god = the universe

[Raithere]

Spookz: Looks like an interesting article; I'll try and set some time aside soon to read it.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
According to this guy, god doesn't only equal the universe, god is the equation that explains how we got here and how the universe was formed. Interesting stuff.

I have to say this one looks like a flake. His proposed theory of gravity consists of friction caused by the motion of a liquid core. Apparently he does not realize that some solar objects, such as the moon, have no liquid core nor that gravity is measurable on a smaller scale between objects that have no liquid core. The 'prophesy' he quotes is so open to interpretation as to mean nothing. The Bible codes are made of the usual crap and he's advertising 'immortality rings'. Have him check back with me in 50 years and we'll see if he has aged or not... The guy's a hack.

Cris: You might be interested in "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter if you haven't read it already. It's a bitch of a read; heavy into symbolic logic and math (it wouldn't hurt to be conversant in Gödel numbering). I'm only about three-quarters of the way through, having to take a considerable time to study and digest in between readings, but very interesting none-the-less.

Here's a nice review: http://www.forum2.org/tal/books/geb.html

Originally posted by Canute
The current scientific hypotheses of how our universe originated are expressed in the terms that we originally developed in the natural sciences as they related to our everyday world and our prevailing assumptions about it.

I cannot agree with you here. When I look at the history of science it seems to me as if it has a very good record of taking any and all assumptions to task.

Although many geniuses have ensured that such explanations can be extended all the way back to a few moments after the universe came into existence they do break down at this point (and some would say before this).

They don't break down, how they work changes. The primary forces combine the closer we get to the conditions during those first moments. Thus far they have shown that the strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces were on in these first nanoseconds. The hypothesis is that gravity will combine as well.

You may be right that this will change, and it seems fair to say that as far as the the universe is physical science can be expected to eventually explain it. However my prediction is that if science is going to explain existence it will soon have to face up to the fact that it does not make sense to say that the opposite of 'physical' is nothing at all. As you say there are signs that this is happening.

Try "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Hawking.

Many would agree but I don't. Although it might be true of mind I can't see how it can logically be true of consciousness, of experience itself.

Why not? What are your objections?

However they don't have much impact on the way science is practiced, taught, or perceived, or on the nature of its explanations.

Some of them are having a tremendous effect in science and to a lesser degree upon society. But I do take to task our teachers and our education system for the appallingly bad job they are doing (generally speaking) regarding science. I also blame the popular media for getting it wrong or misrepresenting it so badly almost all of the time. All one needs to do is wait for the next vocal creationist to visit here to receive an unbelievable image of how badly people misunderstand science in general, much less it's findings and theories.

However science should be free and able to investigate everything. To say that logic is somehow different to science (eg metaphysics) is a cop out. All forms of thought use both induction and deduction as a basis. They have to be used together as appropriate. It is a shame we ever decided that philosophy was a different discipline to science.

Like all fields of study, they blend into one another at some point (art and ethics, biology - chemistry - physics, etc.) But I agree with Adler, "Philosophy is everybody's business". At some point science must hold itself apart from metaphysics, after all such things as entanglement and superposition are impossible to arrive at if one holds a purely classical framework as an axiom. But I do agree that they should have an understanding of the issues at hand; particularly epistemology.

I suppose it all depends on ones definition of God. I agree that the traditional Christian God does not help much, except inasmuch as it assumes consciousness predates matter, which is an interesting idea whether or not you believe in any particular defintion of God.

The only areas that I find the concept of God useful in are psychology and sociology as I find such expression of what God is to purely be reflections of the individual and the society. Other than that it seems to me to be a dead end answer; unless, of course, God wants to stop by an answer some questions personally.

This is the most (perhaps only) consistently sensible forum I've ever stumbled on.

We have our moments here when you will doubt that, but overall, I agree.

~Raithere

 

[Cris]

Rait,

Cris: You might be interested in "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter if you haven't read it already. It's a bitch of a read; heavy into symbolic logic and math (it wouldn't hurt to be conversant in Gödel numbering). I'm only about three-quarters of the way through, having to take a considerable time to study and digest in between readings, but very interesting none-the-less.

I own it as well as Godel's Proof. Reading them is another matter. Understanding them is something else. However, for GED, I agree it contains some very interesting topics. I'm afraid I've been scanning and then skipping over the heavy parts though, but hey, the pictures are good.

But I appreciate the suggestion, and realize I should really make a greater effort to read it properly. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Cris
Canute,For example: murdering someone who is limiting my pleasure or causing me pain could be seen as a way to eliminate the problem, however, my processing capabilities allow me to realize that the murdered person might have friends who would seek revenge or there could be a legal system that would seek me out. Either way there is a significant risk that I might ultimately incur significant pain by committing murder.

Does that answer your question?

Yes. This is what I was suggesting. You cannot have no consciousness AND morality. Your comments about brain processing are possibly true but wholly speculative and seem to disgree with some of the evidence. (eg Piaget and language acquisition).

 

[Cris]

Canute,

You cannot have no consciousness AND morality.

I don't know what you mean by this. How are you defining consciousness? I see it as no more than a complex neural network. But then how are you defining morality?

Your comments about brain processing are possibly true but wholly speculative and seem to disgree with some of the evidence. (eg Piaget and language acquisition).

I would disagree with 'wholly speculative' since numerous clinical conditions (primarily on patients with some form of brain damage) have shown correlations between neural activity and thoughts, emotions, and memory.

Can you expand on what you as an issue with Piaget please?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Raithere
I cannot agree with you here. When I look at the history of science it seems to me as if it has a very good record of taking any and all assumptions to task.

For the lesser assumptions I agree. I would accuse science of being blinkered but not dishonest. However it remains an odd and paradoxical fact that science can accept brain-mind causation but not the reverse. If causality can work one way then it can work the other. Supervenience is symmetrical. The view od science on this is clearly based on something other than logic.

[They don't break down, how they work changes. The primary forces combine the closer we get to the conditions during those first moments. Thus far they have shown that the strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces were on in these first nanoseconds. The hypothesis is that gravity will combine as well.[/B]

I'm not up with all the latest theorising. However as far as I know all physical theories start in those first few nanoseconds, in other words do not reach all the way back. I would also object that you assume that consciousness needs no explanation.

Why not? What are your objections?[/B]

What I meant was that the experience of 'red' is not accessible to third-person observation and all knowledge of it must depend on introspection and first-person reports. If science cannot accept such reports as scientific then how can it ever find a neural correlate of it. How can it say that a states of consciousness can not be examined by science and are in any case epiphenominal and then proceed to give a scientific account of them? It all seems a bit odd to me.

