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

[The Beast]

Hello. A brain has ideas. My thought of mass in one of a virtual dimension unless is defined in a 4D space time by another 4D object (the brain) hence physicalism. Two points can occupy the same space (superimposition) and it does not violate any principle of reality if one is a virtual point as in pure thought.

[amorphos_ii]

Mental qualia remain the main obstacle to that position. How can you say that consciousness is what brains do, and then say that means mind does not exist? Brains make chemical and electrical interchanges none of which can be called consciousness especially when isolated!

How can we find mind outside of brain ~ animals think too btw, so what is the finest integer of mind, an insect, a germ or even a single neuron? ~ When we don’t know what it is? Science supposes that the universe popped out of nothing, an idea one cannot find anywhere else in science. The only thing we know occurs that we cannot find in the physics, is mind, so it is plausible that that, is the only thing remaining prior to the birth of the universe.

Another way to look at it is; all things we know exists physically are abstract, so what’s non-abstract? Mind, and the divine infinite I’d say.

[night912]

Mental qualia remain the main obstacle to that position. How can you say that consciousness is what brains do, and then say that means mind does not exist? Brains make chemical and electrical interchanges none of which can be called consciousness especially when isolated!

How can we find mind outside of brain ~ animals think too btw, so what is the finest integer of mind, an insect, a germ or even a single neuron? ~ When we don’t know what it is? Science supposes that the universe popped out of nothing, an idea one cannot find anywhere else in science. The only thing we know occurs that we cannot find in the physics, is mind, so it is plausible that that, is the only thing remaining prior to the birth of the universe.

Another way to look at it is; all things we know exists physically are abstract, so what’s non-abstract? Mind, and the divine infinite I’d say.

No, science does not say that the universe popped out of nothing. Also, the "mind" is not the only thing that we know occurs that we cannot find in the physics. But even if it is, that doesn't mean that it's exists prior to the birth of the universe.

[Lagayascienza]

Mental qualia remain the main obstacle to that position. How can you say that consciousness is what brains do, and then say that means mind does not exist? Brains make chemical and electrical interchanges none of which can be called consciousness especially when isolated!

How can we find mind outside of brain ~ animals think too btw, so what is the finest integer of mind, an insect, a germ or even a single neuron? ~ When we don’t know what it is? Science supposes that the universe popped out of nothing, an idea one cannot find anywhere else in science. The only thing we know occurs that we cannot find in the physics, is mind, so it is plausible that that, is the only thing remaining prior to the birth of the universe.

Another way to look at it is; all things we know exists physically are abstract, so what’s non-abstract? Mind, and the divine infinite I’d say.

No, science does not say that the universe popped out of nothing. Also, the "mind" is not the only thing that we know occurs that we cannot find in the physics. But even if it is, that doesn't mean that it's exists prior to the birth of the universe.

Mind is just what brains do. No brains, no mind. If we could build a neural network of a complexity and functionality comparable to the brain, even if it were made of a non-biological substrate, mind would be produced.

Lungs exchange gases, livers removing toxins, process nutrients and regulate body metabolism... And brains produce consciousness. Some people don't like this.

amorphos_ii,what is the "divine infinite"? How do you know it exists. Have you ever seen it or spoken to it? Or do you have some other evidence of its existence?

[The Beast]

How is it that the formless has a form? And what is the form? What is it that enters my eyes? It is the formless light travelling 1000 to 10000 connections per second. The connections made by 80 billion neurons totaling around 100 trillion. To breathe? It will take a large number of connections not only in the mechanical aspect but also in the gathering of sustenance. In my experiment I will dedicate the rest of connections to the pursuit of ecstasies. In this reality, I create my own form with my trillion connections. This reality in the form of connections will aim to gather more connections moving in the same direction to achieve ectasis. Ectasis is now the result of the connections of 80 billion times 86 billion neurons times 100 trillion connections. In this Science experiment, 80 billion (number of brains not including other beasts) engage in ectasis (same time) and create the form of Adam and Eve. I propose my likeness (the scarab) as the form of Adam.

[amorphos_ii]

I don’t think these replies are reasonable, a neural network of the same complexity wont produce mental qualia and therefore wont be experiencing. Existing computers have far more computational powers than many life-forms, and yet don’t think.
If science is left unchallenged they will build robots and tell us that they are thinking beings the same as us. Worse they may say they can copy info from your brain to a robot, and say that you are still alive! It could be a holocaust, people may think they can live forever, and the robots could act exactly like the given individual did and so science would say it is them – but they would be dead and it wont be them!

Sorry but it is incredibly important that philosophers challenge all of this. We now live in an age where such things will begin to occur shortly. Secondly we should challenge everything – its what philosophy is, inquiry and discovery.
Thirdly it is important for science that they are not allowed to be so closed minded and fascist about what we and the world are. Atm all they do is provide us with an incredibly negative perspective where there is no hope for survival, and even that we already don’t exist in that we are not living spiritual beings and mental qualia are an apparition. So what such an apparition? Are they saying that our experiences are not real?

Science cannot even say what light is, what colour is, nor sensation nor thought. They look at what things are physically composed of, and are missing the big picture.

----------

the universe did pop out of nothing, or even if there was something physical prior to that, unless that were infinite then that too came out of nothing. So now describe what an infinite physicality is?

[night912]

I don’t think these replies are reasonable, a neural network of the same complexity wont produce mental qualia and therefore wont be experiencing. Existing computers have far more computational powers than many life-forms, and yet don’t think.
If science is left unchallenged they will build robots and tell us that they are thinking beings the same as us. Worse they may say they can copy info from your brain to a robot, and say that you are still alive! It could be a holocaust, people may think they can live forever, and the robots could act exactly like the given individual did and so science would say it is them – but they would be dead and it wont be them!

