To quote the Beatles though, "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together." — MrLiminal

Hmmm... "I am he, as you are he"? I mean, if we take that literally, then it's an analogy. But an analogy (I might be wrong about this, though) is a comparison between two things: A and B. The analogy is "Thing A is like thing B because they have something in common, called C." In the case of "I'm him, just as much as you're him.", I would interpret that as a mutual conditional: if p, then q, and if q, then p". In other words, p ↔ q. And the truth value of that statement, from a logical point of view, is contingent. It could be false, it could be true. Under what conditions would it be false, and under what conditions would it be true? What does the world have to be like, in order for it to be true? If that part can't be solved, the rest of the Beatles' quote can't even be taken into account, let alone interpreted correctly from the POV of propositional logic.

It's basically saying we are all connected to everything (infinity) but also connected by death (0), while also maintaining our own individuality (1). Everything dies (infinity becomes 0), and from death new potential is created (0 becomes infinity). — MrLiminal

"We are all connected to everything (infinity)"... Are we? Why? I'm not sure that we are. I'm not connected to my table. Maybe I'm connected to the planet, except when I jump. I'm not trying to be funny or amusing here, I'm just trying to picture it.

"We are also connected by death (0)" Are we? In what sense? In a poetic sense, for example? Or in a literal sense? Because, in a literal sense, I would need to know what that means, because I can't even picture it.

Everything dies (Here I would qualify: every living organism dies, not literally everything: stones don't die, for example). And then you say: "Infinity becomes 0". And I ask: How so? Mathematically? Physically? Ontologically? Or how else?

I'm genuinely sorry if these questions come across as defiant or confrontational, or aggressive in some way. I just don't know how to ask them any better.

No you're good. Let me try explaining it another way.

You are one person. You experience life from one perspective.

Your family is made up of several people, including you. Your family is one unit, but the unit experiences multiple different perspective in time and space. The information collected by each unit can only be shared when the parts of the unit are together. But the unit is always 1 family.

Your family is part of the greater whole of humanity, humanity being one unit.

Humanity is part of the greater whole of life, life being one unit.

Your body is 1 unit, but it is made up of several organs, which are each individually their own unit. Each organ is likewise made up of multiple cells, which each cell being its own unit.

So 1 thing can be made up of an infinite number of smaller things. And eventually everything will die, the one will become 0. When I say "die" I mean, cease to be the thing that it is. Rocks don't die, but they erode away or break down into not rocks eventually. The rock ceases to be and becomes something else.

Hmmm...

Ok, let's see if there is a disagreement between our POVs (there is a factual disagreement, as in, you're inside your own brain, I'm inside my own brain). So let's see if we agree on everything that you said:

First point, I am one person. I experience life from one perspective. Yes, I agree with both of those claims. Let's proceed.

"My family is made up of several people, including me." Yes, I agree.
"My family is one unit" Hmmm... I'm not so sure. My family is just a plurality of individual people. For example, think of a pack of wolves. How many "Aristotelian substances" (to use a philosophical term) are there in this example? If you think that "the pack of wolves" is something over and above the six individual wolves, then you should count at least 7 "substances": the six wolves, plus the pack of wolves itself. But that would be wrong (I have a paper published on this topic in case you're interested). So, to get back on track: I am an individual, I am quite certain of that. And it is my belief (one among several) that I, as an individual, am quite literally not a mereological part of a larger "substance" or "whole" insofar as I myself am a "substance" (in the philosophical sense of the term) as well as a "whole" (in the mereological sense of the term).

So, it seems that our baseline disagreement is there. Would it be possible to reach an agreement? Can we "work it out", or "squash the beef", or whatever manner of speaking people use outside the Ontology Room? Or is all of this factual, not up for debate, as in, it's factual that I was born in Argentina in 1985, that's not up for debate. Or is it? How could it be? I can't change those facts about my existence, I didn't even choose them, etc., we have stepped out of one Rabbit Hole just to jump inside of it again. I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's not easy to discuss "things" at this level, or using this particular language (some professional philosophers call it "Ontologese". Like, Portuguese, but we're speaking Ontologese when we're inside the Ontology Room.

About Bakhtin, I'll just say it: when people explain Bakhtin to me, I feel like I'm not understanding even half of the things that people are trying to explain to me. Like, there's some parts that I get, there's other parts that I even agree with, but then there are some parts that I just don't understand. — Arcane Sandwich

You and many other people. He is notoriously difficult to understand (and especially for a nominalistic culture!), and it doesn't help that for so long there was confusion about who within the 'Bakhtin Circle' actually wrote what. But when it comes to 'Toward a Philosophy of the Act', Bakhtin definitely wrote it.

