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

[GrayArea]

What do you think of the fallacy to exclude the observer from the consideration? Mathematical infinity is merely a potential infinity which cannot logically be applicable to reality since it requires a begin that is introduced by an observer.

A topic dedicated to the subject: Endless and infinite https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =2&t=16634

I don't really understand that fallacy, because, well, the existence of infinity can only depend on the observer when seen from the observer's first-person perspective. I know that as observers ourselves, we are only aware of the world through this said first-person perspective, but if you think about it, because we are aware of the world to begin with, we can know that the world exists on its own—as evidenced by how we also exist on our own.

That's profoundly assumptious thinking in my opinion with as foundation at most a 'feeling' of being alive on the basis of which reality is assumed to be real. (Descartes his argument "I think, therefore I am" but why does Descartes think in the first place and without an answer to that question why would the assertion be evidence for the realness of reality?)

Why would that idea be different for a photon?

Can you please provide argumentation for the idea why 'only existence' (no other factor) would allow for the required translation potential and the logical evolutionary ability to develop into a neuron and brain that is to 'produce' consciousness?

As I define it, for an object to inherently "translate" another object, is for that object to react to another object after being in physical contact. And what allows that object to react to its external objects/environment is its own existence, as whatever allows physical contact(and how that affects an object) to be possible is also whatever allows the existence of that object to be possible.

How can it be said that the factor that allows for apparent causal relations can be considered an 'is' (existent)? Would you be open for the consideration that it might be a fallacy to consider that factor to 'exist'?

As I have said a while ago, I don’t entirely agree with the whole “I think, therefore I exist” idea. For me, it’s more like “I exist, therefore I think”. But what is existence / realness to begin with? That is ironically still decided by us EVEN when we (Notice how WE are the ones who are still saying it even then.) say “it’s not decided by us but the external world or 'real' reality”.

Just to clarify on my previous reply, I don't believe that our perception does not “create” the external world. I simply believe that we can only be aware of the existence of the already existing external world through ourselves. The external world and the internal world (self) could be symbiotic towards one another (shape one another) when both of them exist at a given space and time. One’s existence would signal the existence of another.

We exist because of reality. Therefore, our existence is all we understand of reality.

Meaning our very existence is the closest definition we have to what "real" means, because our existence allows us to be aware of reality. (Though it does not create reality.) And in the end, we're nothing but ourselves.

[GrayArea]

Just to clarify on my previous reply, I don't believe that our perception does not “create” the external world.

Edit: "I don't believe that our perception "creates" the external world."

Just a small typo that had to be corrected.

[value]

My apologies for the late reply. This is certainly an interesting topic! Hopefully more users will discover it.

That's profoundly assumptious thinking in my opinion with as foundation at most a 'feeling' of being alive on the basis of which reality is assumed to be real. (Descartes his argument "I think, therefore I am" but why does Descartes think in the first place and without an answer to that question why would the assertion be evidence for the realness of reality?)

What is the definition of "realness" to you?

The idea of certainty with regard its reference.

[value]

We exist because of reality. Therefore, our existence is all we understand of reality.

Meaning our very existence is the closest definition we have to what "real" means, because our existence allows us to be aware of reality. (Though it does not create reality.) And in the end, we're nothing but ourselves.

Isn't reality a term that denotes existence?

When it concerns the philosophical consideration of consciousness it might be required to go beyond the apparent boundary of 'existence' or 'reality'.

You asked "what is existence / realness to begin with?" and argued "That is ironically still decided by us.".

As I mentioned: existence depends on the concept begin (subjectivity) which potential demands an explanation. By simple logic a begin is introduced by an observer while the opposite would be absurd.

[Pattern-chaser]

What is the definition of "realness" to you?

The idea of certainty with regard its reference.

So, for you, realness = certainty??? Have I understood correctly?

[Bahman]

Hi, before I discuss my ideas, I would just like to point out that I am not a professional neuroscientist. I am just an avid enjoyer of the subject. So take what I say with a grain of salt.

With that said, I've been wondering for some time about how the brain becomes aware of itself. And I think I may have a basic gist.

