I wonder to what extent 'inside' and 'outside' are real, or fabrications of the human understanding of the experience of consciousness.

I wonder to what extent the findings of the physicists will throw some clarity, or whether it will give rise to so much more uncertainty and the whole philosophical questions about the nature of consciousness and substances underlying the existence of 'mind'. — Jack Cummins

Instead of complicating our image of reality, I think quantum neuroscience along with field theory in physics will harmonize the physical and metaphysical so we have less cognitive dissonance in our picture of the world. All the intuitions of metaphysics that have been developed over the milennia and all the theoretical insights of technical philosophy and science will be bound into a unified framework allowing every individual and subculture to have a solid, compatible understanding of what is real. I think my comprehension of human nature and myself is greatly enriched by existing neuroscience, and this will be much more once consciousness is effectively modeled.

Of course uncertainties will still exist, but I think these are more endemic to the human condition as we have thus far experienced it than a consequence of any particular paradigm. Are skepticism, predestination, behaviorism, materialism, informationism, free will, individualism, chaos theory, deontology, utilitarianism etc. inhibiting or liberating to the human psyche? If we can consistently realize that all imaginable knowledge is to this point a temporary paradigm comprised fundamentally of concepts to be perpetually reconfigured as we innovate, not infallible truth, I think any furtherance of philosophy and science can only reinforce the insights associated with metaphysical perspectives and typically give purpose. But of course transition is always a gradual, multigenerational process requiring much diligence and reflection.

Prehistorically, a nonsustainable hunter-gatherer lifestyle of hominins decimated the world's species and introduced a strong strain of cruelty and violence into human nature and culture. With a scientific-theoretical component in our worldview we mitigated war, invented ecology, introduced recycling, protection of endangered species and nature preservation generally, etc. Technology causes many problems, but solves as many problems as it causes. If we transplanted antiquity's humans and values into our societies, the world would be so much worse than it is. The major problems modern civilizations face are a residue from the ancient past, not an outcome of the Information Age itself. Adapting to a lifestyle of high technology is still our huge challenge, but we have become better citizens in the process and can hopefully continue to do so. And should probably acknowledge we'll be screwed by a mass extinction event eventually without futuristic tech, so might as well try as much as we can to conscientiously advance and make it work.

It would likely be a positive development if neuroscientists are able to enable less cognitive dissonance. My only hope is that any such attempt, rather than putting limits on human potential, open it up to the most creative ones possible for the individual and humanity.

The interest in 'identity theory' (google it, I didn't know about it until it was pointed out to me) is that the duality that anchors our epistemology is not necessary any longer if states of the brain are whatever the 'real' as a one-to-one correspondence could possibly entail.

The element about the idea that most interests me is how the proposal could be tested. If what is said to be Two is actually One, won't I need a Third to arbitrate?

We have no idea what “material” or “physical” or “body” mean.

So there is no problem. — Xtrix

In fact that's the real problem.And the root question of mind-body problem also.

My only hope is that any such attempt, rather than putting limits on human potential, open it up to the most creative ones possible for the individual and humanity. — Jack Cummins

Objectivity is the platform for creative pursuits of even the most arcane kind to be possible, so fashioning a general framework and humanist value system for consciousness theory along with everything else is key for radical innovation to have more than an extremely improbable chance of actualization. Look at the pioneering quantum physicists or any intellectual progress, it always arises from the drive for some kind of social appeal, an optimal validation in some form.

We have no idea what “material” or “physical” or “body” mean. — Xtrix

"Physical" is an infinitely malleable category for every aspect of experience we can categorize as substance, usually by employing empirical methods.

"Material" in the context of neuroscience and consciousness theory has a similar meaning: physical "matter".

The "body" is carbon-based physiology, which consciousness transcends.

Seems simple enough to me.

It can be asked if matter is the foundation of mind — Jack Cummins

It really can’t— and that’s the point. Not until we have an understanding of matter — which we don’t have. There was one, long ago, but that was abandoned.

So the question dissolves.

In fact that's the real problem.And the root question of mind-body problem also. — dimosthenis9

No, it isn’t. The question of whether the mind reduces to the activity of the brain is a variant, and it presumes we know what we’re talking about when we discuss the “physical.” But we don’t. Which is a reason these conversations continue endlessly.

