• Pinprick
    419
    "I exist" is not an observation? What is it then?khaled

    I don’t really care about this, but if it were an observation, it would of had to been observed using one of our five senses. “I exist” is arrived at through deductive reasoning. Perhaps you could argue that it is felt or sensed, but Decartes doubted his senses/feelings.
  • Gnomon
    960

    It just occurred to me that my All Is Mind reply above, may have inadvertently explained the essence of Poetry : it expresses immaterial qualities & subjective feelings in real-world concrete terms, thereby giving substance to the insubstantial, and objective form to subjective imagination . 'Poet' comes from a Greek word meaning "to make." Perhaps poetry makes Ideal concepts Real, so others can experience them. N'cest pas? :nerd:

    "Like Information and Energy, all of our experiences are with the material containers of properties, qualities, and Information."
  • Gnomon
    960
    I’m not doubting consciousness, only that it derives from “mind” as opposed to brain.Pinprick
    I agree that immaterial Mind is the function of Brain matter. But, do you know of a viable theory to explain how Mind & Consciousness & Meaning are "derived from" from mindless Matter, such as neural networks? Where is the latent potential for mental properties located in brain matter? How does that latency transform into manifest mental behavior? :smile:
  • Yohan
    67
    For what it’s worth, if the only reason for believing in minds is that they explain consciousness, then how is this anything more than a “god of the gaps” style argument? “Brains can’t explain consciousness, but minds can, therefore minds exist.” All the while completely overlooking or ignoring the fact that minds themselves require an explanation. Hitchens’s razor seems to dispose of this rather quickly.Pinprick
    Mind is just a basic word for whatever goes on inside of a person, as opposed to what we can observe about them from looking at their physical characteristics. At least I think that is how people who disagree with you are defining it. Thought, intellect, feelings, will, memory, impressions. Mind is kind of a catch all word for the combination of all those things. You can claim those things are not all part of a singular thing called a mind, but what appears absurd to many is claiming those things are reducible to matter.
  • khaled
    1.4k
    I’m not doubting consciousness, only that it derives from “mind” as opposed to brain.Pinprick

    "mind" is the experience of qualia. You cannot explain to someone what the color red looks like without showing them the color red. Even if someone knows everything there is to know scientifically about the color red (it's wavelength, appearances in nature, etc) they will not know what the color red looks like without seeing the color red.

    Consciousness is that thing which experiences these qualia.

    Both have not been observed by the senses (no one has smelled tasted, seen, touched or heard consciousness yet). Both are definitely noticable in real life (that you experience qualia and that there is a "you" experiencing qualia are things you cannot deny unless you're a philosophical zombie) but have yet to even be approached by the scientific method.
  • Pinprick
    419
    Mind is just a basic word for whatever goes on inside of a person, as opposed to what we can observe about them from looking at their physical characteristics.Yohan

    Thanks for clearing that up, at least now I know what I’m arguing against. I would say that to a certain, limited extent, we are able to observe whatever is going on in someone’s “mind.” Granted there is no apparatus that can decipher the precise content of your thoughts, memories, feelings, etc., but we are able to observe that you are or are not conscious, in an emotional state, thinking logically, etc. Being that there is a direct causal relationship between physical brain states, consciousness, and qualia, the evidence points to materialism.

    You can claim those things are not all part of a singular thing called a mind, but what appears absurd to many is claiming those things are reducible to matter.Yohan

    I like to think those things not so much as things, but more like events. They will not reduce to one neuron, or 1,000 neurons. Nor will they reduce to neurotransmitters, hormones, or subatomic particles. The point I think that gets lost is that when a thought occurs, it is the result of very complex interactions that occur within the brain. So to use an analogy, thoughts are like races, as in motorcycle races, not ethnicities. A race isn’t really a physical thing, it’s an event that involves physical objects. When certain physical objects do certain things in certain ways, it’s a race. Same with thoughts, decisions, feelings, etc.
  • Pinprick
    419
    You cannot explain to someone what the color red looks like without showing them the color red.khaled

    Yeah, because we’re unable to visualize, or imagine particular wavelengths, etc. You can’t hear the color red either, because redness is a strictly visual property. So I don’t see what this proves. Redness is still a physical property, it just can’t be perceived through any medium other than vision.