I will first divide awareness into two main parts:
1. The things we would become aware of, once we actually become aware. In other words, Qualia.
2. The awareness itself, which allows us to be aware of 1.

Let's talk about 1 first. I believe that neurons, like any other objects, have a natural tendency to "translate" the outside world into their own terms. This, in other words, means for an object to be affected by the world, and then reacting to it in a certain way that is native to the object.

Take a stationary jelly for instance. I poke the jelly with my finger. As you can see, the jelly has been affected by the outside world. From a third-person perspective, the outside world simply equals my finger. But from the jelly's perspective, the outside world is not my actual finger. Instead, it is what the finger caused TO the jelly. It is the physical alteration that happened TO the jelly BY the finger. (This is all theoretical. Of course, the jelly won’t be aware of all this, due to 2 not existing.)

Another more subject-centered and specific example is the creation of colors within the mind. The color red should be how neurons specifically react to the "red lightwave", according to their native functions. It is not the red lightwave itself, but rather, what the red lightwave causes WITHIN the neurons. What it means TO them. And that's what we (= the neurons) perceive as "red".

This whole process is the aforementioned "translating" process, so to speak. It is what creates 1.


However, 1 is still meaningless without the existence of 2. And here is when things start getting more theoretical. My current theory as to how 2 arises is that a neuron cell naturally "translates" ANOTHER physically connected neuron cell just like it translates the red lightwave—except this time it leads to 2 instead of 1.

Here is my basic reasoning for this.

So imagine a neuron “translates” another neuron. What does this another neuron really “mean” to the original neuron? I’ve deduced that it “means” its own literal existence, simply because this “another neuron” is physically connected to the original neuron, and therefore they can be seen as a single entity.

In other words, to the Neuron #1, a neighboring Neuron #2 is essentially Neuron #1…given that those two are physically connected where one causes the activation of another, essentially turning the pair of neurons into a single system.

Therefore, we end up with a neuron translating itself. Considering my definition of “translating”, this is when a neuron is affected by its own self and then reacts to itself accordingly. Seen from the perspective of the neuron, it is essentially for it to control itself and to exist due to itself.
→ Itself is caused by itself, meaning that it is to itself, literally “itself”.

And the more interesting thing is that this can work vice versa of course, since it’s a single system either way. That is to say, not only is Neuron #1 aware of Neuron #1 and Neuron #2, but Neuron #2 is also aware of Neuron #1 and Neuron #2. Thus, Neuron #1 and Neuron #2 are both aware of the combination of Neuron #1 and Neuron #2 at the same time.

So this isn’t just a single neuron being aware of another neuron anymore. It is a pair of neurons being aware of itself as a singular entity. My theory is that this is how a brain can be aware of itself as a singular entity, as opposed to each and every neuron within the brain being independently aware of its own selves.

But still, looking at it from a third-person, objective perspective, the neuron(s) are still not aware. However, from the pair of neurons’ perspective, they are indeed aware, and as a single entity. It’s just like how when one looks at a lifeform, one does not have any idea if that lifeform is aware. (One only thinks so because they seem like they are, or because they say so.)

Even so, this “subjective” awareness of the neurons still spans throughout objective reality, just because in reality, they are still “subjectively aware” of the objective reality.

The sheer act of an object translating the outside world into its own terms IS all that makes an object an object. And vice versa—for an object to be an object is to translate the outside world into its own terms.
(Meaning that the outside world and the object’s “inner world” are symbiotic to each other. One causes the other.)

I think there is a gap in your argument when you go from a neuron translating/affecting itself through its connection with other neurons to a neuron being aware of itself. Think of the jelly example. Each small piece of jelly not only affects other pieces but also gets affected by other pieces so in other words it affects itself indirectly. Is the jelly experience anything?

[GrayArea]

I think there is a gap in your argument when you go from a neuron translating/affecting itself through its connection with other neurons to a neuron being aware of itself. Think of the jelly example. Each small piece of jelly not only affects other pieces but also gets affected by other pieces so in other words it affects itself indirectly. Is the jelly experience anything?

