Philosophy Now Forum

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:
After perusing the thoughtful conversation between Gee and Ginkgo, I feel compelled to step in at this jpoint, perhaps adding another G to the discussion.

Gee's query about a pure mind is exactly where I began my integration of physics and philosophy, just about 53 years ago. I found the notion in an "If" magazine science fiction short story. It connected with my Catholic background and I immediately applied it to God. A physics student at the time, I could not help but find ways to integrate the idea with physics. The entire process has taken about a half-century, but some of my conclusions may interest the two of you.

Condensing various ideas from your conversation and integrating them with my own opinions, I propose this:

There is an entity that might be described as a "pure mind." Quite a lot of them, actually. They were precipitated from a collision of spaces with opposite physical properties, and in a sense have always existed. (The theory behind this simple statement is too detailed to present here, but is in print.)

Gee shows insights into the nature of reality that run deeper than those of most modern physicists, who have pulled loose from their roots. He sees reality as a relationship between causes and effects. So while the "pure mind" concept is esthetically attractive, he wonders what it plays off of. (Yep, that is lousy English. My bad and it's late.)

Parts of my hypotheses can be expressed in terms of this idea. Suppose that "pure mind" came into being (we can worry about how, later), kind of like our impure (i.e. integrated with a brain/body system) minds came into being-- completely unconscious and no more self-aware that a baby rodent. Our core minds (the "pure" mind) are connected to brain-body systems that try their damnedest to trick us into becoming genuinely conscious. Sometimes we listen up. You guys seem to have done so, or are taking honest pokes at the process.

After the body's demise, we get to experience consciousness as a pure mind, divorced from body for awhile. That's another story.

To integrate the notion of a pure mind into any story about the Beginnings of things, it is necessary to find something with which such a mind can interact. Therefore it is necessary to propose the existence of a separate entity or substance with which such a mind might interact. The First Law of Thermodynamics implies that energy (whatever that turns out to be) cannot be created or destroyed.

So, what if "pure mind" had an innate property that violated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? It could construct a universe from raw, unstructured energy. Perhaps it did?

Hi Greylorn,

You have included a lot of information here. However, for starters I was just thinking what your apriori justification for there being a "pure mind" might be. Are you saying that the empirical evidence will justify such a thing?

The empirical evidence already does justify the existence of minds that are no longer attached to their previously inhabited bodies.

Finding hard scientific evidence is the next step, but serious scientists usually ignore empirical evidence in the absence of a theory that might explain such evidence if it is found, or even better, predict its existence. For example, the power of Einstein's theories came from their predictions of phenomena that would not have been discovered from mere casual observations.

Empirical evidence for Einstein's special theory of relativity existed before Big Al did the math, but he was unaware of it and was not trying to develop a theory to explain it. The empirical evidence consisted of observations of the planet Mercury's orbit, which did not quite obey Newton's laws. To the best of my knowledge, Big Al did not do the calculations that showed how his theory explained the anomalous perihelion of Mercury. He really didn't care, and didn't need to care. He knew that his theory worked.

My work is intended to provide a description of mind at the level of theoretical physics, in hopes that eventually a serious scientist (forget the parapsychologists) will recognize that such an entity is not the soul or spirit of religious lore, but a real being that must, by definition, be susceptible to experimental detection and verification.

My book describes the background for my assertions that such a mind can exist, but you might be better off ignoring it and instead, read F.W.H Myers "Human Personality and the Survival of Bodily Death," and follow this research with an examination of the "cross-correspondence" seances that followed Myers' demise.

The physicalists explanation for Strong Al is basically that this machine can have a mind, A mind very similar to human being.On this basis a machine such as Strong Al and the human brain works in a binary fashion like modern computers. Strong Al becomes conscious when it becomes complex enough to satisfy that condition. If this is case then strong Al and the human brain are alone in the universe. All of this 'computing' takes place within the silicon chips and neurons of the respective mind or machine.

When strong Al shuts down the empirical evidence suggests that he has no opportunity to detach his mind, so to speak. In a similar fashion when we die, or 'shut down' we are afforded the same opportunity as Al to detach our mind. That is to say; nil opportunity.

As strange as it sounds I am of the same opinion as yourself that minds are detached from previous inhabited bodies, or as in the case of Al, previously inhabited silicon chips.

Do no be suspicious of me because this is not a criticism, it is actually a question. How do we overcome this problem?

Ginkgo wrote: The physicalists explanation for Strong Al is basically that this machine can have a mind, A mind very similar to human being.On this basis a machine such as Strong Al and the human brain works in a binary fashion like modern computers. Strong Al becomes conscious when it becomes complex enough to satisfy that condition. If this is case then strong Al and the human brain are alone in the universe. All of this 'computing' takes place within the silicon chips and neurons of the respective mind or machine.

