Philosophy Now Forum

Wet is not necessarily water and the mind is not necessarily the brain. Even if the source of the mind is physical, awareness is not a process or it comes from a process different than the process of creating senses. How do I know? I can explain in general terms how the senses are created but that explanation fails to explain the mind. There is something unexplainable going on.

If I am dry, the mind knows I am dry but the mind didn't create dry nor did it create the sensation of dry. When trying to explain the mind, explaining reality and senses are specious explanations.

Edit: "The brain creates the mind" is speculation. "Some process in the brain creates the mind" is speculation. "Some matter in the brain creates the mind" is speculation. "Some process or matter outside the brain creates the mind" is speculation. Presume what you want but what you presume is speculation.

All presumptions about the mind precede the explanations. That is a wrong logic.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:06 pmEdit: "The brain creates the mind" is speculation. "Some process in the brain creates the mind" is speculation. "Some matter in the brain creates the mind" is speculation. "Some process or matter outside the brain creates the mind" is speculation. Presume what you want but what you presume is speculation.

..and there is the mystery of consciousness.

As far as we are aware. the brain IS required for consciousness.

Since the brain is matter - and I consider things need some 'loop' For example in an electronic circuit - cathode - anode.

I am of an opinion that qualia is achieved by the loop of matter and anti-matter...ultimately dark energy.

My view: mind (self/'I') is software, brain/body is hardware. The two interdepend but are not synonymous.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:45 pm My view: mind (self/'I') is software, brain/body is hardware. The two interdepend but are not synonymous.

That's not an a explanation.

As an analogy you might say, "Sailing is the software and water is the hardware" but what does that explain?

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:45 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:45 pm My view: mind (self/'I') is software, brain/body is hardware. The two interdepend but are not synonymous.

That's not an a explanation.

As an analogy you might say, "Sailing is the software and water is the hardware" but what does that explain?

I din't offer an explanation.

Did you?

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:45 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:45 pm My view: mind (self/'I') is software, brain/body is hardware. The two interdepend but are not synonymous.

That's not an a explanation.

As an analogy you might say, "Sailing is the software and water is the hardware" but what does that explain?

Icarus fell...

-Imp

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:45 pm As an analogy you might say, "Sailing is the software and water is the hardware" but what does that explain?

Not really. Both sailboats and water are physical, and hence part of the "hardware." The analogy is obviously of a computer.

I'm not saying that's a wonderful analogy...but I am saying it's more apt, given what Functionalists tend to think, than the one you offered in its place.

But here's an interesting question: is consciousness capable of causing behaviours? What do you think?

If the physical stuff (brain) is the base element or aspect, and consciousness (so to speak) "arises" or "emerges" as a final product, by way of being caused by that physical stuff, then how would it ever be possible for consciousness to act downward and "cause" the physical to do anything?



That might require some explanation.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:23 pm

If the physical stuff (brain) is the base element or aspect, and consciousness (so to speak) "arises" or "emerges" as a final product, by way of being caused by that physical stuff, then how would it ever be possible for consciousness to act downward and "cause" the physical to do anything?



That might require some explanation.

Does that logic mean that the physical stuff is not the cause of consciousness?

I cannot explain where consciousness comes from.

Can you?

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 8:38 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:23 pm If the physical stuff (brain) is the base element or aspect, and consciousness (so to speak) "arises" or "emerges" as a final product, by way of being caused by that physical stuff, then how would it ever be possible for consciousness to act downward and "cause" the physical to do anything?

That might require some explanation.

Does that logic mean that the physical stuff is not the cause of consciousness?

That could be true, but it's not quite the problem identified here. The problem I was speaking of is formally called the "Downward Causality" problem, and it's been really well explored by the current philosopher of mind, Jaegwon Kim (who is not easy, but is very worth the read on this). Let me try to lay it out for you in a couple of steps -- simplified, of course, since Kim makes a much more sophisticated case.

Physicalists and Materialists are necessarily also Determinists. They believe that actions in the "physical stuff" cause everything else that happens.

In regard to human development, this means that they think consciousness is merely a product of the physical brain. But it's a weird product, because it's obviously itself non-physical. So they can't decide what to say about it. Some say it's an illusion, and odd projection of the brain. Others say it's an "emergent property," which means that it suddenly and inexplicably springs into being at a point when the physical stuff is sufficiently developed (but this is bought at the cost of undermining progressive evolutionism, which they also tend to believe). But all of them think that volition, will, consciousness and so on, are not themselves physical properties, because they cannot be identified and dissected they way the physical stuff can be.

So are they not real, or are they real but emergent? Materialists and Physicalists have no single decision on that. But what they do agree about is that a non-physical explanation of cause is not allowed to be possible. So if your mind, your will, your consciousness is non-physical, it cannot be (for their ideological reasons) allowed to "act downward" upon the physical stuff, and it cannot be said to "make" your body do anything.

But this leaves them with a huge mystery they cannot solve: how can we live without volition? Since everyone lives and acts as if this non-physical stuff were real and can cause things (as when, for example, you say to your wife, "I'm going to the store.") what role can we say this non-physical stuff actually plays in the world? And even worse, since consciousness "emerges," or springs into existence in an on-off way, how can it be the cause of its own evolutionary necessity? A thing which isn't already in existence cannot produce a survival advantage, and so cannot be selected-for by Darwinian evolution, Darwin himself insisted. So how did the bloody thing come into being in the fist place?

Those are just a few of the very serious problems of trying to say that the mind is just a physical appendage, product or emergent property. And it gets much, much worse for that view, if you read Jaegwon Kim.

I cannot explain where consciousness comes from.

Can you?

I can't explain every last detail, but I can say I think it's a God-given property. It's certainly quite baffling to science, at the moment. Science is making great strides in things like physical brain-mapping, but doesn't seem to be getting any traction at all on "mind."

Volition, I think, is part of what it means for mankind to be "made in the image of God," to quote Genesis. Not that God "looks like" men, but that mankind has a godlike power to make decisions that are genuinely original, creative, intentional and personal...we have genuine free will. But that is a conclusion I draw from revelation, rather than from investigation, because as I say, we're not having much success, even the best of us, at sorting it out in terms of physical science.

But we can rule a few bad answers out. And as Kim shows, one of those bad arguments has to be Materialism (of Physicalism). It's just not explaining anything about the existence of mind at all.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 8:38 am

I cannot explain where consciousness comes from.

Can you?

Yes.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:39 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 8:38 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:23 pm If the physical stuff (brain) is the base element or aspect, and consciousness (so to speak) "arises" or "emerges" as a final product, by way of being caused by that physical stuff, then how would it ever be possible for consciousness to act downward and "cause" the physical to do anything?

That might require some explanation.

Does that logic mean that the physical stuff is not the cause of consciousness?

That could be true, but it's not quite the problem identified here. The problem I was speaking of is formally called the "Downward Causality" problem, and it's been really well explored by the current philosopher of mind, Jaegwon Kim (who is not easy, but is very worth the read on this). Let me try to lay it out for you in a couple of steps -- simplified, of course, since Kim makes a much more sophisticated case.

Physicalists and Materialists are necessarily also Determinists. They believe that actions in the "physical stuff" cause everything else that happens.

In regard to human development, this means that they think consciousness is merely a product of the physical brain. But it's a weird product, because it's obviously itself non-physical.

This is a HUGE CLAIM. WHY is Consciousness supposedly "obviously" non-physical?

Do 'you' have ANY actual PROOF that Consciousness, itself, is non-physical?

If yes, the will 'you' provide that PROOF? Or, once again will you NOT provide any thing at all for YOUR CLAIM?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:39 pm So they can't decide what to say about it. Some say it's an illusion, and odd projection of the brain. Others say it's an "emergent property," which means that it suddenly and inexplicably springs into being at a point when the physical stuff is sufficiently developed (but this is bought at the cost of undermining progressive evolutionism, which they also tend to believe). But all of them think that volition, will, consciousness and so on, are not themselves physical properties, because they cannot be identified and dissected they way the physical stuff can be.

In other WORDS, 'you' and "them" actually have absolutely NO idea what Consciousness actually IS, which is rather hilarious considering what Consciousness actually IS.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:39 pmSo are they not real, or are they real but emergent? Materialists and Physicalists have no single decision on that. But what they do agree about is that a non-physical explanation of cause is not allowed to be possible. So if your mind, your will, your consciousness is non-physical, it cannot be (for their ideological reasons) allowed to "act downward" upon the physical stuff, and it cannot be said to "make" your body do anything.

This is such a TOTALLY CONFUSED and DISTORTED VIEW of things. For example, explain IF YOU CAN how can one have a "mind" and how the two are separate and/or related to each other?

The way you do or do not respond to this will SHOW and PROVE just how DISTORTED and CONFUSED your WORDS actually ARE.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:39 pmBut this leaves them with a huge mystery they cannot solve: how can we live without volition? Since everyone lives and acts as if this non-physical stuff were real and can cause things (as when, for example, you say to your wife, "I'm going to the store.") what role can we say this non-physical stuff actually plays in the world? And even worse, since consciousness "emerges," or springs into existence in an on-off way, how can it be the cause of its own evolutionary necessity? A thing which isn't already in existence cannot produce a survival advantage, and so cannot be selected-for by Darwinian evolution, Darwin himself insisted. So how did the bloody thing come into being in the fist place?

This is a VERY TYPICAL 'human being' question, which just SHOWS and PROVES how DISTORTED 'you', human beings, REALLY ARE, in the days of when this is written.

Jumping to conclusions, and making assumptions based on past experiences, just SHOWS how primitive and distorted 'you', human beings, ARE.

Human beings thousands of years before the ones in the days of when this is written were far more advanced and intelligent then these ones.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:39 pmThose are just a few of the very serious problems of trying to say that the mind is just a physical appendage, product or emergent property.

Just using the word "mind" in the way 'you' do here SHOWS and EXPLAINS WHY 'you', human beings, are STILL STUCK in your OWN PROBLEMS.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:39 pmAnd it gets much, much worse for that view, if you read Jaegwon Kim.

Any MY POINT EXACTLY about how 'you', human beings, are SO DISTORTED and SO CONFUSED about what IS ESSENTIALLY Truly SIMPLE and EASY to understand and reason.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:39 pm

I cannot explain where consciousness comes from.

Can you?

I can't explain every last detail,

Yet I CAN. So, WHY IS THIS?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:39 pm but I can say I think it's a God-given property.

LOL

Are you at all able to elaborate on this and explain how this could even be possible?

If yes, then great. Will you do this?

If, however, you are NOT able to elaborate on this, then that is TOTALLY understandable.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:39 pm It's certainly quite baffling to science, at the moment.

That is it, lesson your own suffering from CONFUSION by telling "yourself" that NO one could do what 'you' "yourself" can NOT do.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:39 pm Science is making great strides in things like physical brain-mapping, but doesn't seem to be getting any traction at all on "mind."

LOL THIS IS because there is NO actual "mind", that is; in the way 'you', human beings, BELIEVE one exists.

'you' are LOOKING FOR what IS and 'trying to' EXPLAIN what is even NOT THERE, which, by the way, is absolutely hilarious to OBSERVE and WITNESS, from My perspective.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:39 pmVolition, I think, is part of what it means for mankind to be "made in the image of God," to quote Genesis. Not that God "looks like" men, but that mankind has a godlike power to make decisions that are genuinely original, creative, intentional and personal...we have genuine free will.

This is WHY 'I' am God.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:39 pm But that is a conclusion I draw from revelation, rather than from investigation, because as I say, we're not having much success, even the best of us, at sorting it out in terms of physical science.

But ALL-OF-THIS has ALREADY been what you call "sorted out". As I keep reminding 'you' ALL-OF-THIS is ALREADY KNOWN.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:39 pmBut we can rule a few bad answers out. And as Kim shows, one of those bad arguments has to be Materialism (of Physicalism). It's just not explaining anything about the existence of mind at all.

What is it that 'you', human beings, need explained about the existence of the One and Only Truly OPEN Mind?

The Mind has ALWAYS existed. What else is there that needs to be explained about Its existence?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:24 pm This is a HUGE CLAIM.

Yeah, like I said on the other strand, you and I are done.

Thanks.

Speakin' only for me: I'm inclined to think my mind (self/'I'/soul) came to be when I was conceived and probably will go the way of the Tyrannosaur when I draw my last breath.

Mebbe you're party to some kind of universal overmind, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 4:31 am Speakin' only for me: I'm inclined to think my mind (self/'I'/soul) came to be when I was conceived and probably will go the way of the Tyrannosaur when I draw my last breath.

Mebbe you're party to some kind of universal overmind, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

I’m no Einstein and I’d be suspicious of anyone who claims to be …

but with mathematics scientists can explain that attention causes a waveform to collapse into a distinct particle. Since all things are made of particles, this would account for consciousness creating the body. Sri Ramana Maharshi simply says that attention creates the body. The great Longchenpa expresses the same meaning with different words and references, should you need to triangulate some reading sources for personal clarification. The way I see it, need would be the only reason for doing such a thing. Now imagine a burning, survival-oriented need for such clarification, and you get the drift of what some folks go through.

Just look at the room around you. If you have no windows or potted plants or if you live on dirt, everything you perceive beyond the electronic communicating device (the electronic communicating device being the focus of your world at this moment of comprehension) is or was created under mind-created copyright, or by mind before copyright. Walls, floor, ceiling, and other products made with clever hands and machines,

… “but only God can make a tree.”

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 6:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:24 pm This is a HUGE CLAIM.

Yeah, like I said on the other strand, you and I are done.

Thanks.

So, once again, 'you' make a CLAIM but have absolutely NOTHING to show in support of the CLAIM.