Bakhtin's concept of dialogism is an influencing aspect in my development of Evrostics. ... Dialogue, and the interaction of the multiple voices brought in by any being's genetics, culture, and biological environment (epigenetics) is an expression and extension of semiosis by way of utterances, developing and creating meaning that is more than the sum of its concretized word 'parts'. This influences us personally, socially, and culturally. In Evrostics, I highlight dialogue as a catalyst in the recursive and reciprocal nature of understanding. Dialogue isn't just a medium for exchanging ideas but an active process that shapes and transforms our perceptions and relationships. ... As for literary theory, Bakhtin worked to explain how this is expressed in the written word.

Whitehead was more inclined toward nominalism in that his process philosophy emphasized the particular, concrete experiences (actual occasions).

Bakhtin, on the other hand, leaned more toward a holistic and integrated view that goes beyond nominalism. His focus on the interaction of different voices and perspectives highlights the emergent, interconnected nature of reality.

I hope this explanation helps.

I suppose my larger point is that all of these questions are rooted in the fact that we experience life as a singular experience, and I am questioning if it is possible for larger, gestalt consciousness to arise from the collection of individual minds. A family is made up of individual people but can act as one. Army units and sport teams can be trained to act as one, despite being many. Is that so different from our own personal biological experience, where so many different organs and chemicals make up what we consider our singular self? Is it possible what we experience as a single point of view is itself a gestalt of smaller, disparate processes?

for so long there was confusion about who within the 'Bakhtin Circle' actually wrote what — Mapping the Medium

Yeah that's brutal... It's like the discussion that I was having with @MrLiminal about a question that he asked, (I'm paraphrasing what he asked) "Where does one end and other things begin?" Hypothetically, it could be at the level of chromosomes. At that level or layer of Reality itself. Like, you can draw "the line" there, between determinism and free will, but I'm asking something different in my original post. Again, MrLiminal phrased it better than me: "Why am I this, instead of that?" Like, why this, specifically? And this ties in with the Question of Being: Why is there Something (the Universe) rather than Nothing?

And the other question, at the end of the day, is:

Why is there This Universe, instead of "Some Other" Universe? Why is the world the way it is, and not some other way? Why are we in the Milky Way, instead of the Andromeda Galaxy? Why do Galaxies form spirals? Why do black holes exist? Why is there a force of gravity? Could the Universe have had different physical laws? If not, why not? Are the Laws of Physics factual in the sense that they're just as contingent as the fact that I was born in Argentina in 1985, yes or no?

I suppose my larger point is that all of these questions are rooted in the fact that we experience life as a singular experience, and I am questioning if it is possible for larger, gestalt consciousness to arise from the collection of individual minds. — MrLiminal

I wouldn't use the term "Gestalt" since I don't agree with one of the premises of the Gestalt school: the one that says that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Technically speaking, from a metaphysical or ontological POV, some things compose something, and some things do not compose a further thing. It depends on what's your answer to van Inwagen's Special Composition Question (SCQ): When do objects A and B compose a third object C? There are only three possible answers to that question: never, sometimes, and always. I believe that "sometimes" is the correct answer in this case, but feel free to disagree. There's also plenty of room for you to agree with me that the answer is "sometimes", and you're free to disagree as far as the technical details go.

A family is made up of individual people but can act as one. Army units and sport teams can be trained to act as one, despite being many. Is that so different from our own personal biological experience, where so many different organs and chemicals make up what we consider our singular self? — MrLiminal

Yes, I believe it is, but feel free to disagree. Here's my argument, it's a modus tollens:

1) If the Supreme Court is a single unit composed of nine justices, then the Supreme Court is a single fleshy object that has nine tongues and eighteen elbows, among other parts.
2) It is not the case that the Supreme Court is a single fleshy object that has nine tongues and eighteen elbows, among other parts.
3) Therefore, it is not the case that the Supreme Court is a single unit composed of nine justices.

If you wish to resist the conclusion, you have to deny either the first premise or the second one. Due to how the truth table works for conditional statements, you can't deny both at the same time. If you deny one of those two premises, you must accept the other one, and vice-versa.

