Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

The door within the door and so on to the baseline. For there is a baseline unless something comes from nothing. As the fractal reality is an anatomical feature of the brain, I may go further and speculate a fractal reality in the quantum foam therefore in the manifold of any good string theory or any mass acquisition by the mechanism. It is that the fractal quality is maintained as supported by anatomical evidence. The hypothetical dimension or baseline dimension might have correspondence in the anatomical manifold…and why not, this corresponds to a numinous/baseline quantitative content. I might prompt the rainbow, but I might not be responsible for the quality of the rainbow since this is dependent on the quality of the fractals/air. It must also be the case that the rainbow happens anyway.
Is there any fundamental difference in the ideas as they point to some evolving power dimensionality, or they are just colors of the rainbow.? It is a distinguishable metaphysical vs illusory (not real) theory.

The Beast writes "----unless something comes from nothing---". (My highlight)

A more precise way to write 'comes from' is 'caused by'. Everything is caused except for the ultimate uncaused substance .There either is or is not an uncaused ontic substance which exists apart from consciousnesses. If there be no ultimate uncaused substance there is ultimate chaos not ultimate substance.

We don't have to call the uncaused substance "God". We can call the uncaused substance "nature" or "ontic reality" or "existence itself" or "necessity". The monogod is a personification of the uncaused substance.

Personification.

Personification means "giving human qualities to an abstract idea," as in a movie villain who is the personification of evil.

I cannot comment on The Beast's message in total as I don't understand its main import.

[Sculptor1]

It does not make sense to ask if consciousness is and illusion.
Consciousness what it is. It's where all illusions happen.
It is the illusion of reality, where we apprehend reality, where we assess reality.
Consciousness is the only sure reality we can know. It is the mechanism of illusions by which we look into exogenous realities.

[Belindi]

It does not make sense to ask if consciousness is and illusion.
Consciousness what it is. It's where all illusions happen.
It is the illusion of reality, where we apprehend reality, where we assess reality.
Consciousness is the only sure reality we can know. It is the mechanism of illusions by which we look into exogenous realities.

Consciousness is what it is, but we may ask "What is consciousness?"
Sculpture answers the question: "It (consciousness) is the illusion of reality." But then Sculpture contradicts himself: " It (consciousness) is the only sure reality we can know."

Either C is sure reality, or C is illusion of reality, but not both.

Sculpture wrote: "It(consciousness) is the mechanism of illusions -----". Mechanisms pertain to extended matter not minds, so Sculpture's observation defines C as a function of brain or body-proper. But Sculpture has also claimed C is the illusion of reality. Illusions of any sort are mental qualities which may or may not correlate with brain processes.

[Sculptor1]

It does not make sense to ask if consciousness is and illusion.
Consciousness what it is. It's where all illusions happen.
It is the illusion of reality, where we apprehend reality, where we assess reality.
Consciousness is the only sure reality we can know. It is the mechanism of illusions by which we look into exogenous realities.

Consciousness is what it is, but we may ask "What is consciousness?"
Sculpture answers the question: "It (consciousness) is the illusion of reality." But then Sculpture contradicts himself: " It (consciousness) is the only sure reality we can know."

Either C is sure reality, or C is illusion of reality, but not both.

I can be both, since there is the endogenous and exogenous realities; they are always in tension.

Sculpture wrote: "It(consciousness) is the mechanism of illusions -----". Mechanisms pertain to extended matter not minds, so Sculpture's observation defines C as a function of brain or body-proper. But Sculpture has also claimed C is the illusion of reality. Illusions of any sort are mental qualities which may or may not correlate with brain processes.

Of course all mental processes correlate with brain processes.
If you can't grasp that they you can't ever understand consciousness.

[The Beast]

The door within the door and so on to the baseline. For there is a baseline unless something comes from nothing. As the fractal reality is an anatomical feature of the brain, I may go further and speculate a fractal reality in the quantum foam therefore in the manifold of any good string theory or any mass acquisition by the mechanism. It is that the fractal quality is maintained as supported by anatomical evidence. The hypothetical dimension or baseline dimension might have correspondence in the anatomical manifold…and why not, this corresponds to a numinous/baseline quantitative content. I might prompt the rainbow, but I might not be responsible for the quality of the rainbow since this is dependent on the quality of the fractals/air. It must also be the case that the rainbow happens anyway.
Is there any fundamental difference in the ideas as they point to some evolving power dimensionality, or they are just colors of the rainbow.? It is a distinguishable metaphysical vs illusory (not real) theory.

