Philosophy Now Forum

Matter and mind are two different things.

Is there some conclusion that follows from mind is matter?

Noax wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 4:22 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 1:41 pmExcellent article, appears I am a naturalistic dualist!

What, you read the title and perhaps enough to pick up on the condescending tone, and since the conclusion matches your faith, it must be excellent.

The only condescension here is your conclusion that I only read a title and not much more. I assure you I read it in its entirety.

Noax wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 4:22 pmThe last one is your best friend. It must be true because it paints the picture I most want. That's excellent reason for the faith, but it makes a completely impotent argument for some other position being wrong.

This 'best friend', in the past I have hated more than I could possibly hate any 'friend', and the word 'faith' is something I discarded a long time ago. My knowledge that there is a third-party intelligent backbone to our reality and indeed, one embedded completely within our psyche does leave me to consider that our ability to 'sense' anything is only achieved by virtue of the fact that 'IT' does exist.

To be honest, I hadn't considered that there was in any way a atheist\theist argument, more just the author's explanation that a distinction needs to be made between mental consciousness and physicality.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 6:23 am The only condescension here is your conclusion that I only read a title and not much more. I assure you I read it in its entirety.

Others had expressed similar approval of the article. I jumped only on your case because I hold you to a higher standard. If you think the conclusion was well argued, perhaps my assessment of you was in error. Kindly rebut the fallacies pointed out, especially the consciousness-wave-collapse claim on which the argument seems to be anchored.

To be honest, I hadn't considered that there was in any way a atheist\theist argument, more just the author's explanation that a distinction needs to be made between mental consciousness and physicality.

Even a physicalist distinguishes between these two. A monist simply claims that one supervenes on the other, and a dualist says neither does.

I think the physical/non-epiphenomenal-dualist models predict empirical distinctions. Descartes saw this problem (why would a prediction be a problem???) and attempted a solution at least. The author did admittedly appeal to empirical science to make his point, but unfortunately didn't select any actual scientific theory. We all have our biases and select our favorite interpretations of various topics accordingly, but it is begging to attempt to use those interpretations to prove anything.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 12:06 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 25, 2018 3:02 pmPhysicality is change.

Materialism is a form of physicality that changes.

You are another form of physicality, different from materialism, a form that does not change, which may be invisible to the form of materialism for different reasons: namely, capacity of incarnation (which is your identified biological species) and blockages of the incarnated capacity.

Just as you cannot touch materialism while dreaming, materialism cannot touch you.

Principles are another form that doesn't change.

And what physical reality does not change?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 3:36 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 12:06 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 25, 2018 3:02 pmPhysicality is change.

Materialism is a form of physicality that changes.

You are another form of physicality, different from materialism, a form that does not change, which may be invisible to the form of materialism for different reasons: namely, capacity of incarnation (which is your identified biological species) and blockages of the incarnated capacity.

Just as you cannot touch materialism while dreaming, materialism cannot touch you.

Principles are another form that doesn't change.

And what physical reality does not change?

You.

Noax wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 12:51 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 6:23 am The only condescension here is your conclusion that I only read a title and not much more. I assure you I read it in its entirety.

Others had expressed similar approval of the article. I jumped only on your case because I hold you to a higher standard. If you think the conclusion was well argued, perhaps my assessment of you was in error. Kindly rebut the fallacies pointed out, especially the consciousness-wave-collapse claim on which the argument seems to be anchored.

Well, in that case I feel I must apologise. I simply stated the article was excellent because I enjoyed reading it! I have read very little in relation to the philosophy of mind.
Regarding the author's point on QM and consciousness-wave-collapse, I certainly had no opinion on the matter since I am not qualified to do so. I wish I did understand the physics because I feel I would get a far better comprehension as to the nature of the third-party intelligence.
It has often crossed my mind in consideration of the result of an experiment being altered by the observation of it, that the third-party intelligence may be causal reason for the experiment result to be altered. However, I don't see phycisists that do appear to understand the reasoning jumping up and down shouting hallelujah!

Noax wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 12:51 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 6:23 amTo be honest, I hadn't considered that there was in any way a atheist\theist argument, more just the author's explanation that a distinction needs to be made between mental consciousness and physicality.

Even a physicalist distinguishes between these two. A monist simply claims that one supervenes on the other, and a dualist says neither does.

The author did indicate that at least implicitly a physicalist does recognise the distinction of the mental conscious side to the physical.
What do you mean by 'supervenes'? Could you rephrase?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 5:06 amThe author did indicate that at least implicitly a physicalist does recognise the distinction of the mental conscious side to the physical.
What do you mean by 'supervenes'? Could you rephrase?

I don't think a physicalist would call it 'a side'. There is but one 'side', and I'm not sure what you meant by 'physicality'.
But there is physical stuff like atoms that have mass and such, and there is physical process like combustion, which do not have mass, but involve changing states. Process and matter are distinct, yet both are physical to a physicalist. There is no immaterial fire component necessary for combustion to take place.

As for supervention: (of a fact or property) be entailed by or consequent on the existence or establishment of another.
A physicalist says mind supervenes on (is a function of) material. An idealist would say matter supervenes on mind.