    Both have not been observed by the senseskhaled

    I would say we can observe consciousness when we observe brain activity. We are able to correctly predict whether or not someone is conscious by observing brain states, right?
  • khaled
    1.4k
    So I don’t see what this proves.Pinprick

    I’m not “proving” anything. I’m explaining what the word “mind” means.

    Redness is still a physical propertyPinprick

    Incorrect. Colorblind people will see green when looking at a red object for example. Physical properties include things like “wavelength emitted”, “length”, “mass”, etc. All physical properties can be measured in a way that everyone agrees on the measurement. However color is not like that. Two people can look at the same object and not perceive the same color. They can see the same wavelength is being emitted, but not the same color. That is an example of an object that is identical in physical properties producing different qualia. Another more common example is disagreement on what something tastes like.

    Yeah, because we’re unable to visualize, or imagine particular wavelengths, etcPinprick

    For the same reason as above, color and wavelength are different. Everyone can agree on wavelength without agreeing on color.

    I would say we can observe consciousness when we observe brain activity.Pinprick

    If you’re proposing that consciousness IS brain activity then that is demonstrably false. We have more brain activity while sleeping but we’re not “more conscious”.

    We are able to correctly predict whether or not someone is conscious by observing brain states, right?Pinprick

    I’m not even sure that’s true and regardless “observing brain states” is different from “observing consciousness”. The former to the latter is like measuring a radio wave vs listening to the channel.
  • Pinprick
    419
    For the same reason as above, color and wavelength are different. Everyone can agree on wavelength without agreeing on color.khaled

    So you’re claiming that when we see color, we’re seeing something immaterial? Care to explain how that works? The fact that people perceive the same phenomena differently has no bearing on whether or not the object is physical. Our sense receptors have varying levels of sensitivity. By and large, that is what causes differences in perception.

    If you’re proposing that consciousness IS brain activity then that is demonstrably false. We have more brain activity while sleeping but we’re not “more conscious”.khaled

    If true, this is news to me. But regardless, it isn’t as simple as quantifying our brain activity. The particular parts of the brain that are active also play a role. We are able to determine the difference between a brain that is awake, and one that is asleep, right? If so, I would claim whatever that difference is has to relate to consciousness.

    I’m not even sure that’s true and regardless “observing brain states” is different from “observing consciousness”.khaled

    Perhaps it’s an indirect observation, but how can you be sure that whatever brain activity you’re observing isn’t consciousness itself? If you observe people hitting a tennis ball back and forth across a net, are you observing a game of tennis?
  • khaled
    1.4k
    The fact that people perceive the same phenomena differently has no bearing on whether or not the object is physical.Pinprick

    I'm not saying that the object is immaterial. I'm saying that "color" is not a physical property. "wavelength emitted" is. And that the experience of seeing color is fundamentally a different sort of thing from the wavelength that caused that experience.

    I would claim whatever that difference is has to relate to consciousness.Pinprick

    And you would be correct. It relates to consciousness. It IS not somehow consciousness.

    If you observe people hitting a tennis ball back and forth across a net, are you observing a game of tennis?Pinprick

    Yes but I'm not looking for a game of tennis I'm looking for the sensation of hitting the ball. I can't "observe" that no matter how many tennis matches I watch. I have only been able to observe it by hitting a tennis ball.
  • PoeticUniverse
    829
    To refute 'All is Mind', one needs to show that there is substance, which I'd say includes forces/energy acting as substance, plus that Mind cannot make substance, plus that there can't be a kind of a movie going on through Mind in which everything operates exactly as if there were substance and its laws, and that if there is this perfect movie going on that a difference in the message between the faux and the true substance is not a difference that makes no difference.
  • Pinprick
    419
    I'm not saying that the object is immaterial.khaled

    I wasn’t trying to either. I meant color.

