You make the assumption that qualia exist and are things unto themselves, which I believe is incorrect. As a computational neuroscientist, I believe qualia can be accounted for as belief states which can be represented purely by the information processing of neurons. You imagine that there is a "viewer" which is experiencing "red". I believe there is just a single state "experiencing-red" which is associated with other states and behaviours. In my case red does not need to be defined.
What is the ontological status of the 'represented' of the 'belief state' you mention? In its conceptual and material analysis, neurons and their activity are not the same thing as mental states, but merely correlated therewith.
Moreover, I do not in fact believe in the division of 'viewer' and 'red' which you accuse me of. I think most computational neuroscientists assume an outdated materialist epistemology without question.
It's a common error to think there's an analogy between mind-brain and software-hardware. Software is unconscious, it is we who become conscious of software.
The deeper problem is relationship between unconscious matter and conscious mind.
cont.. do we perceive secondary characteristics as it is (perceiving a red chair plus the influence of light) or it is absolutely colorless and it is up to our consciousness (or senses) to designate a characteristic (color, smell...etc). please enlighten me with these things =)
I agree most with what you are saying but.."red cannot exist without the mind".. you support this proposition by stating that 2 persons may perceive the same stimulus(color) and identify 2 different colors. I find this puzzling since we must take into account that one maybe color blind--not normal. of course we must now grapple on the conception on what is normal.. and how do we know what is normal. the other things is we must tackle is about perception. do we perceive the..cont..
I agree with this mathwiz person and wanted to argue basically the same. Both mind and matter can be conceived as code, pure information. Certainly both mind and matter can be computed, everything seems to be reducible to math. The big question here is why. Why can math describe reality with such exactitude?
I don’t know much about Schopenhauer; why, in identifying the word substance with matter, did he discard Berkley’s idealism (as something like the claim that substance is mental, and matter accidental)?
Also, saying that “idealism posits a neutral substance” is confusing for me; because it suggests neutral monism, which I understand as something quite distinct from idealism.
Schopenhauer's form of Idealism is, in essence, neutral monism. There are many forms of Idealism, and numerous forms of neutral monism – so one shouldn't get too tied up with definitions. For example, D. Chalmer's F-Type (neutral) monism is compatible with Schopenhauer's philosophy.
Schopenhauer's refutation of Berkeley is a long one, but basically he follows Kant's dismissal. I have a video on Schopenhauer which you may find useful.
..., pitch, etc) are merely different qualitative ways in which we objectify this "computation". I'm obviously still working on this ontology, but the point is that I find Schopenhauer attempt to determine the nature of the world doesn't go far enough, because it doesn't take into account the mutual reducibility of mind and matter to computation; though, to be fair, Schopenhauer had no way of knowing that, living a century before information theory.
@ianmathwiz7 It looks like two of my comments didn't make it to YouTube, so here they are:
""Wow. Just wow. You deserve...well, every prize ever conceived.
Although, I wouldn't argue that the Will is what's primal. I think that matter and mind, while mutually irreducible to the other, are both reducible to something else, namely computation, which I think is the best word for the true "substance"...
It's already been demonstrated that every property of matter that we know of can be computed and reduced to information, even where calculus fails (as in Newtonian mechanics where you have three or more bodies). Now, it only remains to be demonstrated that the same is true for mental qualia, which I strongly suspect is the case.
" While the mind is not a Turing machine, the brain can be seen as a rewiring neural network. Once you take this into account, the apparent irreducibility of mind to computation vanishes.
Put even more simply, the categories by which we gain third person knowledge (position, mass, etc) and those by which we gain first person knowledge (color..."
...have three or more bodies). Now, it only remains to be demonstrated that the same is true for mental qualia, which I strongly suspect is the case. While the mind is not a Turing machine, the brain can be seen as a rewiring neural network. Once you take this into account, the apparent irreducibility of mind to computation vanishes.
Put even more simply, the categories by which we gain third person knowledge (position, mass, etc) and those by which we gain first person knowledge (color...
Wow. Just wow. You deserve...well, every prize ever conceived.
Although, I wouldn't argue that the Will is what's primal. I think that matter and mind, while mutually irreducible to the other, are both reducible to something else, namely computation, which I think is the best word for the true "substance".
It's already been demonstrated that every property of matter that we know of can be computed and reduced to information, even where calculus fails (as in Newtonian mechanics where you ...
I find it problematic to conclude that consciousness is separated from the brain, that the brain is not capable of creating a simulation that is perceived as consciousness without having full knowledge of the brains capabilities.
consciousness is your soul or spirit. it is the reason you can use your brain to your free will because this awareness is decoded through your brain by the attachment of the spirit to your body. the thing is ki also exists just like consciousness but cannot be proven. even i myself through meditation can feel the energy and guide it with my hair on body standing up wherever i move it. its amazing but we have to look beyond this holographic world which most likely is decoded from our spirits
I remain unconvinced because of the assumptions used here. If hypothetically speaking the brain made consciousness a simulation, then to us in the first person it would SEEM as if consciousness were separate when it actually wasn't. I would say that because we can influence the mind and consciousness using external physical methods, and because no non-physical part of the brain has been identified, that the brain creates consciousness.
Your 'hypothetically speaking' is just that, it is unproved and that is your assumption! Also, I do not posit a non-physical part of the brain (an oxymoron anyway!).
@Ontologistics Okay, to put it plainly, you start the video stating that no one has proven that continuousness is only in the brain. That' fine, I can jive with that. But then you say it cannot be proven. Hold on, don't you have anything to back that up? Nope. Well that's just an argument from ignorance. That assertion is not backed up by anything, and your evidence also supports a brain-based simulated consciousness. If your evidence also supports my hypothesis, then you need more evidence.
Obviously the rest of the video is there precisely to back up that assertion (that it cannot be proved). The beginning of the video is an introduction: it sets out what I am to argue.
@Ontologistics Indeed, and the rest of the video is based on the assumption that there is something nonphysical to the consciousness. The examples you provide could also support consciousness being only a simulation created by the brain, which is why I'm not convinced.
A simulated virtual world within a computer could be so complex that it's unfathomable to our minds, yet everything is contained within the simulation, requiring only physical hardware to run the software.
If consciousness is a simulation, what is it a simulation of? Are you posing epiphenomenalism?
Again the hardware/software analogy to the brain/mind fails because software is not conscious, it does not have emotions. It is we humans that imbue a software program with qualia.
@Ontologistics I'm proposing that the mind and brain are one in the same. That the synthesizing of sensory data, emotions, and cognitions together form what we call consciousness, and it's carried out by neural networks in the brain - one hundred million synapses creating a functioning version of reality that we call consciousness.
I add credence to this view because we can directly affect physical areas of the brain which then affects consciousness. So it's not just correlation.
The video does not say they are not the same, only that their similarity is not physical. Affecting a radio then affects the station you're listening to - but this does not logically entail the radio creates the station - likewise with the brain and mind.
As my video states, correlation merely indicates a relation. The correlation does not itself prove any of the possible relations it indicates. Get out of your metanarrative.
@Ontologistics "Affecting a radio then affects the station you're listening to - but this does not logically entail the radio creates the station - likewise with the brain and mind."
But your concept of mind is an assumption. What makes you think that the mind exists at all if the evidence you show for it also supports the alternative? The station/radio analogy doesn't hold up, nor does your species/DNA analogy in the video because those analogies have two physically demonstrable things.
@Ontologistics "The correlation does not itself prove any of the possible relations it indicates. Get out of your metanarrative."
No need to be rude, okay? Correlation itself doesn't prove causation, but with experimentation we can find direct causal relationships between administering neurotransmitters and psychoactive drugs and affects on a person's consciousness. The consciousness does not affect the drug, but the drug, physical, affects the consciousness.
Are you so sure? I'm very interested in psychedelics and so know quite a bit here. Yes, Psilocin etc bind onto the 5Ht2a receptors which cause further (3rd-person) spatio-temporal activity. But even in its complexity, it is unknown how this causes the 1st-person experiences correlated therewith.
Can consciousness affect particles in the mind? Henry Stapp, the quantum physicist, argues that it can through the wave collapse of calcium ions passing through ion channels.
@Ontologistics As for Henry Stapp, while I'm not familiar with his work, I'm still skeptical of it. The wave form collapse, as far as I know, has been observed in electrons so far. An atom of calcium wouldn't just collapse into a wave form, or out of one, because to my knowledge neutrons and protons can't just collapse into a wave form. At least that's as much as I know, but I could be wrong.
@Ontologistics So if drugs, brain damage, what have you, affects the consciousness then what part of this equation is not physical? Memories are physical parts of the brain because they can be evoked with electrical shock and removed by destruction. Emotions would not exist without physical changes to the body. Thoughts can be tweaked by manipulating neurotransmitters. So with all this evidence to support a consciousness based in the physical, what evidence do you have to show otherwise?
Did you not understand the radio analogy? Parts of the radio can be tweaked and manipulated to give correlated differences in what is heard in the station. I can destroy the speaker and no station is heard. None of this in any way is proof for the assertion that the radio itself produces the radio station.
Secondly, what you call physical is but a human representation of force.
@Ontologistics I do understand the radio analogy, but if you think a radio transmission, something that can easily be identified, demonstrated, and is well understood is the same as the idea of a nonphysical consciousness that has not been identified, demonstrated, and is not well understood then the analogy falls apart. The analogy assumes that we have a nonphysical consciousness first and works backwards. That needs evidence, and I find current evidence lacking.
I'm not proposing it, I'm simply stating the logic that proves correlation not entailing cause, in any way. Furthermore, 'evidence' means 3rd-person verification - precisely what 1st-person consciousness is not subject to!