The Beast writes "----unless something comes from nothing---". (My highlight)

A more precise way to write 'comes from' is 'caused by'. Everything is caused except for the ultimate uncaused substance .There either is or is not an uncaused ontic substance which exists apart from consciousnesses. If there be no ultimate uncaused substance there is ultimate chaos not ultimate substance.

We don't have to call the uncaused substance "God". We can call the uncaused substance "nature" or "ontic reality" or "existence itself" or "necessity". The monogod is a personification of the uncaused substance.

Personification.

Personification means "giving human qualities to an abstract idea," as in a movie villain who is the personification of evil.

I cannot comment on The Beast's message in total as I don't understand its main import.

“The reference of a proper name is the object it means or indicates” I was pointing to a bimodal process. The objectivation by the senses is also the sensibility of the personification. The objectivation might have a signifier and the sensibility is a matter of degrees and in this case dialectical plasticity. In a more constricted form, I might say somebody coming from nothing as opposed to something. Somebody might be sensible, and I could have used “caused by” and like in “what is necessary” the cause is a thought, and the relevance is the misunderstanding as intentional and non-subjective since it was a naïve reference. Surely, there is the position of mental objects, mental states and Frege’s sense. I think mental state but, with my outmost respect to your “de dicto”.

[Belindi]

It does not make sense to ask if consciousness is and illusion.
Consciousness what it is. It's where all illusions happen.
It is the illusion of reality, where we apprehend reality, where we assess reality.
Consciousness is the only sure reality we can know. It is the mechanism of illusions by which we look into exogenous realities.

Consciousness is what it is, but we may ask "What is consciousness?"
Sculpture answers the question: "It (consciousness) is the illusion of reality." But then Sculpture contradicts himself: " It (consciousness) is the only sure reality we can know."

Either C is sure reality, or C is illusion of reality, but not both.

I can be both, since there is the endogenous and exogenous realities; they are always in tension.

Sculpture wrote: "It(consciousness) is the mechanism of illusions -----". Mechanisms pertain to extended matter not minds, so Sculpture's observation defines C as a function of brain or body-proper. But Sculpture has also claimed C is the illusion of reality. Illusions of any sort are mental qualities which may or may not correlate with brain processes.

Of course all mental processes correlate with brain processes.
If you can't grasp that they you can't ever understand consciousness.

There is no way we can know if there be exogenous reality, as all we know for sure is experience. I believe as you do you that all mental processes correlate with brain processes. However I can't know my belief corresponds to exogenous reality , given there be exogenous reality.

Belief in exogenous reality is a belief based on faith not evidence.

To put it another way, a neuroscientist either creates a new truth, or he discovers a new truth. But the neuroscientist can never know if it's discovery or interpretation.

[Sculptor1]

It does not make sense to ask if consciousness is and illusion.
Consciousness what it is. It's where all illusions happen.
It is the illusion of reality, where we apprehend reality, where we assess reality.
Consciousness is the only sure reality we can know. It is the mechanism of illusions by which we look into exogenous realities.

Consciousness is what it is, but we may ask "What is consciousness?"
Sculpture answers the question: "It (consciousness) is the illusion of reality." But then Sculpture contradicts himself: " It (consciousness) is the only sure reality we can know."

Either C is sure reality, or C is illusion of reality, but not both.

I can be both, since there is the endogenous and exogenous realities; they are always in tension.

Sculpture wrote: "It(consciousness) is the mechanism of illusions -----". Mechanisms pertain to extended matter not minds, so Sculpture's observation defines C as a function of brain or body-proper. But Sculpture has also claimed C is the illusion of reality. Illusions of any sort are mental qualities which may or may not correlate with brain processes.

Of course all mental processes correlate with brain processes.
If you can't grasp that they you can't ever understand consciousness.

There is no way we can know if there be exogenous reality,

All reality is exogenous. The brain process information from that reality via the sense.

...
as all we know for sure is experience. I believe as you do you that all mental processes correlate with brain processes. However I can't know my belief corresponds to exogenous reality , given there be exogenous reality.

Belief in exogenous reality is a belief based on faith not evidence.

To put it another way, a neuroscientist either creates a new truth, or he discovers a new truth. But the neuroscientist can never know if it's discovery or interpretation.