Other examples: Biology supervenes on chemistry, which in turn supervenes on quantum physics. A materialist might stop there. I don't, so I suppose I'm not one. I've learned more from the idealists than from positions lacking supervention at all.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 3:02 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 3:36 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 12:06 pm
Materialism is a form of physicality that changes.

You are another form of physicality, different from materialism, a form that does not change, which may be invisible to the form of materialism for different reasons: namely, capacity of incarnation (which is your identified biological species) and blockages of the incarnated capacity.

Just as you cannot touch materialism while dreaming, materialism cannot touch you.

Principles are another form that doesn't change.

And what physical reality does not change?

You.

So I will have the same body, same mind, same emotions always? It will never change at all due to age or sickness? Or in reverse through good health?

Noax wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 5:26 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 5:06 amThe author did indicate that at least implicitly a physicalist does recognise the distinction of the mental conscious side to the physical.
What do you mean by 'supervenes'? Could you rephrase?

I don't think a physicalist would call it 'a side'. There is but one 'side', and I'm not sure what you meant by 'physicality'.
But there is physical stuff like atoms that have mass and such, and there is physical process like combustion, which do not have mass, but involve changing states. Process and matter are distinct, yet both are physical to a physicalist. There is no immaterial fire component necessary for combustion to take place.

As for supervention: (of a fact or property) be entailed by or consequent on the existence or establishment of another.
A physicalist says mind supervenes on (is a function of) material. An idealist would say matter supervenes on mind.

Other examples: Biology supervenes on chemistry, which in turn supervenes on quantum physics. A materialist might stop there. I don't, so I suppose I'm not one. I've learned more from the idealists than from positions lacking supervention at all.

One could go around the block a few times with what supervenes upon what without determining a reason for a conscious mind. So we know that biology supervenes on chemistry which supervenes on quantum physics, but how do we determine a single conscious entity?
Ultimately, it is the quantum physics of it all that determines what has qualia.
Perhaps we could copy the entire atomic structure of my body, we would have its chemistry, its biology, but would we have its quantum physics intact, such that it would be a living copy of me? ...such that it would be conscious and experience sense, qualia?
Perhaps it would. Perhaps this entity will retract its hand when I threaten to strike it with a hammer, but why is it a separate sensual being? I guess it delves into the speed at which the copy is made, and hence loses the QM physics of me. I see it, from a computer programming POV as a pointer, that is me, is unique, to me.

What makes me unique, is the fact that only I can categorically state that I have a unique place in the universe that has experience of sensation.

I've been delving into David Chalmer's videos of late and one of which he stated, perhaps we are just waiting for "The right crazy idea" when it comes to understanding consciousness.

So here is mine.
Electronic components require electricity to flow from a an anode to a cathode such that a component on the circuit board has what is required to function as a component upon said circuit board. Similarly, for qualia to exist, consider that our consciousness at its core is dark energy\matter and the receiver for energy from this side (the light energy\matter) to pass, permits consciousness. Hence the wave function is collapsed virtue of the fact that it has been usurped by the alternate energy\matter of the dark energy\matter.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 7:51 pm Matter and mind are two different things.

Is there some conclusion that follows from mind is matter?

if matter and mind were completely separate, lobotomies wouldn't work...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Jun 02, 2018 5:23 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 7:51 pm Matter and mind are two different things.

Is there some conclusion that follows from mind is matter?

if matter and mind were completely separate, lobotomies wouldn't work...

-Imp

There is a dependency between mind and matter, the senses come from matter,but how does "mind is matter" matter at all?

There is a dependency between matter and energy. Would it be proper to say matter is energy? Yes, atoms have energy but calling matter energy confuses the distinction.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Jun 02, 2018 5:23 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 7:51 pm Matter and mind are two different things.

Is there some conclusion that follows from mind is matter?

if matter and mind were completely separate, lobotomies wouldn't work...

-Imp

Sense data comes from material sources like light waves and sound waves, etc. But the data is raw, unrecognizable. The brain "mines the data" and in doing so creates appearances, sound, etc, which are recognizable. But of what they are comprised? It doesn't really matter. Whatever they are comprised of they are recognizable to consciousness,

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Jun 02, 2018 5:23 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 7:51 pm Matter and mind are two different things.

Is there some conclusion that follows from mind is matter?

if matter and mind were completely separate, lobotomies wouldn't work...

-Imp

If your computer showing a youtube video and the sources via wireless of the video were completely separate then shutting off the wireless wouldn't work.

kovacs wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:50 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Jun 02, 2018 5:23 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 7:51 pm Matter and mind are two different things.

Is there some conclusion that follows from mind is matter?

if matter and mind were completely separate, lobotomies wouldn't work...

-Imp

If your computer showing a youtube video and the sources via wireless of the video were completely separate then shutting off the wireless wouldn't work.

That's right. When the car stops working, the driver stops driving but the driver is still working.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Jun 02, 2018 5:23 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 7:51 pm Matter and mind are two different things.

Is there some conclusion that follows from mind is matter?

if matter and mind were completely separate, lobotomies wouldn't work...

-Imp

Unless matter was a mediator of the mind considering abstractions such as the circle remain constant regardless of the nature of the mind.