To hopefully explain this "gap" to you, what would happen is that if all the neurons within a brain (given that all the neurons = the brain) each share its subjective experience with each of their neighboring neurons (through exchange of electrochemical signals), then it would essentially be the brain experiencing itself (thus the self-awareness) because if all the neurons within the brain each formed its subjective experiences based on the subjective experience of the neighboring neurons, and if all of their subjective experiences are connected, then the whole brain itself would determine its own subjective experience WITH its own subjective experience, and in the process, "experience its own subjective experience" aka the brain experiencing itself.

...Which is possible because all the neurons would now share the same chain of physical cause-and-effect, which means they also share the same chain of subjective experience or subjective cause-and-effect.

And the reason why above is true, the reason why the connection between neurons' physical experiences will also connect the neurons' subjective experiences together, is because the act of a neuron #1 taking other neurons' physical outputs (i.e. neurotransmitters) and translating them into its own subjective language would result in the neuron #1 to affect neuron #2 with neuron #1's output, according to what its own subjective "translation of other neurons" caused itself to physically react / generate an output.

And so neuron #2, taking that specific output as its input, now generates its own specific output determined by how it translates the output from neuron #1, which depends on "what type of output" (i.e. what type of neurotransmitters etc) it received from neuron #1. During this process, neuron #2 has translated the physical output of neuron #1 into a subjective form that is local to neuron #2's experience, but one could say that neuron #2 just simply received neuron #1's subjective experience through a physical medium, as neuron #1's subjective experience lies within its physical form, which neuron #2 has interacted with.

To summarize as to how the neurons' subjective experiences are merged:

Neuron #1's physical output (which was determined by the way neuron #1 subjectively translated some other neuron's physical output) determines the way in which neuron #2 subjectively translates that output, which in turn determines the physical output of neuron #2 and so the chain continues on.

And if all the neurons each do that—as in, each determine the way that their neighboring neuron takes in their physical output and subjectively translates it, then all the neurons essentially have their own subjective experiences (created by subjective translations of external objects) merged together as much as their physical cause-and-effect are merged together.

Furthermore, not only do their subjective experiences merge, but now what happens is that they constantly experience their own subjective experiences, due to how each neuron constantly fires inputs and accepts outputs to constantly re-solidify their collective subjective experiences over and over again.

At least that's my assumption so far. It's possible that I might come every once in a while and rephrase some of my ideas.

[GrayArea]

Isn't reality a term that denotes existence?

Well, I wasn't talking about existence in general, but specifically "our" existence.

When it concerns the philosophical consideration of consciousness it might be required to go beyond the apparent boundary of 'existence' or 'reality'.

You asked "what is existence / realness to begin with?" and argued "That is ironically still decided by us.".

As I mentioned: existence depends on the concept begin (subjectivity) which potential demands an explanation. By simple logic a begin is introduced by an observer while the opposite would be absurd.

Could I ask what you mean by the "concept begin"? You mean the very concept of "beginning" itself? And perhaps the rest of the sentence as well. Much appreciated.

[GrayArea]

My apologies for the late reply. This is certainly an interesting topic! Hopefully more users will discover it.

That's profoundly assumptious thinking in my opinion with as foundation at most a 'feeling' of being alive on the basis of which reality is assumed to be real. (Descartes his argument "I think, therefore I am" but why does Descartes think in the first place and without an answer to that question why would the assertion be evidence for the realness of reality?)

What is the definition of "realness" to you?

The idea of certainty with regard its reference.

No problem with the late reply. I'm glad you're still invested in this topic, much like I am.

And now my next question to you—how did you form that definition? As in, how did you compare your definition and your idea of "realness" and thought they matched?

Because just by doing so, you have subconsciously accepted the fact that something can be called "real", and my belief is that you have thus subconsciously accepted the fact that reality is real.

[value]

What is the definition of "realness" to you?

The idea of certainty with regard its reference.

So, for you, realness = certainty??? Have I understood correctly?