Some of them are having a tremendous effect in science and to a lesser degree upon society. But I do take to task our teachers and our education system for the appallingly bad job they are doing (generally speaking) regarding science. I also blame the popular media for getting it wrong or misrepresenting it so badly almost all of the time. All one needs to do is wait for the next vocal creationist to visit here to receive an unbelievable image of how badly people misunderstand science in general, much less it's findings and theories.[/B]

Christians do seem rather impervious to common sense at times. However my complaint is not that people have a poor education in scientific orthodoxy. My complaint is that teachers do not distinguish between what is known and what is guessed at. Thus kids grow up thinking that anything other than scientific orthodoxy is religion and a load of nonsense. This is not a good start in life.

[Like all fields of study, they blend into one another at some point (art and ethics, biology - chemistry - physics, etc.) But I agree with Adler, "Philosophy is everybody's business". At some point science must hold itself apart from metaphysics, after all such things as entanglement and superposition are impossible to arrive at if one holds a purely classical framework as an axiom. But I do agree that they should have an understanding of the issues at hand; particularly epistemology.[/B]

I just meant that natural science is a recent invention and it might be best if we went back to looking at the whole thing at once with whatever method is appropriate to the circumstances. Academic disciplines are convenient if one wishes to specialise, but an obstacle if one wants to understand. It doesn't make sense to say that the truth about it all is contained within any one particular discipline, I'll bet a proper explanation wanders across all the boundaries.

The only areas that I find the concept of God useful in are psychology and sociology as I find such expression of what God is to purely be reflections of the individual and the society. Other than that it seems to me to be a dead end answer; unless, of course, God wants to stop by an answer some questions personally.[/B]

I suspect that your definition of God is what leads you to this opinion. There are many definitions, some of which make scientific sense.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Cris
Canute, I don't know what you mean by this. How are you defining consciousness? I see it as no more than a complex neural network. But then how are you defining morality?

I meant that if consciousness (whatever it is) is not causal then ethics, morality, intention, purpose etc become meaningless terms, or at least refer only to delusions.

[I would disagree with 'wholly speculative' since numerous clinical conditions (primarily on patients with some form of brain damage) have shown correlations between neural activity and thoughts, emotions, and memory. Can you expand on what you as an issue with Piaget please? [/B]

It was suggested that we are born in a certain particular state of consciousness and with certain minimal brain functioning. This is speculation. The Piaget reference was related to his research suggesting that we are born with quite sophisticated and innate linguistic abilities, in other words that our birth state may not be as simple as was suggested. I didn't mean to contradict the idea that many or even all mental states have neural correlates.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Canute
However it remains an odd and paradoxical fact that science can accept brain-mind causation but not the reverse.

So you're suggesting that thought creates the physical brain? Sounds suspiciously like Descartes to me. Why bother with anything at that point?

If causality can work one way then it can work the other. Supervenience is symmetrical. The view od science on this is clearly based on something other than logic.

You cannot state this categorically. In fact, in our common frame of reference causality usually works in only one direction.

I'm not up with all the latest theorising. However as far as I know all physical theories start in those first few nanoseconds, in other words do not reach all the way back.

Well some hypotheses even go beyond the beginning. What we can prove, experimentally, is another matter.

I would also object that you assume that consciousness needs no explanation.

Seeing as I just posed my theory of what consciousness is how do you come to that conclusion?

What I meant was that the experience of 'red' is not accessible to third-person observation and all knowledge of it must depend on introspection and first-person reports.

This is exactly the reason science relies so heavily on objectivity. If we define red as electromagnetic radiation with an approximate wavelength of 630 to 750 nanometers the experience can then be relayed to anyone even though that experience will be different for different people. If we relied upon subjective experience there would never be any agreement, particularly when you throw people like me into the mix who have a red-green color vision deficiency.

Further, experience is often inaccurate. You might perceive a red piece of paper; yet upon examination find that it is actually a white piece of paper lit by a red light bulb. Again (and I seem to need to keep stressing this), we must examine our unstated premises. The experience of the color red is a function of the wavelength of light striking the photoreceptors in your eye. It is not an inherent quality of the object of your perception. In fact, as Tiassa would point out; red is the one thing a red rose is not.

If science cannot accept such reports as scientific then how can it ever find a neural correlate of it.

By examining the conditions in reported cases of consciousness. By experimenting upon the brain, for instance, and noting how changing conditions affect consciousness. Etc.

How can it say that a states of consciousness can not be examined by science and are in any case epiphenominal and then proceed to give a scientific account of them? It all seems a bit odd to me.

The first thing that I would point out is that you seem to be stressing this particular hypothesis as if it were the only scientific hypothesis; it's not. But I tend to agree with you upon my first analysis of the argument for consciousness being epiphenomenal. My first thought regarding the experiment by Wegner and Wheatley is that it is reliant upon recollection, which is demonstrably prone to error. Further, in the hypothesis that I agree with, mental events are 'physical' events.

My complaint is that teachers do not distinguish between what is known and what is guessed at. Thus kids grow up thinking that anything other than scientific orthodoxy is religion and a load of nonsense. This is not a good start in life.

As opposed to what; stories of Santa Claus and the Stork?

I'm sorry but the problem is not science; the problem is how we teach children. Now, certainly, their critical reasoning skills are all but non-existent at a young age but this is exactly what we should be teaching them. Instead we fill their heads with supposed "facts". We teach children what to think, not how to think and actually this is a process that continues on throughout the lives of most people. 'Fact' is not a word that should get tossed around lightly. Facts, in science, are not reliant upon personal opinion or experience. Don't believe gravity? Here's an apple, go test it out yourself. This is what science is all about; confirmation.

But teaching people how to think is dangerous. If people really knew how few 'facts' there are they'd be rioting in the streets at all the bullshit they've been taught all their lives. Nor do most people want to know... they want to feel safe and secure, a small part of a very large and concrete world with concepts they can easily embrace.

I just meant that natural science is a recent invention and it might be best if we went back to looking at the whole thing at once with whatever method is appropriate to the circumstances.

No, science is an ancient invention. Granted it has undergone a renaissance in the last few hundred years but it is no different, in essence, than the methods of observation and confirmation our hunter gatherer ancestors used thousands of years ago or those used by the Egyptian engineers used to build the Pyramids. Again, I have to ask you, "What alternative do you suggest?"

Academic disciplines are convenient if one wishes to specialise, but an obstacle if one wants to understand. It doesn't make sense to say that the truth about it all is contained within any one particular discipline, I'll bet a proper explanation wanders across all the boundaries.

I've never heard of any scientists claiming this... but I have heard it stated many times by theists.

I suspect that your definition of God is what leads you to this opinion. There are many definitions, some of which make scientific sense.

I don't have a definition of God, I'm happy to consider and examine any that are proposed however. And while I agree that there are those that are logically defensible I'm not quite sure what you mean by "make scientific sense".

~Raithere

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Raithere
So you're suggesting that thought creates the physical brain? Sounds suspiciously like Descartes to me. Why bother with anything at that point?

No I did not mean to suggest that (whatever I believe). I was just saying that if brain can affect mind then mind can effect brain. To say otherwise is surely illogical?

No harm in Descartes once he's been tinkered with a bit. If mind is the same thing as brain then we would have nothing to discuss unless we were neuroscientists. It is clearly a second thing. Therefore one must cause the other or both or neither, four possibilities, the first two of which make no logical sense for the reason given above, (as far as I can work out). I said this just to illustrate that scienctific orthodoxy (not science itself) does rest on some pretty hefty assumptions.

[You cannot state this categorically. In fact, in our common frame of reference causality usually works in only one direction.[/B]

I think this is wrong. I'm pretty sure that quantum mechanics suggests otherwise since all the maths works both ways. Also cause and effect are assumed to be the same thing in many fundamental theories. Also you cannot cause anything without being effected unless you break the laws of thermodynamics. (I hope I'm not seeming too argumentative - I'm just testing my arguments for leaks).

[Well some hypotheses even go beyond the beginning. What we can prove, experimentally, is another matter.[/B]

Fair enough - but it seems they have to become incomprehensibly convoluted to do so, which is not a good sign. Perhaps they are just incomprehensible to me.

[Seeing as I just posed my theory of what consciousness is how do you come to that conclusion?[/B]

Pardon me I forgot.

[This is exactly the reason science relies so heavily on objectivity. If we define red as electromagnetic radiation with an approximate wavelength of 630 to 750 nanometers the experience can then be relayed to anyone even though that experience will be different for different people. If we relied upon subjective experience there would never be any agreement, particularly when you throw people like me into the mix who have a red-green color vision deficiency.[/B]

Hold on there. "The experience can be relayed to anyone". How on earth does one convey an experience in a scientific manner?

[Further, experience is often inaccurate. You might perceive a red piece of paper; yet upon examination find that it is actually a white piece of paper lit by a red light bulb.[/B]

Experience cannot possibly be innacurate, it is what it is, no more and no less. Of course perception may be dodgy at any and all times.

Again (and I seem to need to keep stressing this), we must examine our unstated premises. The experience of the color red is a function of the wavelength of light striking the photoreceptors in your eye. It is not an inherent quality of the object of your perception. In fact, as Tiassa would point out; red is the one thing a red rose is not.[/B]

Absolutely. Red is a conscious experience.

By examining the conditions in reported cases of consciousness. By experimenting upon the brain, for instance, and noting how changing conditions affect consciousness. Etc.[/B]

Yes, but your data would be first-person reports of consciousness. How is that scientific?

The first thing that I would point out is that you seem to be stressing this particular hypothesis as if it were the only scientific hypothesis; it's not. [/B]

You're right to point this out. But all the non-heretical ones are ontologically equivalent and reduce consciousness to irrelevance.

[But I tend to agree with you upon my first analysis of the argument for consciousness being epiphenomenal. My first thought regarding the experiment by Wegner and Wheatley is that it is reliant upon recollection, which is demonstrably prone to error. Further, in the hypothesis that I agree with, mental events are 'physical' events.[/B]

Clearly ones recollections are part of what one is conscious of. But recollections are not consciousness, they are part of what consciousness observes.

As opposed to what; stories of Santa Claus and the Stork? [/B]

Unfair tactics.

I'm sorry but the problem is not science; the problem is how we teach children. Now, certainly, their critical reasoning skills are all but non-existent at a young age but this is exactly what we should be teaching them. Instead we fill their heads with supposed "facts". We teach children what to think, not how to think and actually this is a process that continues on throughout the lives of most people. 'Fact' is not a word that should get tossed around lightly. Facts, in science, are not reliant upon personal opinion or experience. Don't believe gravity? Here's an apple, go test it out yourself. This is what science is all about; confirmation..
But teaching people how to think is dangerous. If people really knew how few 'facts' there are they'd be rioting in the streets at all the bullshit they've been taught all their lives. Nor do most people want to know... they want to feel safe and secure, a small part of a very large and concrete world with concepts they can easily embrace.[/B]

Say it brother. (But does this view really sit comfortably with your view that we are physically determined entities?)

No, science is an ancient invention. Granted it has undergone a renaissance in the last few hundred years but it is no different, in essence, than the methods of observation and confirmation our hunter gatherer ancestors used thousands of years ago or those used by the Egyptian engineers used to build the Pyramids. Again, I have to ask you, "What alternative do you suggest?"[/B]

I meant natural science in the deterministic form it took from the Enlightenment on. I agree that the method has always been in use.

[I've never heard of any scientists claiming this... but I have heard it stated many times by theists.[/B]

If I remember right I raised it because you said it.

[I don't have a definition of God, I'm happy to consider and examine any that are proposed however. And while I agree that there are those that are logically defensible I'm not quite sure what you mean by "make scientific sense"..[/B]

It seems logically unreasonable to state that God doesn't exist (as I think you did) without defining Him first, and the same mistake as made by many who say He does.

I am a great believer in the scientific evidence, if not the theories. There seems no reason why God (by some definitions) should not appear as a cosmic consciousness from one angle and as a bunch of energy fluctuations from another. The human mind/brain has the same scientific/non-scientific dual aspect.

Phew

 

[jayterrier]

Consciousness


In the beginning was the word.

Full circle

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Canute
I was just saying that if brain can affect mind then mind can effect brain.

According to my views, I agree. IMO consciousness is a self-affecting condition that occurs within the brain. Not dissimilar to how a program affects a CPU (although vastly more complex).

If mind is the same thing as brain then we would have nothing to discuss unless we were neuroscientists. It is clearly a second thing.

I hate to use the computer analogy again because I find it overly simplistic and because of questions of determinism in a complex system, various conditions of isomorphic and recursive systems, etc.; but again we can relate the mind to the program running in the CPU (the brain), consciousness might then be related to the actual running of the program. Yes, it is a separate thing but they two are intrinsically linked. Again, I find this an extremely simple but somewhat accurate analogy.

Therefore one must cause the other or both or neither, four possibilities, the first two of which make no logical sense for the reason given above, (as far as I can work out).

Don't mistake the conditions of occurrence with the occurrence itself. A roll of film and a projector do not constitute the same thing as the projected movie running on the screen but they are causal agents of the movie.

I think this is wrong. I'm pretty sure that quantum mechanics suggests otherwise since all the maths works both ways.

That's why I said that you cannot state this categorically rather than saying you were wrong. There are arenas where causality does no follow linearly or in one direction alone. But there are arenas where it does.

Also cause and effect are assumed to be the same thing in many fundamental theories.

I don't think that's quite accurate. I think you're closer in your next statement.

Also you cannot cause anything without being effected unless you break the laws of thermodynamics.

This is not the same as cause and effect being the same thing but I agree with it. The agent of cause is also affected.

(I hope I'm not seeming too argumentative - I'm just testing my arguments for leaks).

Don't worry about me, I'm having fun and I'm not easily offended in any case. Please don't take my assertiveness personally either (I'm doing the same thing.)

Fair enough - but it seems they have to become incomprehensibly convoluted to do so, which is not a good sign. Perhaps they are just incomprehensible to me.

Well there are some conceptual difficulties; nothing operates under these conditions in the manner we are used to. Time and space also become twisted, but this is a natural result of the same forces that cause our 'normal' conditions to work the way they do.

Hold on there. "The experience can be relayed to anyone". How on earth does one convey an experience in a scientific manner?

The subjective experience will be different for each person but the wavelength of light, the stimuli, is the same. All experienced differences, therefore, are perceptual and occur at some point behind the surface of the eye or in the brain/mind/consciousness.

Experience cannot possibly be innacurate, it is what it is, no more and no less. Of course perception may be dodgy at any and all times.

Okay, I agree with that. The actual experience is what it is... but perception, conception, and recall of the experience are all prone to error.

Absolutely. Red is a conscious experience.

But this would give us no common ground to communicate from. Better to say that red is a wavelength because that gives us a common point of reference. To assert otherwise is to again be stuck in a Descartian hell, where nothing is absolute except your own consciousness. Certainly, I can argue such a point... but then I'd be arguing with myself, wouldn't I. No, I must accept the presumption that there is an external reality that affects my consciousness.

Yes, but your data would be first-person reports of consciousness. How is that scientific?

Very carefully, making many allowances for psychologically driven inaccuracies.

You're right to point this out. But all the non-heretical ones are ontologically equivalent and reduce consciousness to irrelevance.

Then call me heretical. I believe that most of the problem is due to a rather simple error; a dualistic perception of 'mind' and 'matter'. Most of these weird problems pop up in trying to resolve the duality. I simply don't believe it exists.

Clearly ones recollections are part of what one is conscious of. But recollections are not consciousness, they are part of what consciousness observes.

Agreed, and I think an important point that W&W might have missed (I'm not entirely sure, I never actually read their study, only accounts of it.) Certainly, it is something they need to take into account.

Unfair tactics.

Sorry, I occasionally dip into sarcasm.

Say it brother. (But does this view really sit comfortably with your view that we are physically determined entities?)

Yes, because I believe that even though consciousness originates from our 'physical' being that we still have free will, pure determinism is not calculable in complex systems. Consider chaos theory as it applies to other complex systems. It is also possible that quantum indeterminism may play a role.

I meant natural science in the deterministic form it took from the Enlightenment on. I agree that the method has always been in use.

I agree, it's just been formalized. I think all science curriculum should begin with the ancients...

If I remember right I raised it because you said it.

It was a mistake or a misunderstanding then. I believe in approaching a subject from many different angles. Now, I have formed some of my own conclusions about certain methods and propositions but I'm always willing to consider a new view or a better argument.

It seems logically unreasonable to state that God doesn't exist (as I think you did) without defining Him first, and the same mistake as made by many who say He does.

No, I'm a weak atheist... I don't believe that God does not exist; I simply see no reason to believe he does. And I've tried to either eliminate such notions from my beliefs; those that I've retained, such as a belief in 'reality', I usually have a good reason and argument for.

I am a great believer in the scientific evidence, if not the theories. There seems no reason why God (by some definitions) should not appear as a cosmic consciousness from one angle and as a bunch of energy fluctuations from another. The human mind/brain has the same scientific/non-scientific dual aspect.

And actually, I have no problem with that. Largely I accept the atheistic categorization but it doesn't fit me perfectly.

~Raithere

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Raithere
IMO consciousness is a self-affecting condition that occurs within the brain. Not dissimilar to how a program affects a CPU (although vastly more complex).

There seems something illogical about this. The program is a different thing to the CPU so if they interact at all then each must each act causally on the other. I'm not quite clear yet whether you think mind and brain are the same thing or two things. 'Self-affecting suggests the former. Yet we have things like 'red' which do not exist in the pattern of neurons. Also if mind and brain are the same thing they must self-observe, does this not lead to an infinite regression of observers?

Yes, it is a separate thing but they two are intrinsically linked. [/B]

Or is it two things?

Don't mistake the conditions of occurrence with the occurrence itself. A roll of film and a projector do not constitute the same thing as the projected movie running on the screen but they are causal agents of the movie.[/B]

I don't follow this bit. I was suggesting that there are just four possibilities for brain/mind causation. brain to mind, mind to brain, neither or both. The first two are illogical, for reasons I think we have agreed. For neither to be causal on the other a third thing would be required which causes them both together OR they would have to be two aspects of the same thing. Bi-directional causation makes most logical sense to me, although the mechanism is a bit of a mystery.

Well there are some conceptual difficulties; nothing operates under these conditions in the manner we are used to. Time and space also become twisted, but this is a natural result of the same forces that cause our 'normal' conditions to work the way they do.[/B]

Are we certain that time and space become twisted under these conditions? Or is it that our concepts of time and space begin to buckle under the stress of close analysis? Could we tell which is the case?

The subjective experience will be different for each person but the wavelength of light, the stimuli, is the same. All experienced differences, therefore, are perceptual and occur at some point behind the surface of the eye or in the brain/mind/consciousness.[/B]

This does not seem to answer the original question of how one can convey an experience in a scientific manner. The experienced differences are experiential, not necessarily perceptual. It is fairly certain that no two experiences are the same even when people are perceiving the 'same' thing. For instance untrained listeners use mostly their right brain to listen to music, musicians tend to use mostly their left. But the music stays the same.

Okay, I agree with that. The actual experience is what it is... but perception, conception, and recall of the experience are all prone to error.[/B]

Agree. Especially conception.

But this would give us no common ground to communicate from. [/B]

There is no common ground. Experience is forever beyond the observation of science. In this Skinner was right.