You are wrong about collapse. It seems that biology and psychology have not caught up with physics, but are still using Victorian materialism.
@Ontologistics Not sure what happened to my other comment. Anyways, if consciousness is not subject to evidence, then you have nothing to back up your assertions. Pretty much everything you propose here also supports the opposite hypothesis, meaning you need something which supports yours while simultaneously refutes the other. Without such, and without evidence, I'm not convinced.
And saying biology and psychology still use Victorian materialism dodges the evidence of cognitive neuroscience.
Knowledge is not only gained by evidence, but also by logic. Mathematics is not proved by evidence, for example! My logic is that you cannot get 1st-person knowledge from 3rd-person knowledge ("evidence"), though they are correlated.
Cognitive neuroscience, with which I'm very engaged, is incomplete and is not completable in terms of sufficiently explaining consciousness - as my next video will prove.
@Ontologistics You may say you've tried to logically explain the existence of an aspect of the mind that transcends the brain, but the logic resides on fundamental assumptions. I have to assume much less by saying consciousness is a simulation created by the brain, which is completely consistent with your examples, while you have far more to assume by saying there is something there greater than the sum of the parts in an existence that you cannot demonstrate.
Well we'll both remain skeptical of each other due to foundational assumptions. But let's be clear: you do not assume less by positing a non-physical simulation that cannot be proved, as you acknowledge.
@Ontologistics Only you say it cannot be proved. Only you have shut that door. I am confident that brain scanning technology will increase to the point that we can truly identify the major areas of the brain, and maybe one day every synapse and neural network. If I am wrong, I will certainly change my mind, but you here have already admitted that you have come to your unchangeable conclusion, and that it is impossible to prove otherwise. That is such closed-mindedness.
"It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out" - Bertrand Russell
Once we have reached, as you write, the point where"we can truly identify the major areas of the brain, and maybe one day every synapse and neural network", the Hard Problem of Consciousness is still untouched. Total empirical evidence is insufficient to explain consciousness - the 1st-person cannot be reduced to the 3rd-person, though they are correlated.
@Ontologistics Math is not proved by evidence? So I cannot prove that 1+1=2 by taking one apple, and another apple and looking at how many apples I got? Numbers are abstraction of reality, so they are dependent on how the world is. And I don't now about you, but I had to experience that there is a one-sided, one-boundary object which can exists in a three-dimensional realm and I still was amazed of the possibility of such an object, called Möbius strip.
No, mathematical proofs are not per se proved by experience but by a priori reason. If they were proved by experience, they would not be necessarily true as they would be subject to the problem of induction.
I know that 1 + 1 = 2 prior to my experience of any apples, or any objects whatever.
Oh, and btw, there are far more than 'one hundred million synapses' in a normal brain. There are 100 billion neurons, each of which have an average of 10 000 neurites (roots), each of which terminates with a synapse.
@Ontologistics "Again the hardware/software analogy to the brain/mind fails because software is not conscious, it does not have emotions."
Who says software cannot be made conscious, or feel emotions? What are you basing your premises on? And what are emotions, and why do you say they have this quality that cannot be reproduced? You "feel" mad when someone insults you, but without the brain releasing neurotransmitters, adrenaline, and increasing the heart rate, you'd "feel" essentially nothing
I do not agree with this video. A brain experiences a state from within the perspective of that particular state, seeing yellow. This we call the 'Internal state'. The same brain attempts to understand that state from a separate perspective, which we call the 'external state'. I believe there is a clear and clearly *physical* distincition between these two states, which corresponds to the one state being necessarily unable to grasp the other. No need for an extra entity.
That clip does not even mention emotions. Plus it is an extremely naive talk for many reasons...
Emotions cannot be programmed, only simulated by programs. If you cannot see that conceptual difference (reproduction vs simulation), you are forever blind to the issue.
The assertion that consciousness cannot be physical is unsubstantiated. We do not fully know the internal workings of the brain, so we must reserve our judgement until after we understand it fully. I'm afraid to say that this entire video is begging the question.
Your brain is the interface your consciousness uses to experience this reality. It can be tuned in to other realities. Anything created must come into being in consciousness before it can be manifested reality.
@boogerfly100 Where I differ in my opinion I feel is @"so we (NEED) both internal and external struggle for power." We need not power and the struggle that follows but instead need Love and the peace that comes, both internal and external, By our thoughts will we ultimately be judged, but if our thinking is correct our actions will be as well.
Sigmund Freud Freud argued that our personality is shaped by three components the id, the ego and the superego maybe one day we will find the meaning and purpose of the unconsciousness. possibly throw Nietzsche's ubermacht the evolution of the mind
@boogerfly100 good insight, but if you replace Nietzsche with Kirkegaard and Freud with Jung, you would get a much better picture of the subjective nature of reality, I thought the video had much truth, but fell into fallacy concerning atheistic implications, the much vaunted will to power is what has infected mankind, it's why wars are fought, people are starved, and allowed to die, it is the cause of the bulk of our suffering.
Interesting I have not thought of it like that. Nietzsche’s will to power. Is one of an internal struggle. It is not one of physicality Like as a military force for example. I do think some times we are in conflict and we manifest these conflicts on the world. Not consciously realizing the effects we have on others and the world. I think I see what you are saying. The will to power can vary easily be mistaken as a military force. Pleas criticize me if I am mistaken.
Well I understand Nietzsche as meaning that both internal struggle and external military force are instantiations of the Will to Power - as everything is reducible to this teleological principle.
@Ontologistics I think I see. how can we be at peace when there is an internal and external struggle for power. This is self destructive. from the inside out. Than what of morels. Would you say it would be ok for an alien race for example to take over another race because they sow them as in fearer intellectually and militarily
@Ontologistics I agree w/ your take on Fred's thought but I feel that the will to power is the enemy of love, Cementing him as an anti-christ archetype, diametrically opposed to that of the Christ, his thoughts were used, against his will Ironically, to fuel hitler, just as the teachings of Yeshua Ironically have spawned many a madman over the last 2k yrs.
@boogerfly100 The will to power is at first internal, but you bring it into reality by your actions, therefore a man wishes to rule other men, or impose his will on others leads to conflict, on every level, from small social groups to entire nations. If dictators didn't "will to power" there would be no revolutions to overthrow them, the leaders of great empires will to power has cost how many millions of lives.
@419dman so we need both internal and external struggle for power. one cannot live without the other? the best way the i can discribe it as Yin and yang
@419dman Interesting I have not thought of it like that. Nietzsche’s will to power. Is one of an internal struggle. It is not one of physicality Like as a military force for example. I do think some times we are in conflict and we manifest these conflicts on the world. Not consciously realizing the effects we have on others and the world. I think I see what you are saying. The will to power can vary easily be mistaken as a military force. Pleas criticize me if I am mistaken.
I think that we need to travel in the other direction if we are going to find an answer. We should probably start by thinking of the brain as an epiphenomena of the mind. Mind is primary. Evidence for anything other than mind is nonexistent. When we look at a brain, that is qualia. When we look at our eyes in the mirror, that is qualia. If anything exists as a causal factor for qualia, we have no access to it, since we only have access to qualia - which is mind.
In any case, I feel that the scientific method, as productive and useful as it is, is out of its league when it comes to consiousness. Reductionism will never be able to explain how firing neurons are the color red. When we use words like "arises", as in "consiousness arises as a result of brain activity" we have no actual meaning or image that corresponds to the word "arises". In other words, we are talking nonsense.
This is actually quite good. And I don't say that often. I could do without the video and the echo chamber, but the ideas take you past what 99.999 percent of the population knows. The only place that you loose me is when you go to multiple primitive consciounesses. I don't see the need for more than one consciousness. And I'm not sure that Nietzsche's will to power relates to an ontology. I think it has more to do with man as a social entity.
Ockham's razor is a tool for method, not an intrinsic truth (some things are simply not reducible to others). To believe in the soul is to append that on to matter in an interactive way. This I reject. There is no 'third thing'. I here present an ontological monism with a epistemological dualism, not vice versa.
1a) An 'output' does not have to be non-physical, of course. But if one (wants to) consider Qualia as output, it is non-physical. Your analogy fails: it is from spatio-temporal (binary) to spatio-temporal (air waves) and thus a disanalogy (Qualia are not spatial as such - e.g. 'satisfaction').
1b) You could have seen a completed jelly bean. You could not 'see' a mental state. Again, silly disanalogy.
Listen to the video. I do in fact follow the process of perception further via the occipital lobe, etc. Moreover, I assert the correlation between 3rd-person and 1st-person states, and go further to show such correlation does not per se prove (necessary or sufficient) cause, as you blindly accept due to your materialist faith.
If my understanding of the term "transcendent" is correct then the the title is wrong. We know for a fact that the material brain's changes in biochemistry or simple mechanical changes do alter consciousness. Ever drunk alcohol ? That's one example you can have a first-person view of and that is reversible.
I realized just now that your videos are a form of art I've never personally experienced before. There are visual and aural components that complement intellectual discourse, and it all winds together. This video I occasionally just play in the background, almost like a song but not quite the same. It's very interesting.
As usual, an extremely informative and insightful video. However, I should wonder how, if at all, this notion relates to Hume's "bundle theory". Do you have any thoughts regarding this?
The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that "atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school." Perhaps you should take your limp wrist case to the Supreme Court?
@luckyroostr so atheism is a religion because...some bigwig with a law degree said so? there is no belief in a supernatural being. it doesn't tell you how to view the world or human destiny, nor does it lay out rules for how to live. and schools don't teach atheism because it is not a subject. Biology, physics, anthropology, history, astronomy are all subjects. Atheism has no text book.
to suggest that the mind is not physical implies that non physical things can interact with physical things and/or perhaps vice versa. So this is empirically testable. That is, if we observe changes in physical things that do not have another observable physical cause, then we could assume a non physical cause. of course, the scientific method doesn't allow that, so what you propose has big implications for science. I think most scientists view the conservativity of science a good thing.
@whimppy but if physical and non physical things can interact, then what is the medium for interaction? another mysterious force?
Would be hard pressed to explain how a particle influences non physical things, or explain how physical things can be changed by non physical things. Maybe there is a sort of conjunction of two worlds that overlap or something. But that sounds like aether or spirits to me.
@whimppy oh and if they don't interact, then we cannot explain comas or the effect of brain damage on the consciousness as someone else in the comments pointed out. this suggests that the physical can directly influence the non physical which seems odd. also we couldn't explain why consciousness doesn't seem to be able to emerge out of nothingness and survive in a world of physical things.
since we cannot externally observe our own consciousness we might not be able to figure this stuff out.
I explicitly do not endorse dualism (physical & non-physical existence), so you have misunderstood. I'm suggesting, via Schopenhauer, that the physical and mental are identical but that the identity is not reducible to one aspect - viz., the physical. I think you watched the video presupposing that it was going to say something it, in fact, did not.
Watch my Schopenhauer video for elucidation on this.
@Ontologistics i think my confusion is with the word "transcend".
I thought that by saying "Reality transcends the physical" that you meant to suggest the existence of non-physical things. but you mean transcend to have a different purpose here.
And in the info bar you say, "Consciousness cannot be explained by materialism because it cannot be material". i thought by "it cannot be material" you meant "it must be immaterial" (which i assumed was synonymous with non-physical)
I love these reverse arguments that believers put on nonbelievers, like theists saying it requires faith to be an atheist, or a materialist. Complete and utter nonsense.
Until claims are proven, rejection of those claims does not require an explanation based on anything except lack of the evidence.
"I love these reverse arguments that believers put on nonbelievers, like theists saying it requires faith to be an atheist, or a materialist. Complete and utter nonsense."
wow, the guy making the video is an atheist, and hes not a dualist either. Hes just rejecting materialism.
@luckyroostr atheism doesn't impose an ethic on anyone. it has no creed nor strange assumptions (things that religions have). it has no priest nor any organized structure. maybe you're just insecure in your own beliefs.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." --Christopher Hitchens
To people who do not quite "get" what this video is positing, let me try to break it down a bit:
The argument here is not that the brain is unimportant or even that it is not related to the mind or consciousness, but rather that "the mind" or "consciousness" itself is not limited to nor even a part of the brain. It does not give hypothesis on the connection between the two but rather it merely states that they are in some way connected/related.
I don't understand the use of the word "transcend" in the title of this video.
1a)"If there is no real world then there can be no 'apparent' one" Neitsche
1b)Showing how the mind is experienced differently from the outside doesn't prove there is no connection between the mind and the brain.
1c)Not true. Sight is an accumulation of something physical ...so you have proven absolutely nothing. Also, materialism doesn't say the mind doesn't exist. Merely that it doesn't transcend the brain.
@DaveDoggOwns 2)Just because science is insufficient in explaining something doesn't mean it must change. We could just say "We don't know anything yet".
Pointing out that the mind exists is not the same thing as saying the mind transcends the brain.
3)Well, wait till the evidence stacks up against you.
10:02,uh more mind fucking stuff. Listen, the factual theories made by science tend to have utilitarian value. I'm not going to disagree that concepts are man made, but they are useful.
I don't agree with this viedo in matter of "representation" as a way to prove that the external world is made up by the mind. Of course, I can only percieve from my perspective, but that doesn't mean that my perception is mere representation. But then again, mind does trascend the brain because, on a naturalistic perspective, the brain is only matter; the mind, on the other hand, isnt an object to be percieved. Human life is a psycho-physical phenomenon (essentially, it has a mixed ontology).
@wvoelcker good point. Reminds me of something Bertrand russell said, something like, "if physics is to be believed, we are observing the effect of a rock upon ourselves--not the rock."
and Schopenhauer basically says the objective is contained within the subjective, which means there is uncertainty when applying characteristics to things that are not part of the mind. characteristics like materiality.
so maybe its not strange for atheists to believe in non material substances.
@whimppy I agree absolutely. To observe something is merely to observe it from a subjective point of view. We cannot observe something that has no relation to us. As such, our observations are always a product of our own ability to understand something and give meaning to it. Different subjective minds can and often do give different meanings to things. That's the nature of a subjective mind.
it seems an atheist view would not rely on anything that is not material. That is a problem with religious people, they assume the existence of things outside of reality and perception (i.e. god, heaven, soul, angels, etc.)
So i would think of an atheist view as something that may not deny the existence of things outside of perception, but not affirm them either. that is, it wouldn't deny the existence of a non material thing, it would just view it as irrelevant and only focus of material stuff
Now I think I've digested our video, I'm afraid I have to disagree unless I misunderstood...
The main problem I have is your endgame: science must include consciousness as fundamental? You're flirting with intelligent design here dude...
The first part is excellent, I agree that mind transcends the brain, but I have trouble understanding how come you arrive to Nietzsche and the will to power... He was very clear here:
"All sciences are now under the obligation to prepare the ground for the future task of the philosopher, which is to solve the problem of value, to determine the true hierarchy of values. " - Nietzsche.
The task of the philosopher remains today separated from the scientist.
I get your point on the problem of consciousness in science but science is empiric by definition.
Overall, Nietzsche warns us - very clearly - not to overestimate the function of consciousness.
Well, he warns not to overestimate the function of consciousness vis-a-vis "free will" - something my video is not about. But the point about intrinsic will/consciousness made in the video is indeed a fundamental Nietzschean point, as revealed, for example, in Beyond Good & Evil, §36.
I consider science to be a branch of Philosophy, as it was understood before.
Scientifically speaking A is *a* cause of B if B => A. that is if B *implies* A, that is
if "not A" is true than "not B" is true. It is therefor testable that the brain causes consciousness: Damage the brain an observer the result for the consciouses. So it is a valid scientific position that consciouses is an emergent entity of the brain. Well calling that position materialism, as it is sometimes done, is akin to a misnomer ...
Scientifically speaking A is *a* cause of B if B => A. that is if B *impiles* A, that is
if "not A" is true than "not B" is true. It is therefor testable that the brain causes consciousness: Damage the brain an observer the result for the consciouses. So it is a valid scientific position that consciouses is an emergent entity of the brain. Well calling that position materialism, as it is sometimes done, is akin to a misnomer ...
1) Thanks for your thoughtful comments. But, firstly, your definition of causality is not a necessary truth as it suffers from the Problem of Induction: no number of observations could PROVE that if not A, not B. There is always the possibility that B could occur without A, logically speaking. See Hume's Problems of Causality and Induction, and the Fallacy of Generalising from the Particular.
@Ontologistics > [ ".. Problem of Induction: no number of observations could PROVE that if not A, not B." ]
So, science proceeds on the basis of falsifiability. Theories are refined or replaced, in the light of accumulating evidence and experiment.
Your thesis though, is unassailable. As an 'immaterial substance' outside the scope of science, your mind, is given supernatural status. Any evidence against, can be rationalised ad hoc, by asserting any number of unspecified "underlying things".
Well, I can not really proof anything in science. And even in Mathematics there are some severe issues with the concept of Proof, especially with regard to applied mathematics. My position is a variation of critical rationalism, so I don't have an objection to your objection, other than that I don't see empirical necessary as an important constraint on my somewhat sketchy definition. I know Hume's Problems very well. (continued)
I have given a formal definition of causality, and it is not possible to Proof that a given observation that shares a structure with the formal system, does this because it really has this structure. But still thats not a problem of my sketchy Definition of causality but it is a problem of our ability to know about the real couches. Thats is pretty much what critical rationalism is about. ... And I did not mean damage one brain once and observe
... hm, let the couches in my last post be causes ... ;-)
Further, yes there is, for fundamental reasons, no logical implication that the brain causes consciousness.
But it is a hypothesis that is consistent with observation.
Finally coming to ontology: I personally won't use materialism as name for my position. That would be award since I think of mathematical structures as existent. I usually use "entity" for everything that exists and "being" for material realizations of entities.
Finally: I would say that the brain, or better its structure, is a material realization (or instance of) a mind-entity.
So modifying the brain modifies the kind of mind-entity that is realized by the brain. That reduces "brain causes mind" to "brain represents mind in a causal way". You might as well, see that as a clarification of Supervenience in this case. By the way, mathematical category theory gives a nice conceptual framework for may things that could be labeled as Supervenience.
2) Secondly, no one doubts that brain damage is correlated to altered states of consciousness – but this does not logically imply that the brain causes consciousness. Both the brain and consciousness could be, for example, different representations of the same underlying thing; but as one representation is material (brain) it cannot be the underlying representer. This is Schopenhauer's view.Thus, correlated change (brain/mind) is because both are effects,not one as cause.
Is it really fair to say that Schopenhauer sees consciousness and matter as two aspects of the same thing? As you've stated in the video, he seems to think that matter is the mode by which we represent other consciousnesses (or individuated wills actually), thus there are only individuated wills; human ones use matter as the experience of other wills. While we have two different aspects here that correlate, it isn't the case that they both directly spring from -the- will...
...instead the individuations "spring" from the will, and then - if capable of doing so - represent the other individuations to themselves via their own abilities (represented to us as their nervous systems, sense-organs, etc.). So humans, we migth say, are individuated from the will, but matter is their mode of representation, thus it is only indirectly linked to the will, unlike humans, which are more directly linked.
3) Emergentism ('Property Dualism') - which you seem to hold - is not really (as you acknowledge) materialism. Because what is the ontological status of this emergent mind ('Supervenience')? It can't be matter, or an activity of matter due to irreducibility. Although digestion 'emerges' from the stomach, and is thus a process not matter per se, it is still a material process. Consciousness is not even reducible to a material process. In sum, matter cannot be ultimate.
A naturalistic position. You cannot prove the relation between a physic-psychic matter, such as consciousness in a living organism, with a perception, that is, a scientific approach, because on a constitutive level, you are using a matter-knowing way (perception) to know what is only shown through phenomenological introspection or empathic approach. Also, causality cannot be explained by logic. A therefore B is a correlation. If A is not true, B can be "caused" by another term, not exclusively A
Look, what is psychic matter - i don't know, therefore I can not prove anything about it.
I suppose that the realm of psychological entities *emerges* from the structure of physical Brain processes.
Mind for me is to matter, like Numbers are to physical collections. There is no true material 3 but there are a lot of material collections of three things. Call it Naturalistic if you want. Thats fine by my but does not matter.
How do you infer that I use perception? What is perception anyway? And why are the results of phenomenological introspection and empathy not perceptions? A phenomenon is, afaik, an observable occurrence, so you need anyway perceptions to be aware of it.
What do you mean by "explained by logic"? Any sound explanation should entail that it does not violate logical laws. Logic itself can only explain rules of reasoning not any other assumptions.
nice video, but I really don't see how your Argument's can successful attack an position of materialism that explains Consciousness as an emergent entity. The position of emergence states that the your arguments of Irreducibility are true. Your argument 2 is not a problem for this position too, since it would not see science as the type of science you speak about.
Your third argument is messy, causation can be tested. (to be continued)
Instead of considering the mind as immaterial, what happens if we regard it as an illusion?
Lets accept that our brains create simulations of our environment, via retinal and auditory sensations processed inside our heads, but experienced spatially projected outside our bodies, illusorily, perfectly overlaying reality. The sense of self, then, becomes the necessary datum, (zero point), projected inwards and locates ourselves relative to external objects.
Just to argue against the materialist conception of world and reason:
According to Nietzsche, reason is what distorts our perceptions of the world, because reason can falsify the evidence of our senses. The only ‘real’ world is the world which is apparent to our senses. To divide the world into a ‘real’ world and an ‘apparent’ world is an act of decadence, because it is to deny that what is apparent to our senses is real.
It's precisely the other way around. Red is, in fact a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. It's the world that made our brains and only brains that could successfully navigate their environments survived. We detect and differentiate colours because they actually do exist.
My computer parses red as R=255 G=0 B=0 my printer recognises C= 0 M= 100 Y=79, B= 0. Absurd to say, no printer or computer, means no red.
A printer or computer is obviously not conscious of red. A printer merely alters an electrical signal to a surge of ink – there is no consciousness involved. A computer alters a signal into coloured pixels, it is not conscious of red. This is why mind/brain analogies with machines fail.
Your swimming example posits that mind and brain are different expressions of the same thing. The mind and brain cannot be the same material thing, for reasons given in the video. Behaviourism died
@Ontologistics > [ "This is why mind/brain analogies with machines fail."]
How? What's missing? Complexity?
Human brains have been a long time coming, and there's a huge journey from simple single celled organisms, sensitive to simple stimuli through to our large vertebrate brains.
My computer is simple. But it understands what it sees through its camera lens, ccd and via its processor renders a faithful image on the monitor. There's no actual red inside my computers circuits either.
@Ontologistics > [ " The mind and brain cannot be the same material thing," ]
Your explanation is insufficient.
In what way are they not the same thing?
You seem to be treating the experience of being a brain, as a separate thing in itself, another object, albeit a 'non material' one. That was my point with the swimming example, swimming is the name we give to an activity, it's not a thing. Not everything we give names to, are actual things likewise the mind.
["Consciousness cannot be explained by materialism because it cannot be material " ]
How else would you explain it? Non-materially? If it's real but not material, what is it?
Perhaps consciousness, mind, thoughts or ideas are not actual things in themselves at all, they're process, brain activity. Can you say that swimming, transcends the act of propelling oneself through the medium of water? Minds are physically dependent on brains, it doesn't make any sense at all to say it's transcendent.
You make the assumption that qualia exist and are things unto themselves, which I believe is incorrect. As a computational neuroscientist, I believe qualia can be accounted for as belief states which can be represented purely by the information processing of neurons. You imagine that there is a "viewer" which is experiencing "red". I believe there is just a single state "experiencing-red" which is associated with other states and behaviours. In my case red does not need to be defined.
scathenc1 4 weeks ago
@scathenc1
What is the ontological status of the 'represented' of the 'belief state' you mention? In its conceptual and material analysis, neurons and their activity are not the same thing as mental states, but merely correlated therewith.
Moreover, I do not in fact believe in the division of 'viewer' and 'red' which you accuse me of. I think most computational neuroscientists assume an outdated materialist epistemology without question.
Ontologistics 4 weeks ago
@Ontologistics Merely correlated therewith? Is photoshop merely correlated with the activity of the cpu and ram?
scathenc1 4 weeks ago
@scathenc1
It's a common error to think there's an analogy between mind-brain and software-hardware. Software is unconscious, it is we who become conscious of software.
The deeper problem is relationship between unconscious matter and conscious mind.
Ontologistics 4 weeks ago
cont.. do we perceive secondary characteristics as it is (perceiving a red chair plus the influence of light) or it is absolutely colorless and it is up to our consciousness (or senses) to designate a characteristic (color, smell...etc). please enlighten me with these things =)
pawlo881012 1 month ago
I agree most with what you are saying but.."red cannot exist without the mind".. you support this proposition by stating that 2 persons may perceive the same stimulus(color) and identify 2 different colors. I find this puzzling since we must take into account that one maybe color blind--not normal. of course we must now grapple on the conception on what is normal.. and how do we know what is normal. the other things is we must tackle is about perception. do we perceive the..cont..
pawlo881012 1 month ago
@pissantegoist
Yes but Spinoza and those before him made the fatal mistake of assuming the intellect to be primal, rather than will.
SecularNumanist 5 months ago
I agree with this mathwiz person and wanted to argue basically the same. Both mind and matter can be conceived as code, pure information. Certainly both mind and matter can be computed, everything seems to be reducible to math. The big question here is why. Why can math describe reality with such exactitude?
kgfz 6 months ago
comment pending approval?
SecularNumanist 6 months ago
Phenomenological/ existential philosphy of mind: offically neutral, but actually idealist?
wisdominnature7 6 months ago
@wisdominnature7
One could say generally that Idealism posits a neutral substance.
(But Schopenhauer identifies the word substance with matter, and so discards the word.)
Ontologistics 6 months ago
@Ontologistics
I don’t know much about Schopenhauer; why, in identifying the word substance with matter, did he discard Berkley’s idealism (as something like the claim that substance is mental, and matter accidental)?
Also, saying that “idealism posits a neutral substance” is confusing for me; because it suggests neutral monism, which I understand as something quite distinct from idealism.
wisdominnature7 6 months ago
@wisdominnature7
Schopenhauer's form of Idealism is, in essence, neutral monism. There are many forms of Idealism, and numerous forms of neutral monism – so one shouldn't get too tied up with definitions. For example, D. Chalmer's F-Type (neutral) monism is compatible with Schopenhauer's philosophy.
Schopenhauer's refutation of Berkeley is a long one, but basically he follows Kant's dismissal. I have a video on Schopenhauer which you may find useful.
Ontologistics 6 months ago
Just read Daniel Dennet...
Teketzis 6 months ago 2
@Teketzis
I read his book, 'Consciousness Explained' years ago. Completely moronic as he denies that which he cannot explain.
Ontologistics 6 months ago
@Teketzis
He bases almost all of his works on the mind on AI research. He strawmans countless people. Stephen Pinker considers him a joke, a bumbling fool.
SecularNumanist 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist
While I am no fan of Dennet I couldn't find any negative comment by Pinker about him. Do you have any reference about it?
ThisOneIsTaken 3 weeks ago
@Teketzis daniel dennet is a materialist of course he deluded he will never understand consciousness
DyingWithDignity666 5 months ago
..., pitch, etc) are merely different qualitative ways in which we objectify this "computation". I'm obviously still working on this ontology, but the point is that I find Schopenhauer attempt to determine the nature of the world doesn't go far enough, because it doesn't take into account the mutual reducibility of mind and matter to computation; though, to be fair, Schopenhauer had no way of knowing that, living a century before information theory.
ianmathwiz7 6 months ago
@ianmathwiz7 It looks like two of my comments didn't make it to YouTube, so here they are:
""Wow. Just wow. You deserve...well, every prize ever conceived.
Although, I wouldn't argue that the Will is what's primal. I think that matter and mind, while mutually irreducible to the other, are both reducible to something else, namely computation, which I think is the best word for the true "substance"...
ianmathwiz7 6 months ago
It's already been demonstrated that every property of matter that we know of can be computed and reduced to information, even where calculus fails (as in Newtonian mechanics where you have three or more bodies). Now, it only remains to be demonstrated that the same is true for mental qualia, which I strongly suspect is the case.
ianmathwiz7 6 months ago
" While the mind is not a Turing machine, the brain can be seen as a rewiring neural network. Once you take this into account, the apparent irreducibility of mind to computation vanishes.
Put even more simply, the categories by which we gain third person knowledge (position, mass, etc) and those by which we gain first person knowledge (color..."
ianmathwiz7 6 months ago
...have three or more bodies). Now, it only remains to be demonstrated that the same is true for mental qualia, which I strongly suspect is the case. While the mind is not a Turing machine, the brain can be seen as a rewiring neural network. Once you take this into account, the apparent irreducibility of mind to computation vanishes.
Put even more simply, the categories by which we gain third person knowledge (position, mass, etc) and those by which we gain first person knowledge (color...
ianmathwiz7 6 months ago
Wow. Just wow. You deserve...well, every prize ever conceived.
Although, I wouldn't argue that the Will is what's primal. I think that matter and mind, while mutually irreducible to the other, are both reducible to something else, namely computation, which I think is the best word for the true "substance".
It's already been demonstrated that every property of matter that we know of can be computed and reduced to information, even where calculus fails (as in Newtonian mechanics where you ...
ianmathwiz7 6 months ago
Care to explain the picture of Baphomet at 0:49, why would you have that in your video? Do you know what it represents?
soLhunteR1 7 months ago
@soLhunteR1
Because at that moment I am talking about religious consequences, using the word 'ramifications' which I thought was apt for that religious symbol.
Ontologistics 7 months ago
The brain is a product of the Mind. The entire Universe is Mental. There really is no physics, only the illusion of.
lordofthemystic 7 months ago
I find it problematic to conclude that consciousness is separated from the brain, that the brain is not capable of creating a simulation that is perceived as consciousness without having full knowledge of the brains capabilities.
BBMorti 8 months ago
consciousness is your soul or spirit. it is the reason you can use your brain to your free will because this awareness is decoded through your brain by the attachment of the spirit to your body. the thing is ki also exists just like consciousness but cannot be proven. even i myself through meditation can feel the energy and guide it with my hair on body standing up wherever i move it. its amazing but we have to look beyond this holographic world which most likely is decoded from our spirits
MaxFlared 8 months ago
@MaxFlared
Lol dualists.
SecularNumanist 5 months ago
Ontologistics, regarding Victorian materialism, you're quite right! :-) Your video is brill!
EnglishGoethe 8 months ago
I remain unconvinced because of the assumptions used here. If hypothetically speaking the brain made consciousness a simulation, then to us in the first person it would SEEM as if consciousness were separate when it actually wasn't. I would say that because we can influence the mind and consciousness using external physical methods, and because no non-physical part of the brain has been identified, that the brain creates consciousness.
Dirge987 8 months ago
@Dirge987
Your 'hypothetically speaking' is just that, it is unproved and that is your assumption! Also, I do not posit a non-physical part of the brain (an oxymoron anyway!).
Ontologistics 8 months ago
@Ontologistics You say consciousness is not a physical part of the brain. That is your assumption. That is why I'm not convinced.
Dirge987 8 months ago
@Ontologistics Okay, to put it plainly, you start the video stating that no one has proven that continuousness is only in the brain. That' fine, I can jive with that. But then you say it cannot be proven. Hold on, don't you have anything to back that up? Nope. Well that's just an argument from ignorance. That assertion is not backed up by anything, and your evidence also supports a brain-based simulated consciousness. If your evidence also supports my hypothesis, then you need more evidence.
Dirge987 8 months ago
@Dirge987
Obviously the rest of the video is there precisely to back up that assertion (that it cannot be proved). The beginning of the video is an introduction: it sets out what I am to argue.
Ontologistics 8 months ago
@Ontologistics Indeed, and the rest of the video is based on the assumption that there is something nonphysical to the consciousness. The examples you provide could also support consciousness being only a simulation created by the brain, which is why I'm not convinced.
A simulated virtual world within a computer could be so complex that it's unfathomable to our minds, yet everything is contained within the simulation, requiring only physical hardware to run the software.
Dirge987 8 months ago
@Dirge987
If consciousness is a simulation, what is it a simulation of? Are you posing epiphenomenalism?
Again the hardware/software analogy to the brain/mind fails because software is not conscious, it does not have emotions. It is we humans that imbue a software program with qualia.
Ontologistics 8 months ago
@Ontologistics I'm proposing that the mind and brain are one in the same. That the synthesizing of sensory data, emotions, and cognitions together form what we call consciousness, and it's carried out by neural networks in the brain - one hundred million synapses creating a functioning version of reality that we call consciousness.
I add credence to this view because we can directly affect physical areas of the brain which then affects consciousness. So it's not just correlation.
Dirge987 8 months ago
@Dirge987
The video does not say they are not the same, only that their similarity is not physical. Affecting a radio then affects the station you're listening to - but this does not logically entail the radio creates the station - likewise with the brain and mind.
As my video states, correlation merely indicates a relation. The correlation does not itself prove any of the possible relations it indicates. Get out of your metanarrative.
Ontologistics 8 months ago
@Ontologistics "Affecting a radio then affects the station you're listening to - but this does not logically entail the radio creates the station - likewise with the brain and mind."
But your concept of mind is an assumption. What makes you think that the mind exists at all if the evidence you show for it also supports the alternative? The station/radio analogy doesn't hold up, nor does your species/DNA analogy in the video because those analogies have two physically demonstrable things.
Dirge987 8 months ago
@Ontologistics "The correlation does not itself prove any of the possible relations it indicates. Get out of your metanarrative."
No need to be rude, okay? Correlation itself doesn't prove causation, but with experimentation we can find direct causal relationships between administering neurotransmitters and psychoactive drugs and affects on a person's consciousness. The consciousness does not affect the drug, but the drug, physical, affects the consciousness.
Dirge987 8 months ago
@Dirge987
Are you so sure? I'm very interested in psychedelics and so know quite a bit here. Yes, Psilocin etc bind onto the 5Ht2a receptors which cause further (3rd-person) spatio-temporal activity. But even in its complexity, it is unknown how this causes the 1st-person experiences correlated therewith.
Can consciousness affect particles in the mind? Henry Stapp, the quantum physicist, argues that it can through the wave collapse of calcium ions passing through ion channels.
Ontologistics 8 months ago
@Ontologistics As for Henry Stapp, while I'm not familiar with his work, I'm still skeptical of it. The wave form collapse, as far as I know, has been observed in electrons so far. An atom of calcium wouldn't just collapse into a wave form, or out of one, because to my knowledge neutrons and protons can't just collapse into a wave form. At least that's as much as I know, but I could be wrong.
Dirge987 8 months ago
@Ontologistics So if drugs, brain damage, what have you, affects the consciousness then what part of this equation is not physical? Memories are physical parts of the brain because they can be evoked with electrical shock and removed by destruction. Emotions would not exist without physical changes to the body. Thoughts can be tweaked by manipulating neurotransmitters. So with all this evidence to support a consciousness based in the physical, what evidence do you have to show otherwise?
Dirge987 8 months ago
@Dirge987
@Dirge987
Did you not understand the radio analogy? Parts of the radio can be tweaked and manipulated to give correlated differences in what is heard in the station. I can destroy the speaker and no station is heard. None of this in any way is proof for the assertion that the radio itself produces the radio station.
Secondly, what you call physical is but a human representation of force.
Ontologistics 8 months ago
@Ontologistics I do understand the radio analogy, but if you think a radio transmission, something that can easily be identified, demonstrated, and is well understood is the same as the idea of a nonphysical consciousness that has not been identified, demonstrated, and is not well understood then the analogy falls apart. The analogy assumes that we have a nonphysical consciousness first and works backwards. That needs evidence, and I find current evidence lacking.
Dirge987 8 months ago
@Dirge987
I'm not proposing it, I'm simply stating the logic that proves correlation not entailing cause, in any way. Furthermore, 'evidence' means 3rd-person verification - precisely what 1st-person consciousness is not subject to!
You are wrong about collapse. It seems that biology and psychology have not caught up with physics, but are still using Victorian materialism.
Ontologistics 8 months ago
@Ontologistics Not sure what happened to my other comment. Anyways, if consciousness is not subject to evidence, then you have nothing to back up your assertions. Pretty much everything you propose here also supports the opposite hypothesis, meaning you need something which supports yours while simultaneously refutes the other. Without such, and without evidence, I'm not convinced.
And saying biology and psychology still use Victorian materialism dodges the evidence of cognitive neuroscience.
Dirge987 8 months ago
@Dirge987
Knowledge is not only gained by evidence, but also by logic. Mathematics is not proved by evidence, for example! My logic is that you cannot get 1st-person knowledge from 3rd-person knowledge ("evidence"), though they are correlated.
Cognitive neuroscience, with which I'm very engaged, is incomplete and is not completable in terms of sufficiently explaining consciousness - as my next video will prove.
Ontologistics 8 months ago
@Ontologistics You may say you've tried to logically explain the existence of an aspect of the mind that transcends the brain, but the logic resides on fundamental assumptions. I have to assume much less by saying consciousness is a simulation created by the brain, which is completely consistent with your examples, while you have far more to assume by saying there is something there greater than the sum of the parts in an existence that you cannot demonstrate.
I still remain skeptical.
Dirge987 8 months ago
@Dirge987
Well we'll both remain skeptical of each other due to foundational assumptions. But let's be clear: you do not assume less by positing a non-physical simulation that cannot be proved, as you acknowledge.
Ontologistics 8 months ago
@Ontologistics Only you say it cannot be proved. Only you have shut that door. I am confident that brain scanning technology will increase to the point that we can truly identify the major areas of the brain, and maybe one day every synapse and neural network. If I am wrong, I will certainly change my mind, but you here have already admitted that you have come to your unchangeable conclusion, and that it is impossible to prove otherwise. That is such closed-mindedness.
Dirge987 8 months ago
@Dirge987
"It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out" - Bertrand Russell
Once we have reached, as you write, the point where"we can truly identify the major areas of the brain, and maybe one day every synapse and neural network", the Hard Problem of Consciousness is still untouched. Total empirical evidence is insufficient to explain consciousness - the 1st-person cannot be reduced to the 3rd-person, though they are correlated.
Ontologistics 8 months ago
@Ontologistics Math is not proved by evidence? So I cannot prove that 1+1=2 by taking one apple, and another apple and looking at how many apples I got? Numbers are abstraction of reality, so they are dependent on how the world is. And I don't now about you, but I had to experience that there is a one-sided, one-boundary object which can exists in a three-dimensional realm and I still was amazed of the possibility of such an object, called Möbius strip.
wOoL87 6 months ago
@wOoL87
No, mathematical proofs are not per se proved by experience but by a priori reason. If they were proved by experience, they would not be necessarily true as they would be subject to the problem of induction.
I know that 1 + 1 = 2 prior to my experience of any apples, or any objects whatever.
Ontologistics 6 months ago
@Dirge987
Oh, and btw, there are far more than 'one hundred million synapses' in a normal brain. There are 100 billion neurons, each of which have an average of 10 000 neurites (roots), each of which terminates with a synapse.
Ontologistics 8 months ago
@Ontologistics yep you're right about the number of neurons, quick research is shoddy research.
Dirge987 8 months ago
@Ontologistics "Again the hardware/software analogy to the brain/mind fails because software is not conscious, it does not have emotions."
Who says software cannot be made conscious, or feel emotions? What are you basing your premises on? And what are emotions, and why do you say they have this quality that cannot be reproduced? You "feel" mad when someone insults you, but without the brain releasing neurotransmitters, adrenaline, and increasing the heart rate, you'd "feel" essentially nothing
Dirge987 8 months ago
I do not agree with this video. A brain experiences a state from within the perspective of that particular state, seeing yellow. This we call the 'Internal state'. The same brain attempts to understand that state from a separate perspective, which we call the 'external state'. I believe there is a clear and clearly *physical* distincition between these two states, which corresponds to the one state being necessarily unable to grasp the other. No need for an extra entity.
SkepticsClaw 9 months ago
@SkepticsClaw
No extra entity is posited by me. Re-watch the video.
Ontologistics 8 months ago
mind=software. that is all. mind is useless without brain, just as software is useless without computer.
dLimboStick 9 months ago
@dLimboStick
Software does not have subjectivity (e.g. emotions), so mind is not like software.
Ontologistics 9 months ago
@Ontologistics: Sure it does. Granted, human emotions are extremely complex, but emotions can be programmed.
See this clip...
/watch?v=LS3wMC2BpxU
dLimboStick 9 months ago
@dLimboStick
That clip does not even mention emotions. Plus it is an extremely naive talk for many reasons...
Emotions cannot be programmed, only simulated by programs. If you cannot see that conceptual difference (reproduction vs simulation), you are forever blind to the issue.
Ontologistics 9 months ago
@dLimboStick your forgetting about cloud computing.
419dman 9 months ago
The assertion that consciousness cannot be physical is unsubstantiated. We do not fully know the internal workings of the brain, so we must reserve our judgement until after we understand it fully. I'm afraid to say that this entire video is begging the question.
anonymouse27 9 months ago
Your brain is the interface your consciousness uses to experience this reality. It can be tuned in to other realities. Anything created must come into being in consciousness before it can be manifested reality.
419dman 9 months ago
@419dman That is vary similar to what I was trying to say by Yin and yang
boogerfly100 9 months ago
@boogerfly100 Where I differ in my opinion I feel is @"so we (NEED) both internal and external struggle for power." We need not power and the struggle that follows but instead need Love and the peace that comes, both internal and external, By our thoughts will we ultimately be judged, but if our thinking is correct our actions will be as well.
419dman 9 months ago
Sigmund Freud Freud argued that our personality is shaped by three components the id, the ego and the superego maybe one day we will find the meaning and purpose of the unconsciousness. possibly throw Nietzsche's ubermacht the evolution of the mind
boogerfly100 9 months ago
@boogerfly100 good insight, but if you replace Nietzsche with Kirkegaard and Freud with Jung, you would get a much better picture of the subjective nature of reality, I thought the video had much truth, but fell into fallacy concerning atheistic implications, the much vaunted will to power is what has infected mankind, it's why wars are fought, people are starved, and allowed to die, it is the cause of the bulk of our suffering.
419dman 9 months ago
Interesting I have not thought of it like that. Nietzsche’s will to power. Is one of an internal struggle. It is not one of physicality Like as a military force for example. I do think some times we are in conflict and we manifest these conflicts on the world. Not consciously realizing the effects we have on others and the world. I think I see what you are saying. The will to power can vary easily be mistaken as a military force. Pleas criticize me if I am mistaken.
boogerfly100 9 months ago
@boogerfly100
Well I understand Nietzsche as meaning that both internal struggle and external military force are instantiations of the Will to Power - as everything is reducible to this teleological principle.
Ontologistics 9 months ago
@Ontologistics I think I see. how can we be at peace when there is an internal and external struggle for power. This is self destructive. from the inside out. Than what of morels. Would you say it would be ok for an alien race for example to take over another race because they sow them as in fearer intellectually and militarily
because they wanted power.
boogerfly100 9 months ago
@boogerfly100
I refer you to my video on neo-nihilism!
Ontologistics 9 months ago
@Ontologistics I agree w/ your take on Fred's thought but I feel that the will to power is the enemy of love, Cementing him as an anti-christ archetype, diametrically opposed to that of the Christ, his thoughts were used, against his will Ironically, to fuel hitler, just as the teachings of Yeshua Ironically have spawned many a madman over the last 2k yrs.
419dman 9 months ago
@boogerfly100 The will to power is at first internal, but you bring it into reality by your actions, therefore a man wishes to rule other men, or impose his will on others leads to conflict, on every level, from small social groups to entire nations. If dictators didn't "will to power" there would be no revolutions to overthrow them, the leaders of great empires will to power has cost how many millions of lives.
419dman 9 months ago
@419dman so we need both internal and external struggle for power. one cannot live without the other? the best way the i can discribe it as Yin and yang
boogerfly100 9 months ago
@419dman Interesting I have not thought of it like that. Nietzsche’s will to power. Is one of an internal struggle. It is not one of physicality Like as a military force for example. I do think some times we are in conflict and we manifest these conflicts on the world. Not consciously realizing the effects we have on others and the world. I think I see what you are saying. The will to power can vary easily be mistaken as a military force. Pleas criticize me if I am mistaken.
boogerfly100 9 months ago
I think that we need to travel in the other direction if we are going to find an answer. We should probably start by thinking of the brain as an epiphenomena of the mind. Mind is primary. Evidence for anything other than mind is nonexistent. When we look at a brain, that is qualia. When we look at our eyes in the mirror, that is qualia. If anything exists as a causal factor for qualia, we have no access to it, since we only have access to qualia - which is mind.
vsaluki 10 months ago
Comment removed
meanlittledog 10 months ago
In any case, I feel that the scientific method, as productive and useful as it is, is out of its league when it comes to consiousness. Reductionism will never be able to explain how firing neurons are the color red. When we use words like "arises", as in "consiousness arises as a result of brain activity" we have no actual meaning or image that corresponds to the word "arises". In other words, we are talking nonsense.
vsaluki 10 months ago
This is actually quite good. And I don't say that often. I could do without the video and the echo chamber, but the ideas take you past what 99.999 percent of the population knows. The only place that you loose me is when you go to multiple primitive consciounesses. I don't see the need for more than one consciousness. And I'm not sure that Nietzsche's will to power relates to an ontology. I think it has more to do with man as a social entity.
vsaluki 10 months ago
I think this is one of those videos you have to watch several times to fully get.
Now I think ive finally got it, and agree!
SecularNumanist 10 months ago
Comment removed
meanlittledog 10 months ago
Comment removed
meanlittledog 10 months ago
Comment removed
meanlittledog 10 months ago
Comment removed
meanlittledog 10 months ago
@meanlittledog
Ockham's razor is a tool for method, not an intrinsic truth (some things are simply not reducible to others). To believe in the soul is to append that on to matter in an interactive way. This I reject. There is no 'third thing'. I here present an ontological monism with a epistemological dualism, not vice versa.
Ontologistics 10 months ago
@meanlittledog
A presupposition is not an explanation. Science cannot explain consciousness - simply ask any scientist.
Ontologistics 10 months ago
Comment removed
meanlittledog 10 months ago
@meanlittledog
1a) An 'output' does not have to be non-physical, of course. But if one (wants to) consider Qualia as output, it is non-physical. Your analogy fails: it is from spatio-temporal (binary) to spatio-temporal (air waves) and thus a disanalogy (Qualia are not spatial as such - e.g. 'satisfaction').
1b) You could have seen a completed jelly bean. You could not 'see' a mental state. Again, silly disanalogy.
Ontologistics 10 months ago
Comment removed
meanlittledog 10 months ago
Comment removed
meanlittledog 10 months ago
Comment removed
ghostbuddy 11 months ago
@ghostbuddy
Listen to the video. I do in fact follow the process of perception further via the occipital lobe, etc. Moreover, I assert the correlation between 3rd-person and 1st-person states, and go further to show such correlation does not per se prove (necessary or sufficient) cause, as you blindly accept due to your materialist faith.