When strong Al shuts down the empirical evidence suggests that he has no opportunity to detach his mind, so to speak. In a similar fashion when we die, or 'shut down' we are afforded the same opportunity as Al to detach our mind. That is to say; nil opportunity.

As strange as it sounds I am of the same opinion as yourself that minds are detached from previous inhabited bodies, or as in the case of Al, previously inhabited silicon chips.

Do not be suspicious of me because this is not a criticism, it is actually a question. How do we overcome this problem?

What problem?

I once studied AI. It is garbage. I have better things to do than argue with stupid, unproven beliefs generated by AI followers or Jehovah's Witnesses, nevermind that the nits who generate these ideas happen to believe in them. That's their problem, not mine.

And for the record, I loved Terminator, and Terminator II. T3 sucked-- stupid plot, incompetent casting.

I once studied AI. It is garbage. I have better things to do than argue with stupid, unproven beliefs generated by AI followers or Jehovah's Witnesses, nevermind that the nits who generate these ideas happen to believe in them.

Let's have a contest to see who has the lamer social skills, me or Greylorn, I mean, Gayporn, Foghorn, Nitborn, or whatever his name is.

Nitwits, that's what we are! Yes, idiots, fools, pathetic deluded children with inappropriate focus! We are stupid garbage just begging to be debunked by the rare and special huge divergent brains among us!!

Greylorn Ell wrote:The empirical evidence already does justify the existence of minds that are no longer attached to their previously inhabited bodies.

Such as?

The laws of thermo dynamics are only valid for small closed enviroments, not for large scale equations, where the laws are invalid.

HexHammer wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:The empirical evidence already does justify the existence of minds that are no longer attached to their previously inhabited bodies.

Such as?

The laws of thermo dynamics are only valid for small closed enviroments, not for large scale equations, where the laws are invalid.

I've provided references, so do the research for yourself. Or, google OOBs and see what you find.

I disagree with your comment about thermodynamics. How are you qualified to make it?

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: The physicalists explanation for Strong Al is basically that this machine can have a mind, A mind very similar to human being.On this basis a machine such as Strong Al and the human brain works in a binary fashion like modern computers. Strong Al becomes conscious when it becomes complex enough to satisfy that condition. If this is case then strong Al and the human brain are alone in the universe. All of this 'computing' takes place within the silicon chips and neurons of the respective mind or machine.

When strong Al shuts down the empirical evidence suggests that he has no opportunity to detach his mind, so to speak. In a similar fashion when we die, or 'shut down' we are afforded the same opportunity as Al to detach our mind. That is to say; nil opportunity.

As strange as it sounds I am of the same opinion as yourself that minds are detached from previous inhabited bodies, or as in the case of Al, previously inhabited silicon chips.

Do not be suspicious of me because this is not a criticism, it is actually a question. How do we overcome this problem?

What problem?

I once studied AI. It is garbage. I have better things to do than argue with stupid, unproven beliefs generated by AI followers or Jehovah's Witnesses, nevermind that the nits who generate these ideas happen to believe in them. That's their problem, not mine.

And for the record, I loved Terminator, and Terminator II. T3 sucked-- stupid plot, incompetent casting.

I guess I must have misunderstood your position. I think you are saying that there is something extra-empirical (for the want of a better word) about the human brain that is not to be found in a collection of silicon chips. Is this correct?

Ginkgo wrote: I guess I must have misunderstood your position. I think you are saying that there is something extra-empirical (for the want of a better word) about the human brain that is not to be found in a collection of silicon chips. Is this correct?

Ginkgo,
A favor please. Let's not invent words unless they describe a distinct concept, which must be explained when the new word is first used. I notice that few people seem to understand the meaning of empirical, often using it as if it was a synonym for "scientifically verified." I'm certain that you could have done better than "extra-empirical."

A brief explanation of one element of my theory may be helpful. The brain is not the source of human consciousness. The brain contains an antenna-tuner system which connects to the entity referred to by religionists as the soul. I employ a different word for soul, "beon," a non-created physical (not material) entity that has the natural ability to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Of course it is described completely in my book.

Beon is the only source of consciousness. The brain is its interface to the physical universe.