As for myself, as a substance in the philosophical sense of the term, I am indeed a fleshy object composed of different organs and chemicals, that make up my singular self as an individual in the biological sense, as an individual in the chemical sense, and also as an individual in the physical sense of the term.

>If the Supreme Court is a single unit composed of nine justices, then the Supreme Court is a single fleshy object that has nine tongues and eighteen elbows, among other parts.

I think you could argue this is true, they are just not all necessarily connected physically. Think of a Man-o-War jellyfish. It is one creature that is actually made up of a colony of different creatures that act together as a single living organism or other hiveminded or generally composite organisms in nature. The mitochondria in your cells was once a completely separate organism and still maintains its own unique mitochondrial dna. So my question then is, does it not simply become a matter of what frame of reference you are looking at a thing through? Is it one thing, or many things working together, or a part of a larger whole? It's all relative to the context, which makes the answers both yes and no, depending on what level you view it at.

I would then say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court is not like a Man-o-War jellyfish, precisely because the Supreme Court is not a living creature, while the Man-o-War jellyfish is indeed a living creature. I myself, in addition to being "a substance", am also a living creature, unlike a stone or a chunk of iron. The Supreme Court, if it were indeed a single unit, would be more like a stone or a chunk of iron than a jellyfish: it is not alive, only its "parts" (the nine justices) are alive, but the Court itself would not be alive. It's like, how many "lives" would you be counting there? Just nine? Or ten? But the latter makes no sense to me: nine individual lives, plus "the life of the Supreme Court". There is no such thing as "the life of the Supreme Court", as something over and above the lives of the nine justices, that are are simply known collectively as "the Supreme Court". It's like when you say "there is a pile of clothes in the room". It's not as if the pile itself were one more item of clothing (i.e., a jacket, a pair of socks) that you can wear.

Right? Or would you like to push back on whatever point it is that I'm trying to make?

Ok, let me see if I can get this Thread back on track.

Considering what we have just discussed, about Bakhtin's process philosophy, or philosophy of the act, or however you want to call it (sorry, I'm kind of reckless when I speak like this, I do it for the sake of clarity).

Considering also what is under discussion in the case of the part-whole relation, from a mereological as well as a metaphysical point of view.

Let's address a question, to paraphrase Mr. Liminal: What defines what one is? As in, myself? What am I, insofar as I am One in a mereological sense as well as a metaphysical sense? What does the fact that I was born in Argentina in 1985 have anything to do with it? And why were you, dear reader, born where you were, and not some other place? Why where you born in the year that you were born, and not some other year? The only scientific explanation (without getting kooky) is that there's just a bunch of brute facts that explain all of that. But then, here's my question: is the fact that I was born in Argentina in 1985 contingent, yes or no? And this is where it gets odd. There are good arguments both for and against those positions. So what should I make of that? How should I "take it", to speak in common parlance? I just have to "deal with it", as folks from the United States say? "Those are the cards that I've been dealt, deal with it"? But then there's this ominous quality to those words, they sound like poetry to me. Like, they sound eerie, magical. And I, being a scientific materialist, believe in no such things. So what do I make of that? And so on, and so forth, and I can't get out of this Rabbit Hole, God damn it. That's what I meant when I originally said that I "experience" such things. It's like, it starts as a state of awareness, but then you somehow "experience" it in your mind, like intellectually. I don't know if I would call that "intellectual intuition". I'm not sure that I believe in such a thing. What are your thoughts on that?

But since I cannot change them, I "experience" them as necessary facts. Actually, "experience" is not the right technical term to use here. It's more like an "awareness". It's like I have a "double awareness": I'm aware that I could have been born somewhere else, and in some other time, but at the same time I'm aware that I can't change "where I was born, in a spatial sense", just as much as I can't change "when I was born, in a temporal sense."

Does that sound like nonsense to you? It kinda does to me. It just strikes me as odd. Not necessarily "wrong" from a theoretical standpoint, but just plain odd from the POV of plain and simple English. — Arcane Sandwich

No, they are not nonsense at all. We all had such questions and ideas at some point in our lives for sure. It is an interesting point, and this is what I think about it.

The reason that you cannot be born in any other place at any other time is because every particle of your physical body is bound in space and time. Time never allows any physical objects to travel to the past. Hence you are always heading to the future by the law. If you can travel to the past in time, then you could change all the factual properties of you any way you want. But you are bound in time to the present in time heading to the future just like all of us in the universe.