It is to me an absurd proposition that flies against everything we have thus far understood about reality.
It seems you are trying to impose a "soul" into the equation, but this is absurd.
It would imply that each time a new living thing were born some sort of magical event takes place and the neural matter is invaded by an incorporeal force, which as magically departs upon death.
This would have to be true for every organism that seems to have the quality of consciousness.
It's just another way of clinging to a series of out-of-date beliefs from a time when the function of the brain was utterly unknown.
It's a theory so ridiculous that it is simply unworthy of consideration.
Baby gets infected with a fairy which leaves when the organism dies.
If there were not a primitive assumption of a spirit inhabiting the meat and bones then you would not even be thinking this way. There is no merit to the suggestion.

[SteveKlinko]

It is to me an absurd proposition that flies against everything we have thus far understood about reality.
It seems you are trying to impose a "soul" into the equation, but this is absurd.
It would imply that each time a new living thing were born some sort of magical event takes place and the neural matter is invaded by an incorporeal force, which as magically departs upon death.
This would have to be true for every organism that seems to have the quality of consciousness.
It's just another way of clinging to a series of out-of-date beliefs from a time when the function of the brain was utterly unknown.
It's a theory so ridiculous that it is simply unworthy of consideration.
Baby gets infected with a fairy which leaves when the organism dies.
If there were not a primitive assumption of a spirit inhabiting the meat and bones then you would not even be thinking this way. There is no merit to the suggestion.

A hundred years ago there was an understandable enthusiasm to think that Consciousness was on the verge of being understood when they first discovered that Neural Activity was Correlated with Conscious Experience. In that hundred years, Science has made huge progress in understanding the Neural Activity that is Correlated with Conscious Experience. But after a hundred years of trying, Science has not been able to show how Conscious Experience is in the Neurons or Emerges from the Neurons. In fact, the more and more Science learned about Neurons it seemed less and less likely that the Conscious Experience was in the Neurons. It is precisely because Science knows so much about the Neurons that we must begin to think that the expectation that Consciousness is in the Neurons must not be right. This is because Science has exactly Zero understanding about Conscious Experience yet huge understanding about Neurons. I think about the Conscious Experiences themselves and realized that it was Naive to think that these non Physical Phenomena could ever be in the Neurons. How is Redness going to come from the Neurons? How is the Standard A Tone going to come from the Neurons? How is the Salty Taste going to come from the Neurons? First of all don't be afraid to consider something like Redness and just admit at least to yourself that there does not seem to be any way Redness is in the Neurons. These Conscious Experiences are Magical and if you can't see that then you are in denial. The job of Science should be to take the Magic out of Conscious Experiences and Explain them. The Physicalist approach to sweep Conscious Experience under the rug is crumbling under the weight of the reality of the pure Ignorance of Conscious Experience by Science. Science need a new perspective. What could it be? Here is what I propose: https://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective

[Belindi]

Consciousness is what it is, but we may ask "What is consciousness?"
Sculpture answers the question: "It (consciousness) is the illusion of reality." But then Sculpture contradicts himself: " It (consciousness) is the only sure reality we can know."

Either C is sure reality, or C is illusion of reality, but not both.

I can be both, since there is the endogenous and exogenous realities; they are always in tension.

Sculpture wrote: "It(consciousness) is the mechanism of illusions -----". Mechanisms pertain to extended matter not minds, so Sculpture's observation defines C as a function of brain or body-proper. But Sculpture has also claimed C is the illusion of reality. Illusions of any sort are mental qualities which may or may not correlate with brain processes.

Of course all mental processes correlate with brain processes.
If you can't grasp that they you can't ever understand consciousness.

There is no way we can know if there be exogenous reality,

All reality is exogenous. The brain process information from that reality via the sense.

...
as all we know for sure is experience. I believe as you do you that all mental processes correlate with brain processes. However I can't know my belief corresponds to exogenous reality , given there be exogenous reality.

Belief in exogenous reality is a belief based on faith not evidence.

To put it another way, a neuroscientist either creates a new truth, or he discovers a new truth. But the neuroscientist can never know if it's discovery or interpretation.

It is to me an absurd proposition that flies against everything we have thus far understood about reality.
It seems you are trying to impose a "soul" into the equation, but this is absurd.
It would imply that each time a new living thing were born some sort of magical event takes place and the neural matter is invaded by an incorporeal force, which as magically departs upon death.
This would have to be true for every organism that seems to have the quality of consciousness.
It's just another way of clinging to a series of out-of-date beliefs from a time when the function of the brain was utterly unknown.
It's a theory so ridiculous that it is simply unworthy of consideration.
Baby gets infected with a fairy which leaves when the organism dies.
If there were not a primitive assumption of a spirit inhabiting the meat and bones then you would not even be thinking this way. There is no merit to the suggestion.