Sorry but it is incredibly important that philosophers challenge all of this. We now live in an age where such things will begin to occur shortly. Secondly we should challenge everything – its what philosophy is, inquiry and discovery.
Thirdly it is important for science that they are not allowed to be so closed minded and fascist about what we and the world are. Atm all they do is provide us with an incredibly negative perspective where there is no hope for survival, and even that we already don’t exist in that we are not living spiritual beings and mental qualia are an apparition. So what such an apparition? Are they saying that our experiences are not real?

Science cannot even say what light is, what colour is, nor sensation nor thought. They look at what things are physically composed of, and are missing the big picture.

----------

the universe did pop out of nothing, or even if there was something physical prior to that, unless that were infinite then that too came out of nothing. So now describe what an infinite physicality is?

How do you know that?

[The Beast]

1.-) The imaginable mind in a set theory therefore a paradox; P = -P
2.- ) infinity = - infinity.
3.-) the resting point is zero. Not infinity and not – infinity. P = -P is the “zero” paradox
4.-) Infinity and – infinity have one point in common named zero and it could be named choice… or belief; then “The Unknown” becomes 1 or -1.
5.- 1= -1. It is a superimposition of a virtual point and a physical point and then by choice or ritual is 1 or -1. What is 1 is not -1. One exists.
6.- Dimensions exist.

[Lagayascienza]

I am in no position to challenge logic such as this.

[The Beast]

In this Universe of discourse, the structure/axioms of the interpretation are:
Axiom of infinity: Principle of set or type theory introduced by Whitehead and Russell. “There is a set Z containing the empty set and there is a further element for each of its elements.”
It was deduced by Frege and called the Russell paradox that P = -P.
Axiom of choice (set/function): It was formulated by Zermelo.
Edwin Schrodinger “superimposition” and Dieter Zeh “decoherence”

[amorphos_ii]

1.-) The imaginable mind in a set theory therefore a paradox; P = -P
2.- ) infinity = - infinity.
3.-) the resting point is zero. Not infinity and not – infinity. P = -P is the “zero” paradox
4.-) Infinity and – infinity have one point in common named zero and it could be named choice… or belief; then “The Unknown” becomes 1 or -1.
5.- 1= -1. It is a superimposition of a virtual point and a physical point and then by choice or ritual is 1 or -1. What is 1 is not -1. One exists.
6.- Dimensions exist.

Who says infinity is that, you are calculating it by measures found in the physical – which are abstract, now define that which is non-abstract! I would say that infinity is a vague reference because science doesn’t understand it, to me [and druidry] it is an amorphous divine infinite which necessarily contains all things in their unmanifest nature. Because it is everything then it has mind, even if that is a manifestation of the ‘magic powers’ of the brain, once produced it is part of the said entity prior to universe.


how can there be a situation prior to physical existence which does not contain everything manifest? Existence from non-existence.

I think the Hindu’s created the notion of zero and infinity.

-----------

more to the point if science cannot say what even colour is and thus do not know what experience is, then it has no right to dictate as to what mind is.

[The Beast]

1.-) The imaginable mind in a set theory therefore a paradox; P = -P
2.- ) infinity = - infinity.
3.-) the resting point is zero. Not infinity and not – infinity. P = -P is the “zero” paradox
4.-) Infinity and – infinity have one point in common named zero and it could be named choice… or belief; then “The Unknown” becomes 1 or -1.
5.- 1= -1. It is a superimposition of a virtual point and a physical point and then by choice or ritual is 1 or -1. What is 1 is not -1. One exists.
6.- Dimensions exist.

Who says infinity is that, you are calculating it by measures found in the physical – which are abstract, now define that which is non-abstract! I would say that infinity is a vague reference because science doesn’t understand it, to me [and druidry] it is an amorphous divine infinite which necessarily contains all things in their unmanifest nature. Because it is everything then it has mind, even if that is a manifestation of the ‘magic powers’ of the brain, once produced it is part of the said entity prior to universe.


how can there be a situation prior to physical existence which does not contain everything manifest? Existence from non-existence.

I think the Hindu’s created the notion of zero and infinity.

-----------

more to the point if science cannot say what even colour is and thus do not know what experience is, then it has no right to dictate as to what mind is.

That is interesting. I was under the impression that Druids do not have a set dogma or belief system and I know little about the Druidess so it might not apply to them. Spirit and Infinity are just words. The amorphous divine infinity is then a concept. The Natural world is imbued with the Spirit and so it is alive and dynamic. I understood this as the cosmic belonging. It is my understanding that the Spirit arises from the amorphous divine infinity. However. I think that there are intermediate steps from non-existence to existence the same as the acorn is the oak if it grows up. Most acorns are food.

[amorphos_ii]

Hi beast

well yes we are kind of stuck with labels and linguistic definition like ‘amorphous, divine infinite’ and what have you. Obviously you are right, it is more akin to the acorn becomes the oak. Well, most things but not all are manifest from the small part to the large. Like most ancient ‘religions’ druidry derived from animism – shaman and the like, where it is considered that all things emanate from the universal spirit [or just spirit].

Druidessess were probably better at dream interpretation as they have a deeper emotional perspective. However the chosen leader told me that there were and are no such things as druids, simply because there were many kinds, herbalist, seers etc but more that there was an effort to stop religionisms setting in. in my druid pack of tarot, there are no gods nor goddess – no deities et al.

Funny, when I was a young punk back in the day, people used to say ‘to be a true punk you shouldn’t call yourself a punk nor dress like one ~ I wonder where that notion came from lol maybe the ancient wisdom transferred somehow.