While your physical body is bound by space and time, your mind is free. Your mind can clock back to the past ancient Greek and Roman empire, meet Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, go to a pub, and have some philosophical chats while drinking beer. But you can only do that in your imagination. When you wake up from the imagination or dream, you will find your body still bound in the space where you were physically, and time which is the present heading towards the future.

The reason that you cannot be born in any other place at any other time is because every particle of your physical body is bound in space and time. — Corvus

Hmmm... Do I agree with this? I'm not sure. It sounds reasonable and easy to understand, but I "feel like" something's missing from the picture. I could be wrong, of course.

Time never allows any physical objects to travel to the past. — Corvus

Hmmm... Are we (as in, the entire scientific community of planet Earth) sure of this? Are we really sure of this? It's not even possible at the level of theory? It's not even possible at the level of wild speculation? I'm not sure.

you are bound in time to the present in time heading to the future just like all of us in the universe. — Corvus

Yes... this sounds reasonable... but again, my "instinct" just tells me that something about this is... "off"...

While your physical body is bound by space and time, your mind is free. — Corvus

Hmmm... but my mind is simply what my brain does, just as my digestion is simply what my gut does. Right? Or do you disagree? Feel free to disagree.

Your mind can clock back to the past ancient Greek and Roman empire, meet Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, go to a pub, and have some philosophical chats while drinking beer. — Corvus

I don't think they would be good drinking partners, if I'm being honest. I think I'd rather talk to Willard van Orman Quine, for example, while I'm drunk. I figure he was a rather odd man in his thinking. Did you know that he says that Pegasus does not exist, but that the very reason for why that winged horse does not exist is because, -and these are Quine's literal words- "nothing Pegasizes". There is no object or creature in the world that "Pegasizes". Now what does he mean by that, "Pegasizing"? I can't even imagine it. Someone smarter than me ridiculed him on paper, asking him if the reason why president Truman exists is because "something Trumanizes". I figure Quine was an odd intellectual, is what I'm saying.

Why is my existence as a person (and as an "Aristotelian substance") characterized by the factual properties that I have, instead of other factual properties? — Arcane Sandwich

Memory, isn’t it? And the consequences of all of the preceding acts that gave rise to your particular existence?

Not only did I not choose to be born, I didn’t even choose to be born in this place instead of that place. — Arcane Sandwich

Hindus and Buddhists believe otherwise. And all of the specifics you mention a consequence of karma.

By the way, enjoying your contributions thus far.

Yes... this sounds reasonable... but again, my "instinct" just tells me that something about this is... "off".. — Arcane Sandwich

You are welcome to disagree. That is what philosophical debates are about. But it would be better if you could explain why you disagree, rather than just saying you disagree from your "instinct".

Hmmm... but my mind is simply what my brain does, just as my digestion is simply what my gut does. Right? Or do you disagree? Feel free to disagree. — Arcane Sandwich

Your mind is simply what your brain does? I don't get that at all. Brain is needed for mind to operate, but brain does ??? something? Brain is just a biological organ of physical body, which makes mental events possible. Not sure if it does something.

Your mind has all the mental events perceptions, feelings, reasoning, thinking, memorizing, willing ... etc. I am not sure if it makes sense your mind is just what your brain does. Because there is a hard gap, the gap between the biological brain and your mind. Perhaps you could explain how your brains tells your mind to have all the mental events and operations, it would be helpful, and then I could decide whether to agree or disagree with your explanation.

I don't think they would be good drinking partners, if I'm being honest. I think I'd rather talk to Willard van Orman Quine, for example, while I'm drunk. — Arcane Sandwich

Sure, Quine would be an interesting guy to have drinks with. He spoke a few foreign languages, and traveled the world extensively. He wrote many interesting Logic books. And I agree with most of what he said.

If you didn't already gather this from my previous post, I think of myself as an expressed vehicle of communication by the whole.

If all is 'Mind', and matter is effete mind, and all returns to from where it came, 'Mind' needs to generate and express what it cognizes via causality of semiosis. .. One aspect of Thirdness is 'habit'. Your genetic and epigenetic history carries habits that are combined in new ways. Add in some new information from the previous events and interactions of signs, and you become the unique sign that you then express to the world. ... All that I am, and all that I carry in genetic and epigenetic memory is an expressed sign to other living beings, and encountering otherness is as crucial as my participation. ... As they encounter me, and I encounter them, utterences or not, the experience is yet another sign to feed into the generating momentum of 'Mind'. Yes, events and participation are crucial, but with no more emphasis on 'individual' beings and events (as is the individualism of nominalism) than what is cascadingly and eventfully accomplished for the whole. ..... The cascading events in gradient levels of consciousness are a current focus of neuroscience.

