid flow is actually even more complicated than that, so keep in mind this is merely a crude approximation. However, an aspect of the situation with fluids, is that the energy required to move fluid through pipes tends to go up as the square of the flow rate.

Thank you - clear enough for my crude understanding :)

:up: