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

[Ranvier]

I don't know, I can't really "know" how other minds work but in my mind a single word creates a cascade of events. It can be visually represented as a tree but all the branches are interconnected in several dimensions of webs that traverse & weave together in yet another dimension. It's rapidly exhausting and requires a lot of energy to manipulate these thoughts in written language. It occurs effortlessly in my brain but to materialize these thoughts in written words is quite challenging, especially when I have a little box on the screen to navigate up and down within a lengthy text. This is further complicated when I have to explain every single word, with whomever I communicate. In my mind it's almost a Sisyphean task. I shell continue later though.

[Ranvier]

I feel I must explain... The challenge isn't in navigating within my 52 inch monitor but the 2D canvas of lengthy text. it's as if I'm attempting to convey an entire image of my mind through a tiny keyhole of language.

[Ranvier]

My apology, with the explanation written above in previous reply, allow me to simply copy-paste only parts of your thoughts.

"If there were a mental form of energy sui generis, psychophysical interactions would involve the conversion of mental energy into physical energy, or vice versa; but neurophysiologists have never noticed any sudden appearance and increase, or disappearance and decrease of physical (chemical, electrical) energy in the brain. So there is no empirical reason to disbelieve in the causal closure of neural processes, and to believe in mental energy as a neurophysically irreducible form of energy".

Too much to unpack here but your mind shouldn't operate on things reported (noticed) by someone else (neurophysiologists). It is silly to claim something doesn't exist because neurophysiologists didn't notice its existence. Although your words prove my earlier sentiment that unless it occurs in your "consciousness", it doesn't "exist". Atheist-God dichotomy

[RJG]

If "something" doesn't occur in our "consciousness", it can't "exist" or be "real".

This is not correct. For example, 'your' death, or lack of consciousness (of "reality") does not remove "reality" from the rest of us. It only removes reality from 'YOU' (not us!). Reality still exists even if 'your' consciousness no longer exists.

Consciousness has no bearing on reality. True reality exists independent of the subjective observer.

Question: When the dentist puts you under to remove your wisdom teeth, does the dentist no longer exist?

[Consul]

Simply. If "something" doesn't occur in our "consciousness", it can't "exist" or be "real".

The only things occurring in your consciousness are subjective experiences (sensations, emotions, imaginations, cogitations). For example, when you see a tree, a visual appearance (impression) of it occurs in your consciousness, but the perception-independently existing tree doesn't. Tree-impressions can be part of your (phenomenal) consciousness, but trees can't. The former are consciousness-internal entities, and the latter are consciousness-external ones.

[Consul]

My apology, with the explanation written above in previous reply, allow me to simply copy-paste only parts of your thoughts.

"If there were a mental form of energy sui generis, psychophysical interactions would involve the conversion of mental energy into physical energy, or vice versa; but neurophysiologists have never noticed any sudden appearance and increase, or disappearance and decrease of physical (chemical, electrical) energy in the brain. So there is no empirical reason to disbelieve in the causal closure of neural processes, and to believe in mental energy as a neurophysically irreducible form of energy". – Consul

Too much to unpack here but your mind shouldn't operate on things reported (noticed) by someone else (neurophysiologists). It is silly to claim something doesn't exist because neurophysiologists didn't notice its existence. Although your words prove my earlier sentiment that unless it occurs in your "consciousness", it doesn't "exist". Atheist-God dichotomy

My point is that if there were a mental form of energy sui generis, neurophysiologists would have found evidence for its existence by measuring and observing strange sudden decreases or increases of nonmental energy in the CNS that are inexplicable in terms of conversions of one form of physical energy into another form of physical energy. But they haven't found any such evidence, so I am justified in disbelieving in the existence of (physically irreducible) mental energy.

[Consul]

If "something" doesn't occur in our "consciousness", it can't "exist" or be "real".

Does your consciousness occur in your consciousness?

[Sy Borg]

Sense and response?

The meta awareness of sensing and responding?

Both?

Have you ever attended a meditation seminar, assuming there are such things? Were you served the meat 'n' potatoes or was that not on the menu?

Senses are an integral feature of awareness; not sure about response though. However, there seems to be a missin' piece in this puzzle. Again, not sure what that is, but the evidence for that can be found in every book, lecture, video, article on consciousness, I mean awareness.

Yes, I've done a meditation course and attended a few seminars.

If one cannot respond, then there's no point in sensing. That would be needless torment. Awareness varies a great deal, from the chemical sensing of microbes to thinking, emotional animals.

True, you have a point, but the issue is marked by a complexity apparent to me in the differences between a rock and (say) a grasshopper and amebas and ...

This differences are somewhat artificial. Consider the cognitive gap between Homo sapiens and other animals. It's an illusion caused by the extinction of all other Homo species, and decimation of other intelligent animals that might compete with us.