[Better to say that red is a wavelength because that gives us a common point of reference. To assert otherwise is to again be stuck in a Descartian hell, where nothing is absolute except your own consciousness. Certainly, I can argue such a point... but then I'd be arguing with myself, wouldn't I. No, I must accept the presumption that there is an external reality that affects my consciousness.[/B]

Must object strongly to this on logical grounds. I agree that the stimulus that creates the conscious experience of red is certainly a wavelength of light, (one philosopher has argued that red is a property of roses! forget who.) But red is not light, red is the experience of red. Red can be experienced in the absence of any light stimulus. Descartes may have been wrong, but he is not a bogeyman. There is actually no logical problem with asserting that mind and brain are a dualism unless you assume that there is no substance underlying them, and such an idea makes this as much Heaven as Hell.

Very carefully, making many allowances for psychologically driven inaccuracies.[/B]

As far as I know I can state with total confidence that subjective reports are defined by science as not being scientific data. The actual reports might be scientific (eg it would be scientifically acceptable to say that I observed 25 reports rather than 26) but the contents of those reports belong to folk-psychology in the current scientific view.

Then call me heretical. I believe that most of the problem is due to a rather simple error; a dualistic perception of 'mind' and 'matter'. Most of these weird problems pop up in trying to resolve the duality. I simply don't believe it exists.[/B]

It might be a good idea to cut this discussion down to just this statement and restart from there. It seems to be the heart of our disagreement.

Agreed, and I think an important point that W&W might have missed (I'm not entirely sure, I never actually read their study, only accounts of it.) Certainly, it is something they need to take into account.[/B]

Science in general and neuroscience in particular generally miss this point somewhere in their calculations.

Yes, because I believe that even though consciousness originates from our 'physical' being that we still have free will, pure determinism is not calculable in complex systems. Consider chaos theory as it applies to other complex systems. It is also possible that quantum indeterminism may play a role.[/B]

Quantum mechanics suggests indeterminism, as you say, which is even worse for free will than determinism. Chaos may mean the amplification of small causes into big effects, but it doesn't quite explain the small causes.

I agree, it's just been formalized. I think all science curriculum should begin with the ancients...[/B]

Very good idea. It would put the current certainties of science in the context of its past certainties.

No, I'm a weak atheist... I don't believe that God does not exist; I simply see no reason to believe he does. And I've tried to either eliminate such notions from my beliefs; those that I've retained, such as a belief in 'reality', I usually have a good reason and argument for.[/B]

Fair enough. We probably shouldn't mention Him again without a definition.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Raithere
Anecdotal testimony and hearsay may or may not be true but personal claims do not constitute evidence.

They do not constitute conventional scientific evidence but in no way does this make them untrue.

Aside from logical argument what other basis we use to determine the veracity of such testimony? Without such a basis, or in considering a subjective one, aren't all testimonials equal? How is it you can reject one and not another, aside from personal prejudice?

Very good question. All testimonials may not be equal, because some could simply be lies or delusions. However, the subjective, as you refer to it, is all that is left. From a Christian point of view, the subjective leads to knowledge of what is true. From my point of view ‘personal prejudice’[subjective] is the cause of rejection of the objective [which is intrinsically subjective] or the subjective – hope you get it. In other words I see no basis, apart from personal bias [when you get right down to it], on which to accept or reject any proposed notion. Anything you believe, you need faith to believe it. Faith is at the core of human rationale. People are free to believe what they want to. From the Christian point of view, you can believe what you want [free will], but if you put your faith in God, there you will discover the ultimate truth. How do I know it is the ultimate truth? From the subjective of course.

Why not? What leads you to suggest something beyond this? Upon what evidence or argument do you establish the existence or something else? All I see, so far, is presumption.

Some scientists [string theorists, brane theorists] presume there is something beyond our four dimensions of which we are conscious [aware?]. There they might have evidence of what some call ‘supernatural’ [I also believe, as Canute, that there is no such thing as the supernatural]. I presume that we can become conscious [aware] of those dimensions that are beyond ours. This has no dire implications for who I believe God is.

It's nature seems to be nature. Essentially, consciousness seems to be a self-affecting condition of internal and external isomorphism (awareness of self and the external world) within a neural network.

... you presume.

Because the brain is not dead and the senses are still active, the unconscious mind can still record sensation but coma patients are not conscious... in fact, unconsciousness is the very definition of a coma.

So, the senses are still active??? What senses? So how can they be unconscious? What is your definition of unconscious in the context of your statement above?

I would think they are still self aware. Somewhat like an autistic person - he just can’t communicate conventionally with other people.
That does not seem to be the case.

From you statement above it does seems to be the case. Again how would you define consciousness in the context of your former and latter statements?

So I began the process of eliminating fallacies and contradictions from my beliefs.

Interestingly, without contradictions [or maybe they are just paradoxes?], science may not have come as far as it has. Fallacy is an opinionative word, contradiction also, to a degree.

Basically, I picked up a Bible and read it for myself.

So did I. I still do.

I always find it so strange when theists insist that an atheists life is so void of meaning or purpose or is somehow intrinsically egocentric. The point is the same; to live your life the best you can according to the ideals and goals you believe in. The only difference is that you claim your ideals and goals are set by God. A claim you cannot prove.

Raithere, in my opinion, some atheists live – apparently - more Christian lives than I do. I do not know anything about anyone on this site to form a basis for judgment, in fact, I don’t know enough about anybody to do that. Such claims need no ‘proof’; you have to discover the proof for yourself [subjective/direct personal experience]. No theistic belief is dependent on scientific proof for corroboration, obviously. Do you have ideals? If so why? What’s the point?

... In short, does what you believe make sense or do you simply accept it upon faith.

Most [if not all] claims are individually defensible and, as is apparent to me, all claims are accepted by faith. Not all claims, however, are congruent – this is seen in science, and religion. So far as I see them, my Christian ‘claims’ are defensible individually and in congruence. Not all claims can be true at once.

Religious authorities often say 'trust God' but what they really mean is 'trust me'.

Some may mean trust me, it is up to you to examine their ideals according to their actions, relative to their words, relative to the bible. The bible states this in numerous verses; a few are - 1Cor 3:16/21;Col 2:4/8 I will not make a god out of any man.

Prove it then. Prove the veracity of your spiritual knowledge because despite all my years of study I have yet to discover proof.

It is impossible to prove it to you, you have to prove it for yourself. Don’t trust me, trust God.

No, it doesn't explain why, at least not with any consistency or reliability. 'God willed it' doesn't explain anything that 'shit happens' doesn't. Personally, I find 'shit happens' more satisfying.

Here catharsis got the better of whatever argument you were presenting. You stated you read the bible.. or. are you saying there is no why only how? Well that I can accept. Otherwise, I’d advise you to read the bible again, be it the hundredth, thousandth or first time in reality.

