Philosophy Now Forum

Even funnier is how anyone arguing for a mind doesn’t see how that would lead to solipsism.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:21 pm

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:13 pm

Darkneos wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 6:15 pm Ad Homs are the only response to god of the gaps arguments. You’re essentially referencing your own ignorance for why things are as you claim.

I haven't mentioned god, you have. I'm an atheist and have been talking in terms of "processes", "relationships" and "information", not "spirits", "ghosts" and "souls". Get your head out of your ass so that we can stop talking past each other.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 6:15 pm It does follow. P Zombie is more about whether something is conscious not about a mind. We can’t measure a mind.

How does one measure consciousness?

Darkneos wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 6:15 pm No it’s not. You can measure ripeness you can’t measure redness.

Again this is just god of the gaps nonsense. The only difference is you have no evidence for mind. Like I said, it was a useful concept in the past when we didn’t know better, but now we do.

Please try harder, this is boring.

Of course you can measure redness. What is a measurement if not a comparison of similar aspects, like change (time), and length? Measuring red would simply be comparing varying degrees of red compared to other colors. The redder the apple the riper the apple. The more brown/black the apple, the more rotten the apple. You simply aren't imaginative enough and assume way too much.

We aren’t talking past each other. You’re advocating for mind, which there is no evidence for. Everything else you have mentioned. Processes, relationships, and information are all the domain of the brain. That’s pretty much settled.

As for how one measures consciousness, can’t really say for sure.

Incorrect, you cannot measure redness because redness doesn’t exist “out there” in that it’s color. Red is effectively whatever red say is red, so you can’t really measure it because red to you could be “brown” to another. There is no way to measure an amount of red in something. Now wavelengths yes, we can measure that, and yes our brains turn that into color. But if you try to demonstrate redness to someone else you’ll fail to it they don’t already agree what it is prior to it, which we as a society do.

The redder an apple is doesn’t mean it’s riper, there isn’t a link between the two. What of apples that aren’t red? What if someone can’t see red a la color blind?

Like, your arguments just get stupider with each post. It’s ironic that you think I assume too much when that’s literally your whole argument so far.

Measurement is more than just change over time.

If brains are "out there" (again your words, not mine) and colors aren't "out there" yet brains turn wavelengths to color, then you're contradicting yourself. You have no idea what you're talking about, even claiming consciousness can be measured yet can't say for sure how. Pathetic.

I never said measurement is just change over time. You aren't even reading what I said and put words in my mouth. You are incapable of intellectual honesty which just makes your words worthless and not worth my time.

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:15 pm

Darkneos wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:21 pm

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:13 pm
I haven't mentioned god, you have. I'm an atheist and have been talking in terms of "processes", "relationships" and "information", not "spirits", "ghosts" and "souls". Get your head out of your ass so that we can stop talking past each other.


How does one measure consciousness?


Of course you can measure redness. What is a measurement if not a comparison of similar aspects, like change (time), and length? Measuring red would simply be comparing varying degrees of red compared to other colors. The redder the apple the riper the apple. The more brown/black the apple, the more rotten the apple. You simply aren't imaginative enough and assume way too much.

We aren’t talking past each other. You’re advocating for mind, which there is no evidence for. Everything else you have mentioned. Processes, relationships, and information are all the domain of the brain. That’s pretty much settled.

As for how one measures consciousness, can’t really say for sure.

Incorrect, you cannot measure redness because redness doesn’t exist “out there” in that it’s color. Red is effectively whatever red say is red, so you can’t really measure it because red to you could be “brown” to another. There is no way to measure an amount of red in something. Now wavelengths yes, we can measure that, and yes our brains turn that into color. But if you try to demonstrate redness to someone else you’ll fail to it they don’t already agree what it is prior to it, which we as a society do.

The redder an apple is doesn’t mean it’s riper, there isn’t a link between the two. What of apples that aren’t red? What if someone can’t see red a la color blind?

Like, your arguments just get stupider with each post. It’s ironic that you think I assume too much when that’s literally your whole argument so far.

Measurement is more than just change over time.