The beon concept is taken from an old novel, "The Soul of Anna Klane," chapters from which were misused in Hofstadter and Dennett's book about human consciousness, "The Mind's I." The novel includes an artificial brain made from silicon chips which features a soul-interface circuit to manifest genuine human consciousness in the body of a machine. It's a decent little novel that seems to have been written to express metaphysical ideas. Unfortunately, the story is so intense that few readers actually get the ideas at its core without a re-read.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: I guess I must have misunderstood your position. I think you are saying that there is something extra-empirical (for the want of a better word) about the human brain that is not to be found in a collection of silicon chips. Is this correct?

Ginkgo,
A favor please. Let's not invent words unless they describe a distinct concept, which must be explained when the new word is first used. I notice that few people seem to understand the meaning of empirical, often using it as if it was a synonym for "scientifically verified." I'm certain that you could have done better than "extra-empirical."

A brief explanation of one element of my theory may be helpful. The brain is not the source of human consciousness. The brain contains an antenna-tuner system which connects to the entity referred to by religionists as the soul. I employ a different word for soul, "beon," a non-created physical (not material) entity that has the natural ability to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Of course it is described completely in my book.

Beon is the only source of consciousness. The brain is its interface to the physical universe.

Ok, I think I am starting to get the idea. Your invented word "beon" suggests a distinct concept. You say this concept is some type type of non-created physical entity that is not material, but nonetheless violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

So, you do not see a problem with something that is a physical entity, but not material? How would you define something that is a non-created physical? Most people would say that a prerequisite to physical is being created. How would you explain something that is physical, yet not material. Again most people would say that if you violate the 2nd law then you cannot be physical.

Ginkgo wrote: Ok, I think I am starting to get the idea. Your invented word "beon" suggests a distinct concept. You say this concept is some type type of non-created physical entity that is not material, but nonetheless violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

So, you do not see a problem with something that is a physical entity, but not material? How would you define something that is a non-created physical? Most people would say that a prerequisite to physical is being created. How would you explain something that is physical, yet not material. Again most people would say that if you violate the 2nd law then you cannot be physical.

Gingko,
I do not parrot the opinions of others, and unless their opinions are well-founded and consistent with a very large universe-view, I do not care about them.

"Most people" are baseball fans and freeloaders who sit on their fat asses watching TV for most of the day, except when they get into their hybrid suv to pick up their unemployment checks and go shopping, Democrats voting for their short-term well being. I really give a rat's sphincter about their opinions.

I invite you to stop bullshitting me. Your sentence, "Again most people would say that if you violate the 2nd law then you cannot be physical," is just some garbage that you made up, like a Fox News commentator. I know a variety of people ranging from hard core scientists to untrustworthy thugs, and not a one of them would iterate that sentence or any form of it.

If you have an opinion, have the integrity to state it as your personal opinion. Don't hide behind this "most people" horseshit. Who do you think you are, Barry Hussein Obama?

Evidently you know nothing of physics. That's normal for philosophers and philosopher wanna-be's. If you are willing to learn something of physics, it will profit your study of philosophy. Wikipedia and time spent studying can do wonders.

Electromagnetic radiation (light, radio waves, TV transmissions, and your cell phone transmissions) are examples of physical things that are not material. The magnetic field that connects little magnets to your refrigerator door is physical, but not material. Then there's gravity, electric charge, dark energy, and psychic energy.

A little less than 5% of the physical universe is material, i.e. made of matter.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:The empirical evidence already does justify the existence of minds that are no longer attached to their previously inhabited bodies.

Such as?

The laws of thermo dynamics are only valid for small closed enviroments, not for large scale equations, where the laws are invalid.

I've provided references, so do the research for yourself. Or, google OOBs and see what you find.

I disagree with your comment about thermodynamics. How are you qualified to make it?

No, you must defend a posed claim, it's not my duty to google what you achive to argue about when you havn't presented any arguments other than an empty postulation, that's a logical phallacy.

If you actually had some scientific understanding other being able to parrot some silly laws, then you would know that energy will disperse due to things as low pressure freezing, very simple.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Gingko,


"Most people" are baseball fans and freeloaders who sit on their fat asses watching TV for most of the day, except when they get into their hybrid suv to pick up their unemployment checks and go shopping, Democrats voting for their short-term well being. I really give a rat's sphincter about their opinions.

No need to be so disagreeable. We can have a difference of opinion without bringing politics and bottoms into it.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
I invite you to stop bullshitting me. Your sentence, "Again most people would say that if you violate the 2nd law then you cannot be physical," is just some garbage that you made up, like a Fox News commentator. I know a variety of people ranging from hard core scientists to untrustworthy thugs, and not a one of them would iterate that sentence or any form of it.

Yes, but other than that group, I would have general agreement with my sentence.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

If you have an opinion, have the integrity to state it as your personal opinion. Don't hide behind this "most people" horseshit. Who do you think you are, Barry Hussein Obama?