Likewise, there are various steps between rocks and complex insects like grasshoppers - hydrous organic compounds, complex biochemistry, proto-life (non-reproducing metabolisms and non-metabolising genetics), bacteria, protists, simple parasitic insects, complex independent insects, social insects ...

[Ranvier]

If "something" doesn't occur in our "consciousness", it can't "exist" or be "real".

This is not correct. For example, 'your' death, or lack of consciousness (of "reality") does not remove "reality" from the rest of us. It only removes reality from 'YOU' (not us!). Reality still exists even if 'your' consciousness no longer exists.

Consciousness has no bearing on reality. True reality exists independent of the subjective observer.

Question: When the dentist puts you under to remove your wisdom teeth, does the dentist no longer exist?

This is good. Did you read my "blablocity" example.
viewtopic.php?p=438616#p438616

If none of humanity's "consciousness" has the concept of "blablocity", it doesn't "exist". If there were no humans on earth, unless there is life elsewhere in the universe, the human "reality" will seize to "exist". As far as humans are concerned our subjective "consciousness" dies with us, unless some aliens discover Earth and resurrect humans from the remnants of our DNA but most likely without being the same "consciousness" as the original.

You: "This is not correct. For example, 'your' death, or lack of consciousness (of "reality") does not remove "reality" from the rest of us. It only removes reality from 'YOU' (not us!). Reality still exists even if 'your' consciousness no longer exists".
I'm glad you use quotation marks on "reality" to denote the subjective reality of anyone individual. My subjective individual "consciousness" of "reality" dies with me. There won't be another me, even if you should clone another of me from my DNA. Upon my death, everyone else's individual "consciousness" of "reality" remains the same, and when all of us will be gone, only [Reality] will remain.

You: "Consciousness has no bearing on reality. True reality exists independent of the subjective observer".
We don't know what's "consciousness", so it's unwise to make such claim: "Consciousness has no bearing on reality", especially since you didn't indicate which (reality) you have in mind. We don't know the true [Reality] and it may be true it will remain unchanged upon our demise but I'd be very careful in making a claim [Reality] is absolutely independent of subjective observer. We simply can't know that.

You: "Question: When the dentist puts you under to remove your wisdom teeth, does the dentist no longer exist?"
Hmm, this seems to be the recurring dilemma for many people who conflate "conscious" with "consciousness". A stone has "consciousness" by the mere fact it "exists"... Contemplate this for a while, if it should make sense to you, then perhaps we can find an "understanding" together. But to answer your question: the dentist "existed" in my "consciousness" before, during, and after the procedure. I'm nearly certain, the dentist "exists" as "something" else in his own "consciousness", and yet "something" else in the [Consciousness] of [Reality].

[Ranvier]

If "something" doesn't occur in our "consciousness", it can't "exist" or be "real".

Does your consciousness occur in your consciousness?

Yes. But it's extremely difficult to substantiate the duality of "consciousness". I wouldn't know what words to use

[Ranvier]

Consul

I often find the the most obvious is nearly impossible to convey to others. it's as if I should ask you to prove that you're not an AI but human "consciousness". How would you go about that?

[Ranvier]

Actually, reading so many posts on this forum, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm not the only human mind here conversing with a bunch of bots

[Sy Borg]

I am obviously a bot. Not that there's anything wrong with that ...

Solipsism is just a single perspective, and a very incomplete one. We items in reality are impacted by many things that, according to solipsism, do not exist.

[Ranvier]

I am obviously a bot. Not that there's anything wrong with that ...

Solipsism is just a single perspective, and a very incomplete one. We items in reality are impacted by many things that, according to solipsism, do not exist.

That's something I bot without family or loved ones may post. Good to know.

[Agent Smyth]

Have you ever attended a meditation seminar, assuming there are such things? Were you served the meat 'n' potatoes or was that not on the menu?

Senses are an integral feature of awareness; not sure about response though. However, there seems to be a missin' piece in this puzzle. Again, not sure what that is, but the evidence for that can be found in every book, lecture, video, article on consciousness, I mean awareness.

Yes, I've done a meditation course and attended a few seminars.

If one cannot respond, then there's no point in sensing. That would be needless torment. Awareness varies a great deal, from the chemical sensing of microbes to thinking, emotional animals.

True, you have a point, but the issue is marked by a complexity apparent to me in the differences between a rock and (say) a grasshopper and amebas and ...

This differences are somewhat artificial. Consider the cognitive gap between Homo sapiens and other animals. It's an illusion caused by the extinction of all other Homo species, and decimation of other intelligent animals that might compete with us.

Likewise, there are various steps between rocks and complex insects like grasshoppers - hydrous organic compounds, complex biochemistry, proto-life (non-reproducing metabolisms and non-metabolising genetics), bacteria, protists, simple parasitic insects, complex independent insects, social insects ...

That's true and on point. My best guess with regard to life and consciousness is that they're one-of-a-kind science, from a materialistic stance that is. Which existing paradigms best match these fascinating aspects of being I can't say.