Until then it seems rather presumptuous to assert its existence as fact, much less claim that we know how and why he made things the way they are.

... and vice versa of course.

 

[MarcAC]

On Fantasies and Fairytales

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Interesting and, perhaps, a self-fulfilling point. Three questions come immediately to mind:

• Have you ever studied and/or attempted an honest logical critique of any Eastern religion?
• Have you ever studied and/or attempted a logical ctitique of Western logic, as opposed to, e.g., Dialetheism?
• Would you truly suggest that logical possibility is sufficient warrant for belief, given that any number of fantasies are logically possible?

Is it not possible that your claim lacks credibility, relevancy, or both?

• I have, but not all, and not in depth, but many of their beliefs are pretty similar, and also they could have evolved since then.
• No, not really.
• Definitely not.Faith is a prerequisite to belief. Before you can use logic to do anything, you have to have faith that it is worth using.

It is impossible for me. It might not be for you.

Would not this recourse to argumentum ad numerum mandate your conversion to Islam?

If I were a wagonist it would. But there is one major factor; Truth.

I can do no less than respect faith so long as it does not posture as something other than what it is.

You can do no less, and in fact, it doesn't seem to posture in many minds for what it truly is. Without faith you would believe nothing.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Canute
I'm not quite clear yet whether you think mind and brain are the same thing or two things. 'Self-affecting suggests the former.

I depends upon how you look at it. There is one physical 'device'; the brain. Consciousness is an effect of the workings of the brain.

As a movie projected on a screen is neither the projector, nor the screen, nor the film but is an effect of all of these things.

Yet we have things like 'red' which do not exist in the pattern of neurons.

But red does exist within the brain; as electro-chemical patterns. These patterns originate from light striking the photoreceptors in the eyes.

Also if mind and brain are the same thing they must self-observe, does this not lead to an infinite regression of observers?

I believe that infinite recursion is a property of consciousness. Note that you cannot escape this in any case; consciousness is aware of itself, this alone causes an infinite loop.

For neither to be causal on the other a third thing would be required which causes them both together OR they would have to be two aspects of the same thing. Bi-directional causation makes most logical sense to me, although the mechanism is a bit of a mystery.

Okay, maybe if we take a step back. Here's how I think of it:

The Brain is the physical structure, the neural network.

The mind is the 'program' that runs, the various patterns of reaction and interaction of data (sensation), built in adaptation and response mechanisms, other mechanisms that are created by the built in mechanisms. The brain and mind are deterministic in nature, although we can see increasing examples of complexity in the animal kingdom.

At some point in increasing complexity the phenomena we call consciousness occurs. My suspicion is that consciousness itself is scalable, with an increasing order of complexity.

Are we certain that time and space become twisted under these conditions? Or is it that our concepts of time and space begin to buckle under the stress of close analysis? Could we tell which is the case?

I believe it is quite likely that many of our assumptions are wrong; in relativism, for instance, there is no necessity that light be the constant... it just makes more sense to us that way. But it is important thing to realize that the relationships are accurate; we have the correlations correct.

This does not seem to answer the original question of how one can convey an experience in a scientific manner.

The quick answer is that we cannot; we can only provide the same stimulus.

There is no common ground. Experience is forever beyond the observation of science. In this Skinner was right.

Then how is it we are communicating? What frame of reference do we share in which to communicate? Or are you talking to yourself?

But red is not light, red is the experience of red. Red can be experienced in the absence of any light stimulus.

I beg to differ; the experience can be recalled or imagined based upon recollection but if one had never experienced the stimulus of red light one could not imagine it.

There is actually no logical problem with asserting that mind and brain are a dualism unless you assume that there is no substance underlying them

What underlying 'substance' are you referring to?

As far as I know I can state with total confidence that subjective reports are defined by science as not being scientific data. The actual reports might be scientific (eg it would be scientifically acceptable to say that I observed 25 reports rather than 26) but the contents of those reports belong to folk-psychology in the current scientific view.

In the 'hard' sciences this is true. The study would fall into the realm of psychology... which is a much looser science.

It might be a good idea to cut this discussion down to just this statement and restart from there. It seems to be the heart of our disagreement.

Let me see if I can explain my position a bit better: I actually don't think that the substance is important; matter is ultimately force and energy in any case. I think mind and consciousness are made up of patterns that are self affecting, internally and externally isomorphic (as I mentioned before). And while the only examples we have are etched in 'matter', I don't think that this is a necessary condition of mind or consciousness.

Quantum mechanics suggests indeterminism, as you say, which is even worse for free will than determinism.

I disagree, if quantum indeterminism has a causal effect upon mind/consciousness this would open up the possibility of free will even in an otherwise deterministic. The chain of causation would be affected by occurrences that are particular only to that mind. There are some hypotheses that suggest that consciousness might be a direct result of quantum functions within the brain (re: microtubules and consciousness).

Chaos may mean the amplification of small causes into big effects, but it doesn't quite explain the small causes.

Well no, amplification is not what chaos theory is about. Chaos theory demonstrates that in a complex system one cannot absolutely predict the outcome. Statistically insignificant events/conditions may cause a completely different outcome.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by MarcAC
They do not constitute conventional scientific evidence but in no way does this make them untrue.

This is what I was saying. Taken by themselves there is no way of determining their veracity.

All testimonials may not be equal, because some could simply be lies or delusions. However, the subjective, as you refer to it, is all that is left. From a Christian point of view, the subjective leads to knowledge of what is true.

Which would make one individual's beliefs no more or less true than anyone else's. All opinions, no matter how odd, would be equal.

People are free to believe what they want to. From the Christian point of view, you can believe what you want [free will], but if you put your faith in God, there you will discover the ultimate truth. How do I know it is the ultimate truth? From the subjective of course.

Then from what position do you assert your beliefs?

... you presume.

At some point, yes.

So, the senses are still active??? What senses? So how can they be unconscious? What is your definition of unconscious in the context of your statement above?

I'm using the primary definition of unconscious: "a. 1. Not conscious; having no consciousness or power of mental perception; without cerebral appreciation; hence, not knowing or regarding; ignorant; as, an unconscious man. --Cowper." But a simple EEG can demonstrate that coma patients brains respond to stimuli. (I should note here that there is a scale of severity of coma stages; at the most severe stage there is no EEG response and no autonomic functions.)

Interestingly, without contradictions [or maybe they are just paradoxes?], science may not have come as far as it has. Fallacy is an opinionative word, contradiction also, to a degree.

Indeed, many advances have been the result of trying to understand or eliminate contradictions. I am using the word fallacy as it pertains to logic, not opinion.