If you mention the 2nd law of thermodynamics to most people they would assume you were talking about classical thermodynamics. That was the implication I was making and it seemed relevant to the discussion at the time.

Only a suggestion, but perhaps you could have said something like that and then directed the conservation.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Evidently you know nothing of physics. That's normal for philosophers and philosopher wanna-be's. If you are willing to learn something of physics, it will profit your study of philosophy. Wikipedia and time spent studying can do wonders.

Electromagnetic radiation (light, radio waves, TV transmissions, and your cell phone transmissions) are examples of physical things that are not material. The magnetic field that connects little magnets to your refrigerator door is physical, but not material. Then there's gravity, electric charge, dark energy, and psychic energy.

A little less than 5% of the physical universe is material, i.e. made of matter.

I found the wikipedia article were you appear to have derived your above statement. Upon reading the article I would say your claim is subject to much philosophical debate on the ontological nature of matter. I was thinking of matter in the way philosophers use it.

Yes, but at the moment no one knows the nature of dark matter and dark energy.


If you don't want to discuss these matters in a civil fashion then just say so. I won't trouble you again.

A brief explanation of one element of my theory may be helpful. The brain is not the source of human consciousness. The brain contains an antenna-tuner system which connects to the entity referred to by religionists as the soul. I employ a different word for soul, "beon," a non-created physical (not material) entity that has the natural ability to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Of course it is described completely in my book.

Beon is the only source of consciousness. The brain is its interface to the physical universe.

The beon concept is taken from an old novel, "The Soul of Anna Klane," chapters from which were misused in Hofstadter and Dennett's book about human consciousness, "The Mind's I." The novel includes an artificial brain made from silicon chips which features a soul-interface circuit to manifest genuine human consciousness in the body of a machine. It's a decent little novel that seems to have been written to express metaphysical ideas. Unfortunately, the story is so intense that few readers actually get the ideas at its core without a re-read.

- Greylorn Ell, PN forum, Tue Jan 28, 2014

The beon concept is adopted from a work of fiction.
Call it what you will; there is no way you can prove your assertion that the 'Beon is the only source of consciousness'.

In what sense were the chapters in the novel misused by Hofstadter and Dennett ?

'The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul' - Hofstadter and Dennett, (1981)- the purpose of which was to jolt...'to make the obvious strange and perhaps, to make the strange obvious.' - from Preface, my emphases.

'The Soul of Anna Klane' - Terrel Miedaner (1977), copyright, the Church of Physical Theology.

And now, decades later...
The beon is described completely in [Greylorn Ell's] book, 'Digital Universe...Analog Soul: Dark energy, Human consciousness and the Origin of God' (2012) - copyright, the Church of Physical Theology.

How far we have come...

Immanuel Can;

I apologize for taking so long to respond to your post. I'm not sure how, but I missed it the first time through. So please consider the following:

Immanuel Can wrote:Actually, Gee, Hexhammer has a point. We get the idea of the "singularity" of consciousness from Descartes, who pointed out that the "self" is not something that can be divided or occupy space: as you say, it cannot be "measured, seen, heard or touched" in and of itself. So that would strongly suggest that the individual consciousness is one thing, and hence "simple," or "singular" in that sense.

Descartes had a brilliant mind, and was most probably a genius, but he was still a man of his times. I listened to tapes of his Mediations and thought that I had never heard a more eloquent logical argument presented by anyone. If logic could be said to be poetry, then Descartes would be the poet -- it was beautiful -- too bad it was wrong.

Descartes leaned very heavily on logic, rationalization, and reason to come up with his understandings, but logic, rationalization, and reason will all fail if built on false premises. His reasoning was built on the premise that a "God" could exist. He also had no knowledge of Freud's divisions of the mind, and had no knowledge of science as we know it today, so there was a tremendous amount of information that he could not incorporate into his reasoning.

We now know that there are some people, who by injury or illness, have the hemispheres of their brain disconnected. They are literally "of two minds". There are also people who suffer from multiple personality disorder and have more than one "self". In Descartes day schizophrenia would be characterized as a "demon" possession, but we now know that it is a chemical disorder in the brain that causes a person to have more than one persona floating around in there. It is interesting to note that multiple personality disorder is caused by emotional trauma, and emotions are caused by, and cause, chemical changes in the brain. So we have three different ways that some form of brain change can produce more than one self.