Consciousness does not arise from the 'collective'. 'Collective' is a nominalistic word. A collective is merely a 'collection" of separate individuals, with no overarching narrative. How can there be no overarching narrative when you carry all of that genetic and epigenetic history?

You mentioned that you have no relationship to your table, but don't you? As effete mind, it still serves a purpose in your life. It is a sign of where you dine, where you work, the place and space it takes up in your home. Your memories of who gathered there with you. The time you bumped your leg on it and learned to be more careful. Someone designed it. Someone either built it or the machinery that crafted it. It carries all of that and more, and you choose to have it in your home. When others come to your home and see it along with you and your other possessions, the signs communicate to them more about who you are.

You are important on a grand scale, but you cannot be all that you need to be for that 'grand scale' if individualism is so nominalistic that it detaches you from the narrative.

what do you make of it, dear reader? — Arcane Sandwich

“…. Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind. It falls into this difficulty without any fault of its own. It begins with principles, which cannot be dispensed with in the field of experience, and the truth and sufficiency of which are, at the same time, insured by experience. With these principles it rises, in obedience to the laws of its own nature, to ever higher and more remote conditions. But it quickly discovers that, in this way, its labours must remain ever incomplete, because new questions never cease to present themselves; and thus it finds itself compelled to have recourse to principles which transcend the region of experience, while they are regarded by common sense without distrust. It thus falls into confusion and contradictions, from which it conjectures the presence of latent errors, which, however, it is unable to discover, because the principles it employs, transcending the limits of experience, cannot be tested by that criterion….”

What do I make of it? The subject matter herein merely illustrates that not much has changed in 3-4,000 years of documented human thought.

Not only did I not choose to be born, I didn’t even choose to be born in this place instead of that place. — Arcane Sandwich

Well, this question confirms that the PSR is false, and nonsense. There is no reason on some facts. If you still insist that you need answer for your question, then what you will get would be an answer of tautology in nature - because your parents have given birth to you.

You may feel that is not the answer you were looking for, and it is not an intelligible answer to accept. In that case you must resort to the religious system for the answer. They will give you the answer quite easily and resolutely - well you were destined to be born as you, and it was the act of God, something like that.

You have to either be religious and accept their answers based on fate or God's will, or you have to accept the fact that some events in the universe have no reasons, or we don't know the reasons why they happened and are happening.

I'll admit this may be my own bias here. As my name suggests, I have a tendency towards thinking about liminality. I have just often wondered if the physical separation between bodies is as important as we think it is from our first person singular perspective. Things like quantum entanglement and hiveminds fascinate me, so I sometimes get a bit abstract with these things.

Memory, isn’t it? And the consequences of all of the preceding acts that gave rise to your particular existence? — Wayfarer

But that's what I'm saying, all of that is factual. And what is factual is contingent. However, from my personal POV they don't seem to be contingent, because I can't change those baseline facts about my existence. I was born in Argentina (space). I can't change that fact. I was born in 1985 (time). I can't change that fact. That's just part of my "essence", if you will (pardon me Heidegger and all of the Heideggerians). I mean, how could I not have essential characteristics, if I can't change them, and especially if I didn't even choose them to begin with? They're factual and essential at the same time, because they're contingent and necessary at the same time. It's a very odd modal experience to become aware of this, and to become aware of this, is to experience it (in my case) as an oppressive force. It is a very unpleasant feeling, to put it in aesthetic terms.

Hindus and Buddhists believe otherwise. — Wayfarer

They are free to believe whatever they want. Are they willing to discuss their beliefs from a philosophical point of view? If yes, then it's a discussion that genuinely interests me.

And all of the specifics you mention a consequence of karma. — Wayfarer

But (and I ask this genuinely, no offense meant) is there any scientific evidence that karma exists? I don't think there is. Which means that if you wish to convince me that karma exists, you will have to do so by way of reason, not of poetry. Logos instead of Mythos, if you will.

By the way, enjoying your contributions thus far. — Wayfarer

Yeah, I can "play the harp", so to speak. I know how "to muse", if that's even a verb. But I'm here because I want to learn how to be more rational. You are clearly more rational folk than me here at this forum.