The idea of certainty within a scope of reference. That reference frame could be utilitarian and therewith plausible but when it concerns the fundamental nature of reality or 'the origin of the cosmos' then at question is whether certainty could apply.

The Nobel Price of Physics of 2022 would indicate that certainty cannot apply and thus that the term 'realness' cannot apply to the cosmos.

Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18367

[Consul]

The Nobel Price of Physics of 2022 would indicate that certainty cannot apply and thus that the term 'realness' cannot apply to the cosmos.

Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18367

See:

viewtopic.php?p=427753#p427753

viewtopic.php?p=427765#p427765

[Bahman]

I think there is a gap in your argument when you go from a neuron translating/affecting itself through its connection with other neurons to a neuron being aware of itself. Think of the jelly example. Each small piece of jelly not only affects other pieces but also gets affected by other pieces so in other words it affects itself indirectly. Is the jelly experience anything?

To hopefully explain this "gap" to you, what would happen is that if all the neurons within a brain (given that all the neurons = the brain) each share its subjective experience with each of their neighboring neurons (through exchange of electrochemical signals), then it would essentially be the brain experiencing itself (thus the self-awareness) because if all the neurons within the brain each formed its subjective experiences based on the subjective experience of the neighboring neurons, and if all of their subjective experiences are connected, then the whole brain itself would determine its own subjective experience WITH its own subjective experience, and in the process, "experience its own subjective experience" aka the brain experiencing itself.

...Which is possible because all the neurons would now share the same chain of physical cause-and-effect, which means they also share the same chain of subjective experience or subjective cause-and-effect.

And the reason why above is true, the reason why the connection between neurons' physical experiences will also connect the neurons' subjective experiences together, is because the act of a neuron #1 taking other neurons' physical outputs (i.e. neurotransmitters) and translating them into its own subjective language would result in the neuron #1 to affect neuron #2 with neuron #1's output, according to what its own subjective "translation of other neurons" caused itself to physically react / generate an output.

And so neuron #2, taking that specific output as its input, now generates its own specific output determined by how it translates the output from neuron #1, which depends on "what type of output" (i.e. what type of neurotransmitters etc) it received from neuron #1. During this process, neuron #2 has translated the physical output of neuron #1 into a subjective form that is local to neuron #2's experience, but one could say that neuron #2 just simply received neuron #1's subjective experience through a physical medium, as neuron #1's subjective experience lies within its physical form, which neuron #2 has interacted with.

To summarize as to how the neurons' subjective experiences are merged:

Neuron #1's physical output (which was determined by the way neuron #1 subjectively translated some other neuron's physical output) determines the way in which neuron #2 subjectively translates that output, which in turn determines the physical output of neuron #2 and so the chain continues on.

And if all the neurons each do that—as in, each determine the way that their neighboring neuron takes in their physical output and subjectively translates it, then all the neurons essentially have their own subjective experiences (created by subjective translations of external objects) merged together as much as their physical cause-and-effect are merged together.

Furthermore, not only do their subjective experiences merge, but now what happens is that they constantly experience their own subjective experiences, due to how each neuron constantly fires inputs and accepts outputs to constantly re-solidify their collective subjective experiences over and over again.

At least that's my assumption so far. It's possible that I might come every once in a while and rephrase some of my ideas.

I am not questioning merging experiences. I am asking how a neuron could possibly have an experience by affecting itself indirectly.

[GrayArea]

I think there is a gap in your argument when you go from a neuron translating/affecting itself through its connection with other neurons to a neuron being aware of itself. Think of the jelly example. Each small piece of jelly not only affects other pieces but also gets affected by other pieces so in other words it affects itself indirectly. Is the jelly experience anything?

To hopefully explain this "gap" to you, what would happen is that if all the neurons within a brain (given that all the neurons = the brain) each share its subjective experience with each of their neighboring neurons (through exchange of electrochemical signals), then it would essentially be the brain experiencing itself (thus the self-awareness) because if all the neurons within the brain each formed its subjective experiences based on the subjective experience of the neighboring neurons, and if all of their subjective experiences are connected, then the whole brain itself would determine its own subjective experience WITH its own subjective experience, and in the process, "experience its own subjective experience" aka the brain experiencing itself.