Ontologistics 11 months ago
How do you think consciousness came about then? Did matter just re-arrange itself in a certain way and consciousness just sort of sprung out of this?
Brewmaster757 11 months ago
@Brewmaster757 my god...
SecularNumanist 9 months ago
@SecularNumanist Disregard that comment, I completely misunderstood the video at the time haha
Brewmaster757 9 months ago
soldatheero 1 year ago
If my understanding of the term "transcendent" is correct then the the title is wrong. We know for a fact that the material brain's changes in biochemistry or simple mechanical changes do alter consciousness. Ever drunk alcohol ? That's one example you can have a first-person view of and that is reversible.
wwwggxcom 1 year ago
I realized just now that your videos are a form of art I've never personally experienced before. There are visual and aural components that complement intellectual discourse, and it all winds together. This video I occasionally just play in the background, almost like a song but not quite the same. It's very interesting.
SpriterShard 1 year ago
As usual, an extremely informative and insightful video. However, I should wonder how, if at all, this notion relates to Hume's "bundle theory". Do you have any thoughts regarding this?
MetusInfinitas 1 year ago 3
The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that "atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school." Perhaps you should take your limp wrist case to the Supreme Court?
luckyroostr 1 year ago
@luckyroostr so atheism is a religion because...some bigwig with a law degree said so? there is no belief in a supernatural being. it doesn't tell you how to view the world or human destiny, nor does it lay out rules for how to live. and schools don't teach atheism because it is not a subject. Biology, physics, anthropology, history, astronomy are all subjects. Atheism has no text book.
whimppy 1 year ago
to suggest that the mind is not physical implies that non physical things can interact with physical things and/or perhaps vice versa. So this is empirically testable. That is, if we observe changes in physical things that do not have another observable physical cause, then we could assume a non physical cause. of course, the scientific method doesn't allow that, so what you propose has big implications for science. I think most scientists view the conservativity of science a good thing.
whimppy 1 year ago
@whimppy but if physical and non physical things can interact, then what is the medium for interaction? another mysterious force?
Would be hard pressed to explain how a particle influences non physical things, or explain how physical things can be changed by non physical things. Maybe there is a sort of conjunction of two worlds that overlap or something. But that sounds like aether or spirits to me.
whimppy 1 year ago
@whimppy oh and if they don't interact, then we cannot explain comas or the effect of brain damage on the consciousness as someone else in the comments pointed out. this suggests that the physical can directly influence the non physical which seems odd. also we couldn't explain why consciousness doesn't seem to be able to emerge out of nothingness and survive in a world of physical things.
since we cannot externally observe our own consciousness we might not be able to figure this stuff out.
whimppy 1 year ago
@whimppy
I explicitly do not endorse dualism (physical & non-physical existence), so you have misunderstood. I'm suggesting, via Schopenhauer, that the physical and mental are identical but that the identity is not reducible to one aspect - viz., the physical. I think you watched the video presupposing that it was going to say something it, in fact, did not.
Watch my Schopenhauer video for elucidation on this.
Ontologistics 1 year ago
@Ontologistics i think my confusion is with the word "transcend".
I thought that by saying "Reality transcends the physical" that you meant to suggest the existence of non-physical things. but you mean transcend to have a different purpose here.
And in the info bar you say, "Consciousness cannot be explained by materialism because it cannot be material". i thought by "it cannot be material" you meant "it must be immaterial" (which i assumed was synonymous with non-physical)
i'm confused i guess
whimppy 1 year ago
I love these reverse arguments that believers put on nonbelievers, like theists saying it requires faith to be an atheist, or a materialist. Complete and utter nonsense.
Until claims are proven, rejection of those claims does not require an explanation based on anything except lack of the evidence.
msteele79 1 year ago
@msteele79
"I love these reverse arguments that believers put on nonbelievers, like theists saying it requires faith to be an atheist, or a materialist. Complete and utter nonsense."
wow, the guy making the video is an atheist, and hes not a dualist either. Hes just rejecting materialism.
Did you even watch the first half?
SecularNumanist 10 months ago
The only darkness in the brain is your own. Atheism is a religion and you're it's high priest.
luckyroostr 1 year ago
@luckyroostr
Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.
msteele79 1 year ago
@luckyroostr atheism doesn't impose an ethic on anyone. it has no creed nor strange assumptions (things that religions have). it has no priest nor any organized structure. maybe you're just insecure in your own beliefs.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." --Christopher Hitchens
whimppy 1 year ago
Excellent video. Thank you.
Grayto 1 year ago
You clearly point out that youre not a dualist yet loads of people in the comment section seem to think you are one...
SecularNumanist 1 year ago
To people who do not quite "get" what this video is positing, let me try to break it down a bit:
The argument here is not that the brain is unimportant or even that it is not related to the mind or consciousness, but rather that "the mind" or "consciousness" itself is not limited to nor even a part of the brain. It does not give hypothesis on the connection between the two but rather it merely states that they are in some way connected/related.
And I have to say, the video convinced me.
dty06 1 year ago 21
I don't understand the use of the word "transcend" in the title of this video.
1a)"If there is no real world then there can be no 'apparent' one" Neitsche
1b)Showing how the mind is experienced differently from the outside doesn't prove there is no connection between the mind and the brain.
1c)Not true. Sight is an accumulation of something physical ...so you have proven absolutely nothing. Also, materialism doesn't say the mind doesn't exist. Merely that it doesn't transcend the brain.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DaveDoggOwns 2)Just because science is insufficient in explaining something doesn't mean it must change. We could just say "We don't know anything yet".
Pointing out that the mind exists is not the same thing as saying the mind transcends the brain.
3)Well, wait till the evidence stacks up against you.
10:02,uh more mind fucking stuff. Listen, the factual theories made by science tend to have utilitarian value. I'm not going to disagree that concepts are man made, but they are useful.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DaveDoggOwns
Thanks for your attempt, but:
1a) Read Nietzsche's Beyond Good & Evil §36. And study Schopenhauer to understand Nietzsche.
1b) I specifically do not deny the connection.
1c) It is true, you do not understand the arguments posited.
2) Science continually changes to explain things.
3) That's not an argument.
Ontologistics 1 year ago
I don't agree with this viedo in matter of "representation" as a way to prove that the external world is made up by the mind. Of course, I can only percieve from my perspective, but that doesn't mean that my perception is mere representation. But then again, mind does trascend the brain because, on a naturalistic perspective, the brain is only matter; the mind, on the other hand, isnt an object to be percieved. Human life is a psycho-physical phenomenon (essentially, it has a mixed ontology).
LosersBar 1 year ago
He lost me. My viewpoint has always been the simplicity that the mind is the nexus between the spirit and the body, via the switchboard of the brain.
nameofthepen 1 year ago
@whimppy - like Descartes, you might instead argue that The Mind is even more clearly observable than the material world.
wvoelcker 1 year ago
@wvoelcker good point. Reminds me of something Bertrand russell said, something like, "if physics is to be believed, we are observing the effect of a rock upon ourselves--not the rock."
and Schopenhauer basically says the objective is contained within the subjective, which means there is uncertainty when applying characteristics to things that are not part of the mind. characteristics like materiality.
so maybe its not strange for atheists to believe in non material substances.
whimppy 1 year ago
@whimppy I agree absolutely. To observe something is merely to observe it from a subjective point of view. We cannot observe something that has no relation to us. As such, our observations are always a product of our own ability to understand something and give meaning to it. Different subjective minds can and often do give different meanings to things. That's the nature of a subjective mind.
dty06 1 year ago
it seems an atheist view would not rely on anything that is not material. That is a problem with religious people, they assume the existence of things outside of reality and perception (i.e. god, heaven, soul, angels, etc.)
So i would think of an atheist view as something that may not deny the existence of things outside of perception, but not affirm them either. that is, it wouldn't deny the existence of a non material thing, it would just view it as irrelevant and only focus of material stuff
whimppy 1 year ago
Now I think I've digested our video, I'm afraid I have to disagree unless I misunderstood...
The main problem I have is your endgame: science must include consciousness as fundamental? You're flirting with intelligent design here dude...
The first part is excellent, I agree that mind transcends the brain, but I have trouble understanding how come you arrive to Nietzsche and the will to power... He was very clear here:
(...cont.)
Knr911 1 year ago
@Knr911 (...cont.)
"All sciences are now under the obligation to prepare the ground for the future task of the philosopher, which is to solve the problem of value, to determine the true hierarchy of values. " - Nietzsche.
The task of the philosopher remains today separated from the scientist.
I get your point on the problem of consciousness in science but science is empiric by definition.
Overall, Nietzsche warns us - very clearly - not to overestimate the function of consciousness.
Knr911 1 year ago
@Knr911
Well, he warns not to overestimate the function of consciousness vis-a-vis "free will" - something my video is not about. But the point about intrinsic will/consciousness made in the video is indeed a fundamental Nietzschean point, as revealed, for example, in Beyond Good & Evil, §36.
I consider science to be a branch of Philosophy, as it was understood before.
Ontologistics 1 year ago
Subconscious
yanik77 1 year ago
Regarding your third argument and causation:
Scientifically speaking A is *a* cause of B if B => A. that is if B *implies* A, that is
if "not A" is true than "not B" is true. It is therefor testable that the brain causes consciousness: Damage the brain an observer the result for the consciouses. So it is a valid scientific position that consciouses is an emergent entity of the brain. Well calling that position materialism, as it is sometimes done, is akin to a misnomer ...