No theistic belief is dependent on scientific proof for corroboration, obviously. Do you have ideals? If so why? What’s the point?

Certainly not simply to win the favor of an omnipotent being... but my reasons are the same as yours; because I have concluded that they are worthy of attaining. I simply use a different means to establish their worth.

Some may mean trust me, it is up to you to examine their ideals according to their actions, relative to their words, relative to the bible.

This is exactly what I have done as well.

Here catharsis got the better of whatever argument you were presenting. You stated you read the bible.. or. are you saying there is no why only how? Well that I can accept. Otherwise, I’d advise you to read the bible again, be it the hundredth, thousandth or first time in reality.

No, I honestly do not see how 'God wills it' explains anything.

and vice versa of course.

Of course, and this is why I refer to scientific hypotheses in explaining the origins of the Universe. It is the theists who claim to know.

~Raithere

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Raithere
I depends upon how you look at it. There is one physical 'device'; the brain. Consciousness is an effect of the workings of the brain.

I'm not just trying to catch you out but it really does seem as if you are having your cake and eating it. If brain affects/causes mind then they are two things. Also if they are one thing then how can one have any opinion about which causes which? Thus mind may cause brain.

[But red does exist within the brain; as electro-chemical patterns. These patterns originate from light striking the photoreceptors in the eyes.[/B]

I think you may be absolutely alone in saying that red exists as an electro-chemical pattern. Even Ryle and Dennet do not say this. What exists in the brain (presumably) is an electro-chemical pattern encoding for the conscious experience of red.

I believe that infinite recursion is a property of consciousness. Note that you cannot escape this in any case; consciousness is aware of itself, this alone causes an infinite loop.[/B][/QUOTE]
I completely agree. It is one of the reasons that I think consciousness ultimately equates with nothing, it is a logical consequence of that regression.

Okay, maybe if we take a step back. Here's how I think of it: The Brain is the physical structure, the neural network. The mind is the 'program' that runs, the various patterns of reaction and interaction of data (sensation), built in adaptation and response mechanisms, other mechanisms that are created by the built in mechanisms. The brain and mind are deterministic in nature, although we can see increasing examples of complexity in the animal kingdom.

At some point in increasing complexity the phenomena we call consciousness occurs. My suspicion is that consciousness itself is scalable, with an increasing order of complexity.[/B][/QUOTE]
That is helpfully clear but of course I diagree. I won't reproduce all the arguments against but would ask - if consciousness is infinitely self-referential then what kind of experience would the first appearance of consciousness in the universe be like? Also I cannot imagine how consciousness, which is a unitary experience, can become more or less complex. Perhaps this is because I regard consciousness and mind as quite different things.

[I believe it is quite likely that many of our assumptions are wrong; in relativism, for instance, there is no necessity that light be the constant... it just makes more sense to us that way. But it is important thing to realize that the relationships are accurate; we have the correlations correct.[/B]

I accept that the relationships are accurate as far as they go. I just wonder if they remain accurate all the way down to the explanation of existence.

The quick answer is that we cannot; we can only provide the same stimulus.[/B]

Thus red is not a property of the brain but an output of it.

Then how is it we are communicating? What frame of reference do we share in which to communicate? Or are you talking to yourself?[/B]

We do it by the rough and ready method of assuming that we are talking about the same things and understanding each other. In truth I have no idea what is in your mind, although your words give me clues. I will have no way of even knowing that you are conscious until science solves the 'other consciousness' problem. Our common frame of reference is the world, although it's not really very common since you we each perceive/conceive of it differently.

I beg to differ; the experience can be recalled or imagined based upon recollection but if one had never experienced the stimulus of red light one could not imagine it.[/B]

OK. But it can still occur in the absence of an external stimulus.

What underlying 'substance' are you referring to?[/B]

If you don't mind I'll postpone my answer. It would derail the discussion. Quite happy to return to it later.

In the 'hard' sciences this is true. The study would fall into the realm of psychology... which is a much looser science.[/B][/QUOTE]
Or maybe not really a science.

Let me see if I can explain my position a bit better: I actually don't think that the substance is important; matter is ultimately force and energy in any case. I think mind and consciousness are made up of patterns that are self affecting, internally and externally isomorphic (as I mentioned before). And while the only examples we have are etched in 'matter', I don't think that this is a necessary condition of mind or consciousness.[/B][/QUOTE]
I think I understand your view. But if mind is immaterial then it is not the same thing as brain.

I disagree, if quantum indeterminism has a causal effect upon mind/consciousness this would open up the possibility of free will even in an otherwise deterministic. The chain of causation would be affected by occurrences that are particular only to that mind. There are some hypotheses that suggest that consciousness might be a direct result of quantum functions within the brain (re: microtubules and consciousness).[/B]

I find it hard to see how freewill could be based on indeterminism and not lead to indeterminate freewill.

Well no, amplification is not what chaos theory is about. Chaos theory demonstrates that in a complex system one cannot absolutely predict the outcome. Statistically insignificant events/conditions may cause a completely different outcome.[/B]

Nevertheless chaos theory does not suggest that the world is not physically deterministic.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Raithere
This is what I was saying. Taken by themselves there is no way of determining their veracity.

When you use the term 'veracity' you have the scientific method transfixed in your mind. I don't. If you were to have a true experience beyond current scientific explanations [supernatural], people with your mind set would dismiss it with some random neural explanation. Many occurences are open to various interpretations. Look at the Mar's Rock ALH80041 or something like that. The Nasa scientists see signs of life, other's see signs of inorganic chemical activity. The structures which they observe in the rock could have arisen from any of these processes.

Which would make one individual's beliefs no more or less true than anyone else's. All opinions, no matter how odd, would be equal.

In truth they wouldn't. I'm not a supporter of Dialetheism. Are you?

Then from what position do you assert your beliefs?

Direct personal experience. The subjective? Inner experience? The supernatural [quoted or not]?

I'm using the primary definition of unconscious: "a. 1. Not conscious; having no consciousness or power of mental perception; without cerebral appreciation; hence, not knowing or regarding; ignorant; as, an unconscious man. --Cowper." But a simple EEG can demonstrate that coma patients brains respond to stimuli. (I should note here that there is a scale of severity of coma stages; at the most severe stage there is no EEG response and no autonomic functions.)

Vague definition. What dictionary is that? I see you and Canute are trying to clarify what consciousness is. Have fun.

Indeed, many advances have been the result of trying to understand or eliminate contradictions. I am using the word fallacy as it pertains to logic, not opinion.

In my opinion, logical fallacies can almost be disregarded at times. Some things that are logically fallacious happen.