Cheers.

You are welcome to disagree. That is what philosophical debates are about. But it would be better if you could explain why you disagree, rather than just saying you disagree from your "instinct". — Corvus

I know, I'm sorry. But sometimes I just genuinely don't know, so all that I'm left with is basic instinct, or "intuition", so to speak. I'd like to have a reason for some things, but I don't always have one.

Your mind is simply what your brain does? I don't get that at all. — Corvus

Think of the mind more like a process instead of a "res cogitans", if that makes any sense. It's Bunge's psychoneural identity hypothesis: every mental process is a brain process. The brain, on the other hand, is not a process, it is indeed a thing. But you don't have two things here, a brain and a mind, instead what you have is a thing (a brain) and a process (a mind). The confusion here stems from the very word "mind", which we tend to treat as a noun, but should instead treat as a verb. As in "to mind", as in "I am minding my own business, you should mind your own business, etc." It's unfortunate that the word "mind" is a noun and not a verb, is all I'm saying.

Brain is just a biological organ of physical body, which makes mental events possible. Not sure if it does something. — Corvus

But you just said it yourself. The brain is just a biological organ of the physical body, which makes mental events possible. That is what the brain does. It makes mental events possible. And a mental event is something that happens, because an event is literally "something that happens". What is it that happens? A series of processes in your brain, which quite simply are your "mind", so to speak.

Perhaps you could explain how your brains tells your mind to have all the mental events and operations, it would be helpful, and then I could decide whether to agree or disagree with your explanation. — Corvus

You brain doesn't "tell your mind" anything, you brain is what minds, so to speak. For example, when you tell me to "mind my own business", you are giving a direct order to my brain, not to my mind. Does that make sense?

Sure, Quine would be an interesting guy to have drinks with. He spoke a few foreign languages, and traveled the world extensively. He wrote many interesting Logic books. And I agree with most of what he said. — Corvus

A very interesting individual, no doubt about it.

If you didn't already gather this from my previous post, I think of myself as an expressed vehicle of communication by the whole. — Mapping the Medium

I did not gather that, no. I don't even know what you mean by that, honestly. What is an "expressed vehicle of communication", exactly? And what do you mean when you say "by the whole"? I think that the very concept of a "whole" is at the same time a mereological notion and a metaphysical notion. It's a concept that has "ontological import", if you will.

One aspect of Thirdness is 'habit'. — Mapping the Medium

Is it? Are you speaking of Thirdness as Charles Sanders Peirce understood it, as Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness?

The cascading events in gradient levels of consciousness are a current focus of neuroscience. — Mapping the Medium

See, I was somehow (I have no idea how) agreeing with you up until there (though I did not entirely understand everything that you said), but it's this last part that's the "deal breaker", for me (and I'm not even sure what I mean by that. Is this a situation of negotiation or not?).

You speak of "consciousness". I would speak instead of simple awareness. I have a theory about this (not that the mere fact of "having a theory" is proof of anything, it isn't). Here is my theory, it's quite simple. Consciousness does not exist. It's a made-up word. It fails to refer. There is no such thing as consciousness, it's not a Cartesian res cogitans. There is a res extensa (the brain), and then there is a process: a brain process, which we mistakenly call "consciousness". It's a process, not a thing. Think of it like this: Process Philosophy gets it right as far as the topic of "mind" goes, but it gets it wrong as far as the topic of "brain" goes.

You mentioned that you have no relationship to your table, but don't you? As effete mind, it still serves a purpose in your life. It is a sign of where you dine, where you work, the place and space it takes up in your home. Your memories of who gathered there with you. The time you bumped your leg on it and learned to be more careful. Someone designed it. Someone either built it or the machinery that crafted it. It carries all of that and more, and you choose to have it in your home. When others come to your home and see it along with you and your other possessions, the signs communicate to them more about who you are. — Mapping the Medium

That's an excellent point, and I never even thought of it that way. You're absolutely right, I agree with you 100% here. Maybe I would disagree on some of the aesthetic choices that you're making with those words, but I more or less agree with the underlying concept here. Even though I'm struggling to understand what that concept actually is, from a metaphysical point of view. Can you explain it to me as if I was an uneducated, simple person?