    I'm saying that "color" is not a physical property.khaled

    Then how do we see it? Similar to brain states and consciousness, I equate color and wavelength emitted. The emitted wavelength is what we are seeing. Certain emitted wavelengths are red. But the point is that we are not capable of seeing anything that is immaterial. Sight requires photons, which are physical.

    And you would be correct. It relates to consciousness. It IS not somehow consciousness.khaled

    I worded it that way because that in itself may not be consciousness. I didn’t want to exclude whatever parts of the brain are active during sleep. They may need to be active in addition to whatever parts are not in order to be conscious. So the inactive parts of the brain during sleep relate to consciousness because they are a part of the whole.

    Yes but I'm not looking for a game of tennis I'm looking for the sensation of hitting the ball. I can't "observe" that no matter how many tennis matches I watch. I have only been able to observe it by hitting a tennis ball.khaled

    True, but what makes you think that the sensation of hitting a tennis ball isn’t physical? We can’t experience exactly what others do, and we can’t know exactly how others experience. But I don’t see how this calls into question whether or not what we experience is physical or not. I don’t need to know how you experience seeing a rock to know that it’s physical. We can only experience physical things. Therefore all things experienced are physical. Even if you’re trying to get at experience itself, it still must be physical, because it to is experienced.
  • Pinprick
    419
    Or that mind does not exist, or is not what it is claimed to be (immaterial). Or, if all is mind is not able to justify its conclusions logically it refutes itself. Or, if all is mind is not able to explain better the nature of the universe than materialism.
  • khaled
    1.4k
    Similar to brain states and consciousness, I equate color and wavelength emittedPinprick

    So how come you can imagine the color red without any photons entering your eyes?

    I don’t need to know how you experience seeing a rock to know that it’s physical.Pinprick

    To know that the ROCK is physical not the "experience is physical" whatever that means.

    Even if you’re trying to get at experience itself, it still must be physical, because it to is experienced.Pinprick

    So can I hold "the experience of seeing the color red" in my hand? Or can "the experience of seeing the color red" be propagated through a medium like a wave? Because if the answer is no to both of those questions then what exactly is "physical" about it?
  • Pinprick
    419
    So how come you can imagine the color red without any photons entering your eyes?khaled

    Memory. Because, as you’ve noted, you cannot imagine the color red without seeing it first. So when we imagine it now, we are just remembering or recalling our prior knowledge of what it looks like.

    So can I hold "the experience of seeing the color red" in my hand?khaled

    No.

    Or can "the experience of seeing the color red" be propagated through a medium like a wave?khaled

    I’m going to say yes. That is the only way we can experience the color red. If there is no wave, there is no color red.
  • Wayfarer
    10.1k
    Recently published Closer to Truth interview on this theme. They discuss the notion that 'all is mind'.

  • khaled
    1.4k
    If there is no wave, there is no color red.Pinprick

    As I said, you can imagine red. So what you're saying is that color itself is an electromagnetic wave? So if we were to imagine color using memory does that make memroy an electromagnetic wave? What is memory then?

    Does memory EMIT an electromagnetic wave (since according to you the color red IS an electromagnetic wave) in your brain that is somehow processed as "red" without going through your eyes? Are you proposing that when I think of red, if you open up my skull you will literally see red, that there will literally be a light with the wavelength of red bouncing around in my head? After all, the experience of the color red and the wavelength of red color is the same therefore people should be able to see that wave from the outside right? You're probably not proposing any of these things but then how exactly does imagination work in your view? How come there can be the experience of the color red without the wavelength red even though they're supposed to be "the same thing"?

    If red literally IS the electromagnetic wave then how come the same electromagnetic wave can enter people's eyes and they will report drastically different colors if they're color blind? In that case the wave and the resulting experience of color are different. So they're clearly not the same thing.

    A lot of knots are made when someone conflates a mental phenomena with the physical phenoena that causes it.
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.