Even if we did not have this information, what do we think the self is? Is it knowledge? Or is it how we feel? This has been debated for centuries, but my thoughts on this are simple. If the "self" is knowledge, then a book has a self -- this is probably where panpsychism fits in. If the "self" is knowledge in motion -- thought -- then a computer has a self. If we decide to scratch those ideas as being silly, then we are left with feeling and emotion. This is an even bigger problem, because without knowledge, feeling and emotion do not exist. How can one love, hate, or fear nothing? How can I feel good about "me" if I don't know who "me" is? How can I be lonely, without knowledge of being alone? Feeling and emotion can not exist without knowledge, so my "self" is the knowledge of "me" and how I feel about me.

Then we must consider that thought and emotion are two very different things. They have different properties, work differently in the brain, and work differently in different species. So the "self" is made up of at least two different things, has two components, so it is not singular.

Immanuel Can wrote:On the other hand, we all have a very strong sense of "multiple consciousnesses" at work in the universe. The fact that you and Hexhammer can do a thing called "disagreeing" strongly implies that your consciousness are not reconciled to any larger Oneness behind *all* Consciousness. We all intuitively recognize this feature of our universe, and act on it. There is some sort of division *among* consciousnesses, or between persons *bearing* the quality of consciousness, though to detect any *within* the individual self is difficult, as Descartes indicated, and as you suggest, is "known internally" if at all.

I suspect that there is a Oneness, and that it works through the sub/unconscious aspect of mind, so we are not generally aware of it. If you look up Ignacio Matte Blanco in Wiki, you will find a short article that explains his studies of a logic that he found in the sub/unconscious aspect of mind. In the subconscious, we experience a sort of "group think" that guides us more than we realize.

Our subconscious is controlled more by emotion than rational thought, and I suspect that pheromones work through this aspect of mind. The thing that I find interesting in all of this is the idea that pheromones work predominantly within a singular specie, so it is tuned to a sort of Oneness per specie.

G

chowkit74 wrote:Pure consciousness literally means awareness. Awareness is a ground condition that ‘supports’ consciousness. The nature of awareness is effulgence and it is in a not-knowing state before the appearance of object. Consciousness, on the other hand, is appearance of objects in the mind. When awareness touches on objects, consciousness would arise simultaneously. Therefore, when one mention on pure consciousness, one would speak on the state of awareness that it effulgence and in a not-knowing state before the appearance of object.

Chowkit74;

You get it!!!! You are the first person that I have talked to that actually understands the difference between awareness and what we generally refer to as consciousness.

I think that awareness works like a sense, the same as our other senses work, but we don't understand how it is sensed in the matter of awareness. We know that hearing works through our ears, but if there were no sounds, we could not hear. Vision works through our eyes, but if there were no light or objects to look at, we could not see. Awareness works the same in that, if there is nothing to be aware of, then we are conscious of nothing -- there is no consciousness.

This is the reason why I think that matter is important in the acquiring of consciousness. Prior to matter, there would be no point to focus from in order to focus on an object in order to be conscious of it. So I don't think that actual consciousness can exist prior to matter, but possibly knowledge could exist prior to matter. Not sure.

G

HexHammer wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:
I've provided references, so do the research for yourself. Or, google OOBs and see what you find.

I disagree with your comment about thermodynamics. How are you qualified to make it?

No, you must defend a posed claim, it's not my duty to google what you achive to argue about when you havn't presented any arguments other than an empty postulation, that's a logical phallacy.

If you actually had some scientific understanding other being able to parrot some silly laws, then you would know that energy will disperse due to things as low pressure freezing, very simple.

Your previous paragraph about the behavior of energy is, in a word, stupid. You seem to think that heat and energy are synonymous.

Your opinions about how to conduct an argument differ from mine.

When someone references ideas, theories, or other categories of information about which I am ignorant, I do not first demand that they defend their statements before I investigate their information.

I first look at their command of English spelling and grammar. If they flunk the spelling test, I write them off as ignorant dolts who are determined to remain ignorant, given the excellent spell checker that flags every mistake. If they flunk both s & g, I usually ignore them, but in your case I'm replying, so that other readers of this site will understand if I fail to reply to their ignorant opinions.

If the poster has gotten at least a "B" by my standards on spelling and grammar, I investigate their content before replying. Thanks to Wikipedia this is relatively easy. It does take time, and if the subject is complex it will require some cross-referencing. This will take hours, and on some occasions, days.

Since you ignore your spell checker and your grammar is "C-" by my standards, I would never expect you to research any references more complicated than "People" magazine, and assume that you are not a competent evaluator of alternative ideas, because evaluation requires understanding, and understanding requires research, and research requires effort. You seem to be satisfied with lower standards. Good luck to you. You'll understand if I ignore future posts from you.