AppliedMathematician 1 year ago
Regarding your third argument and causation:
Scientifically speaking A is *a* cause of B if B => A. that is if B *impiles* A, that is
if "not A" is true than "not B" is true. It is therefor testable that the brain causes consciousness: Damage the brain an observer the result for the consciouses. So it is a valid scientific position that consciouses is an emergent entity of the brain. Well calling that position materialism, as it is sometimes done, is akin to a misnomer ...
AppliedMathematician 1 year ago
@AppliedMathematician
1) Thanks for your thoughtful comments. But, firstly, your definition of causality is not a necessary truth as it suffers from the Problem of Induction: no number of observations could PROVE that if not A, not B. There is always the possibility that B could occur without A, logically speaking. See Hume's Problems of Causality and Induction, and the Fallacy of Generalising from the Particular.
[continued...]
Ontologistics 1 year ago
@Ontologistics > [ ".. Problem of Induction: no number of observations could PROVE that if not A, not B." ]
So, science proceeds on the basis of falsifiability. Theories are refined or replaced, in the light of accumulating evidence and experiment.
Your thesis though, is unassailable. As an 'immaterial substance' outside the scope of science, your mind, is given supernatural status. Any evidence against, can be rationalised ad hoc, by asserting any number of unspecified "underlying things".
6Untitled9 1 year ago
@Ontologistics
Well, I can not really proof anything in science. And even in Mathematics there are some severe issues with the concept of Proof, especially with regard to applied mathematics. My position is a variation of critical rationalism, so I don't have an objection to your objection, other than that I don't see empirical necessary as an important constraint on my somewhat sketchy definition. I know Hume's Problems very well. (continued)
AppliedMathematician 1 year ago
I have given a formal definition of causality, and it is not possible to Proof that a given observation that shares a structure with the formal system, does this because it really has this structure. But still thats not a problem of my sketchy Definition of causality but it is a problem of our ability to know about the real couches. Thats is pretty much what critical rationalism is about. ... And I did not mean damage one brain once and observe
AppliedMathematician 1 year ago
... hm, let the couches in my last post be causes ... ;-)
Further, yes there is, for fundamental reasons, no logical implication that the brain causes consciousness.
But it is a hypothesis that is consistent with observation.
Finally coming to ontology: I personally won't use materialism as name for my position. That would be award since I think of mathematical structures as existent. I usually use "entity" for everything that exists and "being" for material realizations of entities.
AppliedMathematician 1 year ago
Finally: I would say that the brain, or better its structure, is a material realization (or instance of) a mind-entity.
So modifying the brain modifies the kind of mind-entity that is realized by the brain. That reduces "brain causes mind" to "brain represents mind in a causal way". You might as well, see that as a clarification of Supervenience in this case. By the way, mathematical category theory gives a nice conceptual framework for may things that could be labeled as Supervenience.
AppliedMathematician 1 year ago
@AppliedMathematician
2) Secondly, no one doubts that brain damage is correlated to altered states of consciousness – but this does not logically imply that the brain causes consciousness. Both the brain and consciousness could be, for example, different representations of the same underlying thing; but as one representation is material (brain) it cannot be the underlying representer. This is Schopenhauer's view.Thus, correlated change (brain/mind) is because both are effects,not one as cause.
Ontologistics 1 year ago
@Ontologistics instead of secondly just say second or you sound like a moron. Also this video is a fairy story.
Citigroup100 1 year ago
@Ontologistics
Is it really fair to say that Schopenhauer sees consciousness and matter as two aspects of the same thing? As you've stated in the video, he seems to think that matter is the mode by which we represent other consciousnesses (or individuated wills actually), thus there are only individuated wills; human ones use matter as the experience of other wills. While we have two different aspects here that correlate, it isn't the case that they both directly spring from -the- will...
SonofTzeentch 1 year ago
@Ontologistics
...instead the individuations "spring" from the will, and then - if capable of doing so - represent the other individuations to themselves via their own abilities (represented to us as their nervous systems, sense-organs, etc.). So humans, we migth say, are individuated from the will, but matter is their mode of representation, thus it is only indirectly linked to the will, unlike humans, which are more directly linked.
Or am I misunderstanding you?
SonofTzeentch 1 year ago
@AppliedMathematician
3) Emergentism ('Property Dualism') - which you seem to hold - is not really (as you acknowledge) materialism. Because what is the ontological status of this emergent mind ('Supervenience')? It can't be matter, or an activity of matter due to irreducibility. Although digestion 'emerges' from the stomach, and is thus a process not matter per se, it is still a material process. Consciousness is not even reducible to a material process. In sum, matter cannot be ultimate.
Ontologistics 1 year ago
@Ontologistics IT IS PHYSICAL DATA.
Citigroup100 1 year ago
@Ontologistics thats what it is you can say anything seems weird or whatever but it is what it is.
Citigroup100 1 year ago
A naturalistic position. You cannot prove the relation between a physic-psychic matter, such as consciousness in a living organism, with a perception, that is, a scientific approach, because on a constitutive level, you are using a matter-knowing way (perception) to know what is only shown through phenomenological introspection or empathic approach. Also, causality cannot be explained by logic. A therefore B is a correlation. If A is not true, B can be "caused" by another term, not exclusively A
LosersBar 1 year ago
@LosersBar
Look, what is psychic matter - i don't know, therefore I can not prove anything about it.
I suppose that the realm of psychological entities *emerges* from the structure of physical Brain processes.
Mind for me is to matter, like Numbers are to physical collections. There is no true material 3 but there are a lot of material collections of three things. Call it Naturalistic if you want. Thats fine by my but does not matter.
AppliedMathematician 1 year ago
@LosersBar
How do you infer that I use perception? What is perception anyway? And why are the results of phenomenological introspection and empathy not perceptions? A phenomenon is, afaik, an observable occurrence, so you need anyway perceptions to be aware of it.
What do you mean by "explained by logic"? Any sound explanation should entail that it does not violate logical laws. Logic itself can only explain rules of reasoning not any other assumptions.
AppliedMathematician 1 year ago
Well,
nice video, but I really don't see how your Argument's can successful attack an position of materialism that explains Consciousness as an emergent entity. The position of emergence states that the your arguments of Irreducibility are true. Your argument 2 is not a problem for this position too, since it would not see science as the type of science you speak about.
Your third argument is messy, causation can be tested. (to be continued)
AppliedMathematician 1 year ago
Provocative philosophy brought by a video that is both disturbing and soothing. Congrats!
M4ruta 1 year ago
Instead of considering the mind as immaterial, what happens if we regard it as an illusion?
Lets accept that our brains create simulations of our environment, via retinal and auditory sensations processed inside our heads, but experienced spatially projected outside our bodies, illusorily, perfectly overlaying reality. The sense of self, then, becomes the necessary datum, (zero point), projected inwards and locates ourselves relative to external objects.
6Untitled9 1 year ago
Just to argue against the materialist conception of world and reason:
According to Nietzsche, reason is what distorts our perceptions of the world, because reason can falsify the evidence of our senses. The only ‘real’ world is the world which is apparent to our senses. To divide the world into a ‘real’ world and an ‘apparent’ world is an act of decadence, because it is to deny that what is apparent to our senses is real.
- From Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols
IndividualNihilist 1 year ago
extremely thought provoking
good video
curiositygun93 1 year ago 3
Wasn't Schopenhauer influenced by Zen and Tao philosophers?
Gettinghitonattheban 1 year ago
02 :02 [ "without our mind their is no red" ]
It's precisely the other way around. Red is, in fact a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. It's the world that made our brains and only brains that could successfully navigate their environments survived. We detect and differentiate colours because they actually do exist.
My computer parses red as R=255 G=0 B=0 my printer recognises C= 0 M= 100 Y=79, B= 0. Absurd to say, no printer or computer, means no red.
6Untitled9 1 year ago
@6Untitled9
A printer or computer is obviously not conscious of red. A printer merely alters an electrical signal to a surge of ink – there is no consciousness involved. A computer alters a signal into coloured pixels, it is not conscious of red. This is why mind/brain analogies with machines fail.
Your swimming example posits that mind and brain are different expressions of the same thing. The mind and brain cannot be the same material thing, for reasons given in the video. Behaviourism died
Ontologistics 1 year ago
@Ontologistics > [ "This is why mind/brain analogies with machines fail."]
How? What's missing? Complexity?
Human brains have been a long time coming, and there's a huge journey from simple single celled organisms, sensitive to simple stimuli through to our large vertebrate brains.
My computer is simple. But it understands what it sees through its camera lens, ccd and via its processor renders a faithful image on the monitor. There's no actual red inside my computers circuits either.
6Untitled9 1 year ago
@Ontologistics > [ " The mind and brain cannot be the same material thing," ]
Your explanation is insufficient.
In what way are they not the same thing?
You seem to be treating the experience of being a brain, as a separate thing in itself, another object, albeit a 'non material' one. That was my point with the swimming example, swimming is the name we give to an activity, it's not a thing. Not everything we give names to, are actual things likewise the mind.
6Untitled9 1 year ago
["Consciousness cannot be explained by materialism because it cannot be material " ]
How else would you explain it? Non-materially? If it's real but not material, what is it?
Perhaps consciousness, mind, thoughts or ideas are not actual things in themselves at all, they're process, brain activity. Can you say that swimming, transcends the act of propelling oneself through the medium of water? Minds are physically dependent on brains, it doesn't make any sense at all to say it's transcendent.
6Untitled9 1 year ago
@AxiomaticInfinity
Not at the moment I'm afraid.
Ontologistics 1 year ago