You and I each experience not only extension but also thought. Another way to put this ; you and I are extended matter and also 'mind', both of which are equal aspects of Sculptor and of Belinda. You experience your days as both a physical world and as a mental world.

When you or I die there will then be no further experiences (of extension or thought) named Belinda or Sculptor .

When you or I were newborns we had the potential to develop into full grown body-minds. There is no question of mind being inserted at a later date than physical body.

True, I was christened some weeks after I was born but that was not to cause my 'soul' to enter my body. The christening was to welcome me into the church.

[Sculptor1]

It is to me an absurd proposition that flies against everything we have thus far understood about reality.
It seems you are trying to impose a "soul" into the equation, but this is absurd.
It would imply that each time a new living thing were born some sort of magical event takes place and the neural matter is invaded by an incorporeal force, which as magically departs upon death.
This would have to be true for every organism that seems to have the quality of consciousness.
It's just another way of clinging to a series of out-of-date beliefs from a time when the function of the brain was utterly unknown.
It's a theory so ridiculous that it is simply unworthy of consideration.
Baby gets infected with a fairy which leaves when the organism dies.
If there were not a primitive assumption of a spirit inhabiting the meat and bones then you would not even be thinking this way. There is no merit to the suggestion.

A hundred years ago there was an understandable enthusiasm to think that Consciousness was on the verge of being understood when they first discovered that Neural Activity was Correlated with Conscious Experience. In that hundred years, Science has made huge progress in understanding the Neural Activity that is Correlated with Conscious Experience. But after a hundred years of trying, Science has not been able to show how Conscious Experience is in the Neurons or Emerges from the Neurons.

I do not agree.

In fact, the more and more Science learned about Neurons it seemed less and less likely that the Conscious Experience was in the Neurons. It is precisely because Science knows so much about the Neurons that we must begin to think that the expectation that Consciousness is in the Neurons must not be right.

False. Please demonstrate.

This is because Science has exactly Zero understanding about Conscious Experience yet huge understanding about Neurons.

By that rubric. No human endeavour has anything to say about anything.
Science is descriptive. There never can be any ultimate explanations concerning the nature of reality, but off all human efforts science has produced the ONLY valid results.
There is no point throwing the baby out with the bath water because without science their is nothing of any value from any other place to replace the amazing progress that has been made.

I think about the Conscious Experiences themselves and realized that it was Naive to think that these non Physical Phenomena could ever be in the Neurons. How is Redness going to come from the Neurons? How is the Standard A Tone going to come from the Neurons? How is the Salty Taste going to come from the Neurons? First of all don't be afraid to consider something like Redness and just admit at least to yourself that there does not seem to be any way Redness is in the Neurons. These Conscious Experiences are Magical and if you can't see that then you are in denial. The job of Science should be to take the Magic out of Conscious Experiences and Explain them. The Physicalist approach to sweep Conscious Experience under the rug is crumbling under the weight of the reality of the pure Ignorance of Conscious Experience by Science. Science need a new perspective. What could it be? Here is what I propose: https://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective

There is nothing of any value here, just second hand mysticism, parasitic on good science.

[Sculptor1]

There is no question of mind being inserted at a later date than physical body.

This is ambiguous.

[Belindi]

There is no question of mind being inserted at a later date than physical body.

This is ambiguous.

I mean, mind and physical body are inseparable, always were and always will be.
This includes newborns.

[Sculptor1]

There is no question of mind being inserted at a later date than physical body.

This is ambiguous.

I mean, mind and physical body are inseparable, always were and always will be.
This includes newborns.

We are in agreement.
It is a characteristic of neural matter that it generates an energetic field that results in consciousness.
It is not simply correlation. It is an essential quality of the brain and other neural matter in the body which is the consciousness.
Ultimately this is going to be mysterious.
But then so is gravity and other basic and simply understood facts about the universe. We can only ever really describe these mysterious forces such as magnetism, or gravity. There are no ultimate explanations. But explanations tend to work best when they comply with Ockham's razor.
So magnetism is magical to a child having never seen it before. And we can describe the arrangement of the iron molecules, in some detail. But the big "why" is always just pushed further away, never answered. But what would be absurd it to pretend the god of magnets monitors the activity and pushes magnets together.
With gravity there is no reasonable explanation as to why all matter in the universe has the tendency to move towards all other matter in the galaxy. But would it makes sense to say that "god" is continually trying to counter the BB and re-join all matter?
I do not know why people are disappointed with the massive advances in neuroscience, and all it has uncovered. Maybe they have a desperate need to keep mysticism alive in their lives?