If brains are "out there" (again your words, not mine) and colors aren't "out there" yet brains turn wavelengths to color, then you're contradicting yourself. You have no idea what you're talking about, even claiming consciousness can be measured yet can't say for sure how. Pathetic.

I never said measurement is just change over time. You aren't even reading what I said and put words in my mouth. You are incapable of intellectual honesty which just makes your words worthless and not worth my time.

It's more like trying to dumb down very basic and understood subjects for someone who doesn't get it. Color is "out there" in that it's wave lengths of light but our brains turn that into color. Light bounces off objects and that's what we see. I'm not contradicting myself, you're literally just stupid in this case (which makes sense since your only argument against materialism or the brain is gaps in knowledge, a la argument from ignorance). Nothing that I said is a contradiction.

Like I said you might want to google that word. Our brains create a best guess of what is out there based on sense data. Just because we don't "directly" perceive a tree or a brain doesn't mean there isn't one. And in the case of color and sound we can explain what they are, we aren't just magicing this stuff out of nothing.

I never said measurement is just change over time. You aren't even reading what I said and put words in my mouth. You are incapable of intellectual honesty which just makes your words worthless and not worth my time.

It sounds more like you just want an easy out when you can't admit you have nothing. There is no reason to believe in such a thing as mind when we have data to show all the stuff is done by the brain. Even your little bit about information, relationships, etc is what the brain does. Everything cited so far is just dated scientists who say "we don't know the real answer so it has to be something else " (which is not how anything works).

In fact that is literally your whole argument so far, "we don't know how X works so it has to be mind" which is argument from ignorance and god of the gaps (which again doesn't have to do with god specifically). I honestly was expecting a challenge but it's the same weak sauce nonsense people with no evidence have. It didn't work in the past and it won't work now.

It also still doesn't change that you can't measure redness. You can measure the wavelength of light being reflected of an object but you can't measure redness itself.

Like...if you believe that mind is primary then you might as well just skip ahead to solipsism while you're at it.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 4:51 am Like...if you believe that mind is primary then you might as well just skip ahead to solipsism while you're at it.

True - in the conceptional sense - and perhaps add to that a primary mind "should have just stayed that way" ( as The One Mind ) instead of creating a "between" bit...

Let us reflect on John Milton's words about perception and cognition:

"The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven"

Pleb on the bus 'ere. Can we say that mind is an emergent state of (sufficiently complex) matter?

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 9:06 am Pleb on the bus 'ere. Can we say that mind is an emergent state of (sufficiently complex) matter?

Count me in Martin.
The brainmind is complex.The human brainmind is further enhanced by human language, one of a number of symbolic systems that are mediated through social interactions.

I am in two minds about ants 'and bees' brainminds. Are our much vaunted brainminds inferior to ants' and bees' brainminds Do we live better lives as independent selves.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 9:17 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 9:06 am Pleb on the bus 'ere. Can we say that mind is an emergent state of (sufficiently complex) matter?

Count me in Martin.
The brainmind is complex.The human brainmind is further enhanced by human language, one of a number of symbolic systems that are mediated through social interactions.

I am in two minds about ants 'and bees' brainminds. Are our much vaunted brainminds inferior to ants' and bees' brainminds Do we live better lives as independent selves.

They're inferior if more complexity is less, I would say, Belinda, and if less is aesthetically inferior.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 9:27 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 9:17 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 9:06 am Pleb on the bus 'ere. Can we say that mind is an emergent state of (sufficiently complex) matter?

Count me in Martin.
The brainmind is complex.The human brainmind is further enhanced by human language, one of a number of symbolic systems that are mediated through social interactions.

I am in two minds about ants 'and bees' brainminds. Are our much vaunted brainminds inferior to ants' and bees' brainminds Do we live better lives as independent selves.

They're inferior if more complexity is less, I would say, Belinda, and if less is aesthetically inferior.

Sorry, that was me trying to be too concise. By ants' and bees' language, I meant that these too are symbolic languages, even more so than human language. There is some literature about it which I have forgotten, linguistics.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 10:14 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 9:27 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 9:17 am

Count me in Martin.
The brainmind is complex.The human brainmind is further enhanced by human language, one of a number of symbolic systems that are mediated through social interactions.