Certainly not simply to win the favor of an omnipotent being... but my reasons are the same as yours; because I have concluded that they are worthy of attaining. I simply use a different means to establish their worth.

What means if you don't mind?

No, I honestly do not see how 'God wills it' explains anything.

Well if you don't believe God exists, then it won't explain anything, in your opinion. God provides grounds for our ideals. Again what grounds do you base your ideals on?

Of course, and this is why I refer to scientific hypotheses in explaining the origins of the Universe. It is the theists who claim to know.

Maybe some do?

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Canute
If brain affects/causes mind then they are two things.

They are two things, but the mind exists as the fuctioning of the brain.

I think you may be absolutely alone in saying that red exists as an electro-chemical pattern. Even Ryle and Dennet do not say this. What exists in the brain (presumably) is an electro-chemical pattern encoding for the conscious experience of red.

This much is simple biology: Red light enters the eye and stimulates an electro-chemical response in the color sensitive photoreceptors (neurons) in the retina, which in turn stimulates other neurons in the brain. This pattern of response is what the mind eventually comes to associate with the word 'red'. This 'data' or 'pattern of signals' is an isomorphic response in the brain to that particular wavelength of light.

Also I cannot imagine how consciousness, which is a unitary experience, can become more or less complex. Perhaps this is because I regard consciousness and mind as quite different things.

Well, using my movie analogy, the qualities of the film affect the qualities of the movie. But I would ask what your conception of consciousness and mind are; how do they interact? What does the brain have to do with it?

I accept that the relationships are accurate as far as they go. I just wonder if they remain accurate all the way down to the explanation of existence.

It remains to be seen.

Thus red is not a property of the brain but an output of it.

Again, we go back to how we're defining red. I define red as a particular wavelength of light. You're defining it as an experience. Now, do you believe the experience is caused by light or do you believe that light is just an illusory experience?

We do it by the rough and ready method of assuming that we are talking about the same things and understanding each other.
...
Our common frame of reference is the world, although it's not really very common since you we each perceive/conceive of it differently.

This doesn't suffice. Not if 'reality' is not causal to experience. I'm not quite sure what your position is at this point, perhaps you could clarify.

OK. But it can still occur in the absence of an external stimulus.

Is the recollection of an experience the same as the experience itself?

But if mind is immaterial then it is not the same thing as brain.

Again, we're locked into this dualism that I don't believe exists. Mind is what the brain 'does'; it is perception and reaction, thought and action. At lower levels it is simply a reactive device (pain/avoidance, pleasure/seeking). At higher levels of complexity it develops recursive awareness that we call consciousness.

I find it hard to see how freewill could be based on indeterminism and not lead to indeterminate freewill.

Free will is necessarily indeterminate. I don't see the problem.

Nevertheless chaos theory does not suggest that the world is not physically deterministic.

Actually, it does show that this is the case regarding complex systems, even though they are comprised of singularly deterministic events.

~Raithere

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Raithere
They are two things, but the mind exists as the fuctioning of the brain.

Do you mean 'as a result of the functioning of the brain'?

This much is simple biology: Red light enters the eye and stimulates an electro-chemical response in the color sensitive photoreceptors (neurons) in the retina, which in turn stimulates other neurons in the brain. This pattern of response is what the mind eventually comes to associate with the word 'red'. This 'data' or 'pattern of signals' is an isomorphic response in the brain to that particular wavelength of light.[/B]

I feel this is muddled. There is no 'red' light out there in the world that enters our eye. There is no red light anywhere except in our consciousness. I can agree that our brain reacts to the incoming waves in ways that depend on its wavelength, thus creating nueral correlates of red etc., but this process re-encodes it as a conscious experience. It doesn't make sense to say that the conscious experience of red IS the brain state, anymore than it would to say that the puff of steam from the chimney of the steam-train IS the steam-train. My brain states can be observed by a third party observer, my experiences cannot. How can this be explained if they are the same thing?

It remains to be seen.[/B]

On this open minded point we agree.

Again, we go back to how we're defining red. I define red as a particular wavelength of light. You're defining it as an experience. Now, do you believe the experience is caused by light or do you believe that light is just an illusory experience?[/B]

I hope I've given my answer above. If there is anything about reality about which I feel certain it is that red is an experience and not a property of roses, tomatos, neurons or microtubules. I don't remember ever having come across an objection to this view before. Are you sure about your logic on this bit?

This doesn't suffice. Not if 'reality' is not causal to experience. I'm not quite sure what your position is at this point, perhaps you could clarify.[/B]

OK. I must stress first that my view is based on logic and not wishful thinking, (which is not to say that it is correct). In other words I do my best to avoid crackpottery. Despite my continual confirmation of the correctness of this view (viz. its predictive and explanatory powers on regard to the scientific, experiential and epistemelogical evidence) I can still only really believe it in short burst.

Here goes. Mind and matter arise from consciousness, which is eternal and equivalent to nothingness. 'Equivalent to nothingness' can be taken as 'as near to nothingness as it is possible to get' or 'what it is like to be nothing', since it is the experience of nothingness. Mind and matter are a dualism which interact through the common medium of consciousness. Buddhism is scientifically correct, and so, very loosely, is micro-physics, although it has hidden the wood behind the trees.

Thus the universe arises from nothingness (quantum fluctuations in the void if you prefer). It follows that existence is 'epistemelogically dualist and ontologically monist' as Max Velmans has concluded with no noticeable opposition. Thus all things are dual (as per Yin/Yang, up, down, good/bad, future/past, mind/matter etc ad infinitum) except consciousnes itself, the monist basis for it all which is itself one thing, but having the dual aspects of being both something and nothing.

Boy, am I going to regret writing this. Any, um, objections?

Is the recollection of an experience the same as the experience itself?[/B]

Good point. It cannot be exactly the same. But I find I can create a definite sense of redness if I concentrate. Enough to call it red anyway.

Again, we're locked into this dualism that I don't believe exists. Mind is what the brain 'does'; it is perception and reaction, thought and action. At lower levels it is simply a reactive device (pain/avoidance, pleasure/seeking). At higher levels of complexity it develops recursive awareness that we call consciousness.[/B]

Why does it avoid pain? Why does it want to be happy?

[Free will is necessarily indeterminate. I don't see the problem.[/B]

I cannot agree. Indetirminancy is surely randomness. (To clarify my view I should say that I consider everything that happens to be detirmined by what has happened before. I just feel that physical determinancy is only half the story.)

[Actually, it does show that this is the case regarding complex systems, even though they are comprised of singularly deterministic events.[/B]

I'm almost completely certain that you're wrong on this but will check with the proper authorities.

 

[jayterrier]

I think, therefore I am.