...Which is possible because all the neurons would now share the same chain of physical cause-and-effect, which means they also share the same chain of subjective experience or subjective cause-and-effect.

And the reason why above is true, the reason why the connection between neurons' physical experiences will also connect the neurons' subjective experiences together, is because the act of a neuron #1 taking other neurons' physical outputs (i.e. neurotransmitters) and translating them into its own subjective language would result in the neuron #1 to affect neuron #2 with neuron #1's output, according to what its own subjective "translation of other neurons" caused itself to physically react / generate an output.

And so neuron #2, taking that specific output as its input, now generates its own specific output determined by how it translates the output from neuron #1, which depends on "what type of output" (i.e. what type of neurotransmitters etc) it received from neuron #1. During this process, neuron #2 has translated the physical output of neuron #1 into a subjective form that is local to neuron #2's experience, but one could say that neuron #2 just simply received neuron #1's subjective experience through a physical medium, as neuron #1's subjective experience lies within its physical form, which neuron #2 has interacted with.

To summarize as to how the neurons' subjective experiences are merged:

Neuron #1's physical output (which was determined by the way neuron #1 subjectively translated some other neuron's physical output) determines the way in which neuron #2 subjectively translates that output, which in turn determines the physical output of neuron #2 and so the chain continues on.

And if all the neurons each do that—as in, each determine the way that their neighboring neuron takes in their physical output and subjectively translates it, then all the neurons essentially have their own subjective experiences (created by subjective translations of external objects) merged together as much as their physical cause-and-effect are merged together.

Furthermore, not only do their subjective experiences merge, but now what happens is that they constantly experience their own subjective experiences, due to how each neuron constantly fires inputs and accepts outputs to constantly re-solidify their collective subjective experiences over and over again.

At least that's my assumption so far. It's possible that I might come every once in a while and rephrase some of my ideas.

I am not questioning merging experiences. I am asking how a neuron could possibly have an experience by affecting itself indirectly.

I'm not saying a neuron can have an experience by affecting itself indirectly. At least not anymore, in case I've said that sometime in the past. I'm saying the brain itself as a whole can have an experience by each of the neurons affecting themselves indirectly through a ring-shaped chain.

[Pattern-chaser]

What is the definition of "realness" to you?

The idea of certainty with regard its reference.

So, for you, realness = certainty??? Have I understood correctly?

The idea of certainty within a scope of reference. That reference frame could be utilitarian and therewith plausible but when it concerns the fundamental nature of reality or 'the origin of the cosmos' then at question is whether certainty could apply.

The Nobel Price of Physics of 2022 would indicate that certainty cannot apply and thus that the term 'realness' cannot apply to the cosmos.

Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18367

But our empirical experience of 'reality' is that certainty is ... much rarer than we might prefer. I don't know whether we can or could reasonably conclude that it is 'reality' that is 'at fault'...?

[value]

That's profoundly assumptious thinking in my opinion with as foundation at most a 'feeling' of being alive on the basis of which reality is assumed to be real. (Descartes his argument "I think, therefore I am")

What is the definition of "realness" to you?

The idea of certainty with regard its reference.

So, for you, realness = certainty??? Have I understood correctly?

The idea of certainty within a scope of reference. That reference frame could be utilitarian and therewith plausible but when it concerns the fundamental nature of reality or 'the origin of the cosmos' then at question is whether certainty could apply.
...
Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18367

But our empirical experience of 'reality' is that certainty is ... much rarer than we might prefer. I don't know whether we can or could reasonably conclude that it is 'reality' that is 'at fault'...?

Yes, hence my argument that certainty is an idea within a scope of reference.

Philosophy has dedicated itself for centuries to discover a method to achieve what it deemed to be certain knowledge which resulted in the scientific method (repeatability).

How can an idea within (and thus dependent on) experience be a ground for the assertion that the Universe is 'really real' (exists intrinsically as posed by physicalism/materialism)? An idea is at most a retro-perspective.