"Physical" is an infinitely malleable category for every aspect of experience we can categorize as substance, usually by employing empirical methods.

"Material" in the context of neuroscience and consciousness theory has a similar meaning: physical "matter".

The "body" is carbon-based physiology, which consciousness transcends.

Seems simple enough to me. — Enrique

You, like many others before you, can define things any way you’d like. But what I’m talking about is a technical notion, not armchair meaning creation.

But beyond that, you’ve simply punted by employing “substance” and “empirical,” two more loaded terms. (Substance — especially — has a very long history.)

Then you go on to say that material is “physical”(substance-like) “matter” which — unless there’s matter out there that isn’t physical — is a redundancy.

This, so far we once again have armchair philosophy, consisting solely of moving words around. Material = matter = physical = substance. …And we’ve gotten precisely nowhere. What is substance?

But even if this were more coherent, it’d still miss the point entirely.

I’ll ignore the remark about consciousness “transcending” the body.

I guess piss on whatever you want and ignore the rest! This gets back to whether feelings = matter lol

I said as much in the post you quoted, so you actually agree with me, Fool. I've also speculated on how it might be done someday . :nerd:

:ok:

But we know how a television and computer work. — Xtrix

I don't understand why that matters. I don't see any evidence that the brain is mysterious, just that we don't understand important things about how it works yet.

And I repeat is again too. The brain is no medium through which information flows to show it to the ones watching. — Cartuna

I didn't understand this argument before, and I don't understand it now.

But we know how a television and computer work.
— Xtrix

I don't understand why that matters. I don't see any evidence that the brain is mysterious, just that we don't understand important things about how it works yet. — T Clark

I’d say not understanding how something works makes it pretty mysterious. If TV were to play movies without any understanding of how, I think that too would qualify as a mystery.

Regardless, the main point is that the entire idea of matter (which includes brains) is a mystery.

If TV were to play movies without any understanding of how, I think that too would qualify as a mystery. — Xtrix

Every day, billions of people watch TV without any understanding of how it works. They don't think it's particularly mysterious.

Regardless, the main point is that the entire idea of matter (which includes brains) is a mystery. — Xtrix

I don't see matter as particularly mysterious either. "Not fully understood" is not the same as "mysterious." Also, matter also includes wood, computers, and TV sets.

If I watch TV, the TV merely functionss as an intermediary, a sophisticated medium, like air, by means of which information is sent to you. It's in principle the same like the air between you and me if we directly talk to each other. It can pass ĺive events of a plane hitting a twin tower or carry a picture and sound of you and me talking to each other from far away. It needs a camera though to serve as your faraway eye. And there lies your misunderstanding or inability to undestand. You think the TV gives an internal representation, an analogue of the stuff which is put inside it. This doesn't happen though, as it doesn't happen in air, the newspapers, a radio, or a computer.

I don't see any evidence that the brain is mysterious, just that we don't understand important things about how it works yet. — T Clark

I don't see matter as particularly mysterious either. "Not fully understood" is not the same as "mysterious." — T Clark

:100:

If we're going for analogies I think it is better to view the Brain as Language/Subject and the Mind as a Conversation/Narrative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba-HMvDn_vU

No, it isn’t. The question of whether the mind reduces to the activity of the brain is a variant, and it presumes we know what we’re talking about when we discuss the “physical.” But we don’t. — Xtrix

The thing is that mind is clearly something non physical. So either "physical" and "material"(brain) , as we define it according to the known existing nature elements, generates and interacts with something non material, something different. Either we still have a narrow perspective of what physical/material is. And what we consider as physical is much more complicated than what we already know and observe.

I think that your post is particularly interesting as the way in which the brain gives rise to mind is the part which is not known. The human mind is so complex, even if the mechanics are based on the brain.

Within the debate between materialism and idealism it could be asked which is primary? — Jack Cummins

Sure, but within that dualism the necessary brain/mind distinction is given, from which some relative primacy follows.......so why the question in the thread title?