[SteveKlinko]

It is to me an absurd proposition that flies against everything we have thus far understood about reality.
It seems you are trying to impose a "soul" into the equation, but this is absurd.
It would imply that each time a new living thing were born some sort of magical event takes place and the neural matter is invaded by an incorporeal force, which as magically departs upon death.
This would have to be true for every organism that seems to have the quality of consciousness.
It's just another way of clinging to a series of out-of-date beliefs from a time when the function of the brain was utterly unknown.
It's a theory so ridiculous that it is simply unworthy of consideration.
Baby gets infected with a fairy which leaves when the organism dies.
If there were not a primitive assumption of a spirit inhabiting the meat and bones then you would not even be thinking this way. There is no merit to the suggestion.

A hundred years ago there was an understandable enthusiasm to think that Consciousness was on the verge of being understood when they first discovered that Neural Activity was Correlated with Conscious Experience. In that hundred years, Science has made huge progress in understanding the Neural Activity that is Correlated with Conscious Experience. But after a hundred years of trying, Science has not been able to show how Conscious Experience is in the Neurons or Emerges from the Neurons.

I do not agree.

In fact, the more and more Science learned about Neurons it seemed less and less likely that the Conscious Experience was in the Neurons. It is precisely because Science knows so much about the Neurons that we must begin to think that the expectation that Consciousness is in the Neurons must not be right.

False. Please demonstrate.

This is because Science has exactly Zero understanding about Conscious Experience yet huge understanding about Neurons.

By that rubric. No human endeavour has anything to say about anything.
Science is descriptive. There never can be any ultimate explanations concerning the nature of reality, but off all human efforts science has produced the ONLY valid results.
There is no point throwing the baby out with the bath water because without science their is nothing of any value from any other place to replace the amazing progress that has been made.

I think about the Conscious Experiences themselves and realized that it was Naive to think that these non Physical Phenomena could ever be in the Neurons. How is Redness going to come from the Neurons? How is the Standard A Tone going to come from the Neurons? How is the Salty Taste going to come from the Neurons? First of all don't be afraid to consider something like Redness and just admit at least to yourself that there does not seem to be any way Redness is in the Neurons. These Conscious Experiences are Magical and if you can't see that then you are in denial. The job of Science should be to take the Magic out of Conscious Experiences and Explain them. The Physicalist approach to sweep Conscious Experience under the rug is crumbling under the weight of the reality of the pure Ignorance of Conscious Experience by Science. Science need a new perspective. What could it be? Here is what I propose: https://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective

There is nothing of any value here, just second hand mysticism, parasitic on good science.

Hang in there, Keeper of the last Century Physicalist Dogma. You will eventually come into the 21st Century of Science, and you will be embarrassed by your past arrogant and Insulting ways. Open your Mind to new possibilities!

[Belindi]

There is no question of mind being inserted at a later date than physical body.

This is ambiguous.

I mean, mind and physical body are inseparable, always were and always will be.
This includes newborns.

We are in agreement.
It is a characteristic of neural matter that it generates an energetic field that results in consciousness.
It is not simply correlation. It is an essential quality of the brain and other neural matter in the body which is the consciousness.
Ultimately this is going to be mysterious.
But then so is gravity and other basic and simply understood facts about the universe. We can only ever really describe these mysterious forces such as magnetism, or gravity. There are no ultimate explanations. But explanations tend to work best when they comply with Ockham's razor.
So magnetism is magical to a child having never seen it before. And we can describe the arrangement of the iron molecules, in some detail. But the big "why" is always just pushed further away, never answered. But what would be absurd it to pretend the god of magnets monitors the activity and pushes magnets together.
With gravity there is no reasonable explanation as to why all matter in the universe has the tendency to move towards all other matter in the galaxy. But would it makes sense to say that "god" is continually trying to counter the BB and re-join all matter?
I do not know why people are disappointed with the massive advances in neuroscience, and all it has uncovered. Maybe they have a desperate need to keep mysticism alive in their lives?

As far as we know a thought event always correlates with a mind event and vice versa. This is not the same as to claim a thought event is identical to or reducible to an extension event.

Sometimes it's more useful to think of a mind-brain event in terms of thought and sometimes it's more useful to think of the same mind-brain event in terms of extension. An example of this is clinical practice where the clinician can reassure, listen, empathise or ask the patient to reason or introspect, or the clinician can administer medication.Or on occasions both of those approaches.