You are important on a grand scale, but you cannot be all that you need to be for that 'grand scale' if individualism is so nominalistic that it detaches you from the narrative. — Mapping the Medium

I don't understand this either. Can you explain what you mean here, in plain and simple English, and as objectively as you possibly can? Try to be as charitable as possible to my intellect here, I'm having a really difficult time understanding some of the more abstract notions that you are speaking about.

The cascading events in gradient levels of consciousness are a current focus of neuroscience.
— Mapping the Medium

See, I was somehow (I have no idea how) agreeing with you up until there (though I did not entirely understand everything that you said), but it's this last part that's the "deal breaker", for me (and I'm not even sure what I mean by that. Is this a situation of negotiation or not?). — Arcane Sandwich

Here are a few articles you might enjoy reading....

https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2020/1/niaa010/5856030

https://scitechdaily.com/mit-scientists-shed-new-light-on-the-critical-brain-connections-that-define-consciousness/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31365-6

https://www.ovid.com/journals/nebior/abstract/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104810~turings-cascade-instability-supports-the-coordination-of-the

One aspect of Thirdness is 'habit'.
— Mapping the Medium

Is it? Are you speaking of Thirdness as Charles Sanders Peirce understood it, as Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness? — Arcane Sandwich

Yes.

You are important on a grand scale, but you cannot be all that you need to be for that 'grand scale' if individualism is so nominalistic that it detaches you from the narrative.
— Mapping the Medium

I don't understand this either. Can you explain what you mean here, in plain and simple English, and as objectively as you possibly can? Try to be as charitable as possible to my intellect here, I'm having a really difficult time understanding some of the more abstract notions that you are speaking about. — Arcane Sandwich

I cannot 'can' any of this, but I hope you will consider learning a little more on your own about semiosis. Without engaging in dialogue with you in person, I am unable to meet you where you are and effectively explain all of this to you in the way that you say you need it explained. ... Your intellect seems to be functioning just fine.

Well, this question confirms that the PSR is false, and nonsense. — Corvus

Well but it's an odd thing to talk about, innit? (Hold up while I put on my best "King's Slang", if that's even a thing). How on Earth could the Principle of Sufficient Reason be false? That just makes no sense to me. It makes no sense to anyone. And if the PSR is actually false, as you say it is, then what do we make of it? Can my table turn into a swan, for example? Can a squid pop up into existence in my living room? I mean, if there is no reason for anything, then literally anything can happen at any moment? How does that make even a sliver of sense, ey?

There is no reason on some facts. If you still insist that you need answer for your question, then what you will get would be an answer of tautology in nature - because your parents have given birth to you. — Corvus

And that is exactly the correct answer. Contrary to Quine, I don't exist simple because "something Arcane-Sandwich-izes" in the world. What would we be saying? That there is an object or creature in the world that "Arcane-Sandwich-izes"? What would what even mean, ey? I don't get it, it's impossible to understand as a concept, innit? And if for some reason (yes, I believe the PSR is true), then suddenly it turns into an odd thing to talk about, doesn't it?

But (and I ask this genuinely, no offense meant) is there any scientific evidence that karma exists? I don't think there is. Which means that if you wish to convince me that karma exists, you will have to do so by way of reason, not of poetry. Logos instead of Mythos, if you will. — Arcane Sandwich

I don't know if there is 'scientific evidence' for karma, but the principle is, in essence, that all actions have consequences. The Biblical maxim 'as you sow, so shall you reap' adds up to the same, although the word itself is of Indian origin (from the root word 'kr-' 'to do'.) Obviously a stumbling block for Western culture is the implicit entailment of karma accumulating across lifetimes, which is not something I would try and persuade anyone to believe. But even as metaphor, the fact that all actions shape your life surely is a sound basis for an ethical philosophy.

Other than that, I think @Mapping the Medium‘s response is pretty good. One of the topics I’ve learned a ton about on this forum is ‘biosemiotics’ (ref), from a one-time contributor here with expert knowledge in the subject. It’s as good a perspective as any through which to pursue such questions.

//

it quickly discovers that, in this way, its labours must remain ever incomplete, because new questions never cease to present themselves; and thus it finds itself compelled to have recourse to principles which transcend the region of experience, while they are regarded by common sense without distrust. It thus falls into confusion and contradictions…. — Mww

…and then it joins a Forum.