If I watch TV, the TV merely functionss as an intermediary, a sophisticated medium, like air, by means of which information is sent to you. It's in principle the same like the air between you and me if we directly talk to each other. — Cartuna

Not true. The TV takes information from outside and then processes it to form the image and sound we see as the images. You would not be able to understand the electromagnetic signal put out by the transmitter. Let's give up on this discussion.

misunderstanding or inability to undestand. — Cartuna

Another good reason to stop the conversation.

Not true. The TV takes information from outside and then processes it to form the image and sound we see as the images — T Clark

Exactly. A medium, like I wrote. You tele see. A far away image or one from the past. Of course that needs more than aether or air. The image is not formed inside the TV but merely transmitted by it.

It's my duty, as a scientist, being loyal to the imperative of the Sciences, to correct you. Others may take your false image of reality for granted...The Truth must be told...

A medium, like I wrote. You tele see. A far away image or one from the past. Of course that needs more than aether or air. — Cartuna

Slight tangent, but supradimensional causation within spacetime transcending aether that matter, physiology, electricity, technology etc. are embedded in? What does physics have to say about it?

Every day, billions of people watch TV without any understanding of how it works. They don't think it's particularly mysterious. — T Clark

Of course they do. It’s a total mystery — to them. A black box. They’re aware that experts know how it works.

I don't see matter as particularly mysterious either. — T Clark

I know. Which is why you, like many others on here, continue on with these conversations.

But there hasn’t been a technical notion of matter for centuries, despite your feelings.

Plenty of people argue the same thing about God, incidentally. God isn’t “fully understood,” but not mysterious. I don’t find that very convincing. I also said nothing about “fully understood.”

The thing is that mind is clearly something non physical. — dimosthenis9

First we have to know what physical means. Which we don’t. So the statement is meaningless.

But there hasn’t been a technical notion of matter for centuries, despite your feelings. — Xtrix

So, you do not consider the Standard Model a "technical notion?"

I also said nothing about “fully understood.” — Xtrix

I believe that was me.

Plenty of people argue the same thing about God, incidentally. God isn’t “fully understood,” but not mysterious. I don’t find that very convincing. — Xtrix

That's a different discussion. If you don't understand that, then this one is pointless.

First we have to know what physical means. Which we don’t. So the statement is meaningless. — Xtrix

By physical we mean what science have identified and observed so far. We define physical and material according to what science taught us so far. If and when we discover more about it then we can re-define what physical and material is.

Or else playing that definition game won't allow us to talk about anything at all! At the end which exact statement is not meaningless and what exactly is it that we know for sure what exactly is?! Can we define exactly what a tree is? Or only what our senses perceive?We can play that definition game endlessly but if that was the case then philosophy couldn't deal or say anything at all. It doesn't work that way.

So, you do not consider the Standard Model a "technical notion?" — T Clark

The standard model is a theory, not a technical notion. It does deal with particles and forces, but doesn’t give a technical notion of matter.

That's a different discussion. — T Clark

Yes, one where the same logic your using us also applied. That should tell you something.

By physical we mean what science have identified and observed so far. — dimosthenis9

So “physical” means anything science has identified and observed. First we have to know what makes something science — but leaving that aside: we don’t observe photons — are they not physical? What about forces? They’re identified, certainly — but so is the mind, and love, and morality. All “identified” as such.

You’re not providing a technical notion. You’re providing yet another personal take on the matter.

Or else playing that definition game won't allow us to talk about anything at all! — dimosthenis9

We can talk about all kinds of things. We talk about “work” all the time, for example. We go to work every day or work from home. We all know what that means in everyday life. When pressed to define it, many people would give various answers. We talk about God and the meaning of life.

But in the context of an explanatory theory, in science, “work” is used in a very different way. It has a precise definition, given to it within a theory.

In the 17th century, the mechanical philosophy prevailed. Descartes, Galileo, etc. Bodies were given a technical notion, involving contact action. Newton destroyed that. There hasn’t been another since.

So we can talk in everyday terms, or we can talk in technical terms about things. The former gets us nowhere, in this case, and the latter doesn’t exist.

So there is no problem, and the question is meaningless.

What’s the difference between mind and xchssertmison? Are they the same? Are they different? What’s the problem with these questions, exactly? Should be obvious.