I am in two minds about ants 'and bees' brainminds. Are our much vaunted brainminds inferior to ants' and bees' brainminds Do we live better lives as independent selves.

They're inferior if more complexity is less, I would say, Belinda, and if less is aesthetically inferior.

Sorry, that was me trying to be too concise. By ants' and bees' language, I meant that these too are symbolic languages, even more so than human language. There is some literature about it which I have forgotten, linguistics.

All communication is symbolic, semiotic. How does one measure symbolism?

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 12:00 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 10:14 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 9:27 am
They're inferior if more complexity is less, I would say, Belinda, and if less is aesthetically inferior.

Sorry, that was me trying to be too concise. By ants' and bees' language, I meant that these too are symbolic languages, even more so than human language. There is some literature about it which I have forgotten, linguistics.

All communication is symbolic, semiotic. How does one measure symbolism?

That is so. Even when a dog pees on a tuft of grass that is communication albeit unwitting communication.

However, the dog peeing on a tuft of grass is not a symbol it's a sign
for other dogs who can read it. Symbols are not signals either as signals are both intentional and arbitrary.
In some cases symbols are signals from authorities to act in certain ways such as genuflecting in front of a sacred thing. Not every symbolic system is free.I suppose that is why repressed peoples are likened to ants or bees. Therefore I'd evaluate symbolism by: if it's free symbolism it's good, but if its symbols are controlled by a secular or religious authority then it's bad.

I was indoctrinated into the modern faith that individualism is good. Evaluations are culture specific. My attitude to the dogs who come to share my home is culture -free. My independent little terrier was okay. My very dependent German shepherds were okay. We were all okay in our own ways. However an aggregate of feral dogs does not work as eventually there is cannibalism unless someone feeds them. God is sometimes thought of as a loving heavenly father which does not say a lot in favour of human nature as self-regulating.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 3:32 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 12:00 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 10:14 am

Sorry, that was me trying to be too concise. By ants' and bees' language, I meant that these too are symbolic languages, even more so than human language. There is some literature about it which I have forgotten, linguistics.

All communication is symbolic, semiotic. How does one measure symbolism?

That is so. Even when a dog pees on a tuft of grass that is communication albeit unwitting communication.

However, the dog peeing on a tuft of grass is not a symbol it's a sign
for other dogs who can read it. Symbols are not signals either as signals are both intentional and arbitrary.
In some cases symbols are signals from authorities to act in certain ways such as genuflecting in front of a sacred thing. Not every symbolic system is free.I suppose that is why repressed peoples are likened to ants or bees. Therefore I'd evaluate symbolism by: if it's free symbolism it's good, but if its symbols are controlled by a secular or religious authority then it's bad.

I was indoctrinated into the modern faith that individualism is good. Evaluations are culture specific. My attitude to the dogs who come to share my home is culture -free. My independent little terrier was okay. My very dependent German shepherds were okay. We were all okay in our own ways. However an aggregate of feral dogs does not work as eventually there is cannibalism unless someone feeds them. God is sometimes thought of as a loving heavenly father which does not say a lot in favour of human nature as self-regulating.

The utter inappropriateness of that symbolism, apart from projection, says much about human nature in many ways. And yes, all symbols are signs but not all signs are symbols. They can only be to symbolizers.

All communication is a biological extension; symbols, one might say, are a bit of information that reflects to us knowledge we already possess, that we recognize in short form, more as a reminder of a taboo or qualifications and/or limitations to our behaviours.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:34 pm Even funnier is how anyone arguing for a mind doesn’t see how that would lead to solipsism.

Mind is not merely an alternative to matter, but extends into all matter beyond brain and body proper and into environment including other minds. Solipsism is rebutted by the attitude that other minds , beside objects of experience are also subjects of experience.


I say "attitude" in preference to 'fact' because I understand the problem of other minds as concisely stated by Darkneos. I laughed out loud when as a child someone told me about the problem , and then as a reflective adult I experienced for myself a brief episode of no -ego.
When devoid of ego other minds are more, not less, significant.