I'll admit this may be my own bias here. As my name suggests, I have a tendency towards thinking about liminality. I have just often wondered if the physical separation between bodies is as important as we think it is from our first person singular perspective. Things like quantum entanglement and hiveminds fascinate me, so I sometimes get a bit abstract with these things. — MrLiminal

Liminality is quite the odd state. The metaphor that I have for that is from Macedonio Fernandez. Imagine the state of waking up, but not fully rid of dreams. It lasts barely a second, maybe even less than that. But in that state, -the physical state of waking up from sleep-, some of the contents of the diurnal life are mixed with some of the contents of the last dream that you had before fully waking up. Now imagine if you were to take that fleeting state and make an entire literary genre out of that. I argue that this is precisely what Macedanio Fernandez did throughout his literary career.

You brain doesn't "tell your mind" anything, you brain is what minds, so to speak. For example, when you tell me to "mind my own business", you are giving a direct order to my brain, not to my mind. Does that make sense? — Arcane Sandwich

We seem to have difference in the opinion or ideas whatever you call it, but it is OK. I still don't think the biological organ brain is mind. It is like saying your stomach is hunger, and your eyeballs are the sight. The bodily organs do things for you, so you would keep living biologically, but they are not the functions they carry out themselves.

In daily life, brain is hidden away from your living. You never perceive the brain itself while you are living ever. That doesn't mean brain is nothing to do with your mind of course. It just is logically not sound to say the physical brain is your mind i.e. feelings, thoughts, imaginations and desires, just like your stomach is not the hunger you feel. You feel hunger because you have a stomach. You have mind because you have a brain.

This is reflected well in our culture and daily life too. You say, mind your business, but you don't say, brain your business. You say, mind your steps, you never say brain your steps. I never heard of someone saying, open your brain. I heard saying open your mind.

Well but it's an odd thing to talk about, innit? (Hold up while I put on my best "King's Slang", if that's even a thing). How on Earth could the Principle of Sufficient Reason be false? That just makes no sense to me. It makes no sense to anyone. And if the PSR is actually false, as you say it is, then what do we make of it? Can my table turn into a swan, for example? Can a squid pop up into existence in my living room? I mean, if there is no reason for anything, then literally anything can happen at any moment? How does that make even a sliver of sense, ey? — Arcane Sandwich

In here, you seem to have misunderstood what I said. I never said that there are no reasons for everything in the universe. What I meant was, there are some events and happenings that you don't know the reasons. And there are SOME events and objects happening and existing in the universe with no particular reasons or unknown reasons.

I still don't think the biological organ brain is mind. It is like saying your stomach is hunger, and your eyeballs are the sight. — Corvus

Not quite. The brain is not identical to the mind, and the mind cannot be reduced to the brain. The mind (as a series of events, and as a series of complex processes) is itself a series of events and processes that a living brain is undergoing.

It is not like saying that your stomach is hunger. It would be more precise to say that it's like your stomach and the process of digestion: your stomach is comparable to your brain (both of them are things), while your mind is comparable to your digestion (both of them are processes).

It is not like saying that your eyeballs are the sight. It would be more appropriate to say that your eyeballs are things (like your stomach, like your brain) and that sight itself is a process (like your digestion, like your mind).

Does that make sense to you?

Not quite. The brain is not identical to the mind, and the mind cannot be reduced to the brain. The mind (as a series of events, and as a series of complex processes) is itself a series of events and processes that a living brain is undergoing. — Arcane Sandwich

I read your saying brain tells mind what to do. That sounded like your brain does everything, and even orders your mind to do all the things for you. Your point was not clear at all.

I have never seen or heard of a brain with mouth and tongue and tells & orders its mind what to do.

You say, mind your business, but you don't say, brain your business. — Corvus

But you could, and you would not be wrong: for it is indeed the brain that "minds its own business" when it is thinking anything. You don't "have" a brain, you are your brain, plain and simple. Now, I understand that this is a controversial thing to say, and I don't say it lightly. But I say it truthfully and honestly. Does that mean that I'm correct? Not at all. If there is scientific evidence to the contrary, then I will change that specific, allegedly wrong belief that I have.

I never heard of someone saying, open your brain. I heard saying open your mind. — Corvus

They're metaphors. You can't literally "open your mind", no matter how you define "mind". The phrase "open your mind" does not have a literal meaning, it's just poetic advice. You could say open your brain as poetic advice, not as a literal thing that you would want to do.

there are events and objects happening and existing in the universe with no particular reasons or unknown reasons. — Corvus

Fair enough, but then I will say that I find that notion, scary. It's a frightening thing to contemplate, innit?