For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Not matter per se, but some sort of energy, yes. See my post immediately above.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:33 am So what is required for a mind to exist? Would you agree that matter is ALSO required?
We might see things fairly similarly, then. You might be calling "physical" that which I refer to as "mental energy" - and I think you might be doing this simply because it is a type of energy, and thus "substantial" in some way. I think, though, that it's worth distinguishing between energies/substances that are capable of supporting (or embodying) consciousness/mind and those which are not, and thus I distinguish between physical and mental energies/substances.Walker wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:34 amWhat I mean is, only the physical exists. Like awareness, like knowledge, like perception, the body itself refines naturally if allowed. The refinement is towards energy, towards becoming energy. Consciousness persists and because it needs form, it takes on a different kosha, one more suited to the energy, a different sheath of human, perceivable to senses that have grown more sensitive, more energetic. It is how Christ became light, and perceivable to those he touched.Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:26 amI'm not quite sure what you mean, but on my best guess: awareness already is other than the physical (even if it might to some extent correlate with aspects of the physical, such as a brain).
The four known fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) are, of course, interactions between identical objects: Electromagnetism is between electrically charged items, gravity is between mass-bearing objects, etc. Do you postulate the existence of a fifth fundamental interaction between nonphysical and physical entities?Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:40 am No, I don't think it's an illusion. I think it's comprised of a type of energy, which might be described as "physical". I think that minds are also comprised of a type of energy, which might be described as "mental". My current view is that mental and physical energy interact, and that they are in a sense different poles of a base energy on the spectrum from "least amenable to conscious expression" ("matter") to "most amenable to conscious expression" ("mind").
Yes. I am a substance dualist in that sense. The alternative is idealism, but I think that substance dualism is a better fit than idealism as a way of explaining the veridical out-of-body experiences (OBEs/OOBEs) which occur in near-death experiences (NDEs) in particular. I also find idealism in general to be kind of a messy, i.e., convoluted, model of reality.BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:47 amThe four known fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) are, of course, interactions between identical objects: Electromagnetism is between electrically charged items, gravity is between mass-bearing objects, etc. Do you postulate the existence of a fifth fundamental interaction between nonphysical and physical entities?Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:40 am No, I don't think it's an illusion. I think it's comprised of a type of energy, which might be described as "physical". I think that minds are also comprised of a type of energy, which might be described as "mental". My current view is that mental and physical energy interact, and that they are in a sense different poles of a base energy on the spectrum from "least amenable to conscious expression" ("matter") to "most amenable to conscious expression" ("mind").
Uh-huh. I see.Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:51 amYes. I am a substance dualist in that sense. The alternative is idealism, but I think that substance dualism is a better fit than idealism as a way of explaining the veridical out-of-body experiences (OBEs/OOBEs) which occur in near-death experiences (NDEs) in particular. I also find idealism in general to be kind of a messy, i.e., convoluted, model of reality.BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:47 amThe four known fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) are, of course, interactions between identical objects: Electromagnetism is between electrically charged items, gravity is between mass-bearing objects, etc. Do you postulate the existence of a fifth fundamental interaction between nonphysical and physical entities?Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:40 am No, I don't think it's an illusion. I think it's comprised of a type of energy, which might be described as "physical". I think that minds are also comprised of a type of energy, which might be described as "mental". My current view is that mental and physical energy interact, and that they are in a sense different poles of a base energy on the spectrum from "least amenable to conscious expression" ("matter") to "most amenable to conscious expression" ("mind").
To a point, but all increasing energy trends towards light no matter from where it starts. Broad strokes avoids the religio/secular entanglement. Broad strokes.Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:43 amWe might see things fairly similarly, then. You might be calling "physical" that which I refer to as "mental energy" - and I think you might be doing this simply because it is a type of energy, and thus "substantial" in some way. I think, though, that it's worth distinguishing between energies/substances that are capable of supporting (or embodying) consciousness/mind and those which are not, and thus I distinguish between physical and mental energies/substances.Walker wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:34 amWhat I mean is, only the physical exists. Like awareness, like knowledge, like perception, the body itself refines naturally if allowed. The refinement is towards energy, towards becoming energy. Consciousness persists and because it needs form, it takes on a different kosha, one more suited to the energy, a different sheath of human, perceivable to senses that have grown more sensitive, more energetic. It is how Christ became light, and perceivable to those he touched.Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:26 am
I'm not quite sure what you mean, but on my best guess: awareness already is other than the physical (even if it might to some extent correlate with aspects of the physical, such as a brain).
What, in your view, is the relationship between light and consciousness?
I'm interested to know what you've seen. You can PM me if you'd prefer not to describe it publicly, but of course you don't even have to do that if you prefer not to.
No worries. Cheers!Walker wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 9:43 am Maybe it wasn’t fair to make just mention. Don't mean to be unfair. I only mention it because of your interest, and because matter and energy go together like coffee and twinkies, so both are physical. Light is energy and it is physical because it exists, and only the physical exists. So I lump the two together.
My forum philosophy: Public thinking, not pm thinking. Nothing personal.
Stick around and write more!
Yeah, E=mc². And E=hf. Is that what you were referring to when you said "I can distinguish energies, for I have seen what I think few folks have seen"?Walker wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 9:43 am Don't mean to be unfair. I only mention it because of your interest, and because matter and energy go together like coffee and twinkies, so both are physical. Light is energy and it is physical because it exists, and only the physical exists. So I lump the two together.
Translation: electrons, neutrons, and protons (unconscious particles which cannot remember, cannot understand, cannot learn, cannot conclude, cannot be logical, cannot infer, etc) somehow, when put together in a certain way are conscious can remember, can understand, can learn, can conclude, can be logical, can infer, etc).We now know that learning and long term memory are basically the same thing. Both are the result of the growth of new axon terminals strengthening synaptic connections between neurons. Understanding, of which there are many kinds, results from 'learnings' and 'remembered information' that logically lead to a conclusion, and that logic is physically hardwired in the brain. Understanding is nothing but inferred conclusions.
I'm sayin' electrons, neutrons, and protons (unconscious particles which cannot remember, cannot understand, cannot learn, cannot conclude, cannot be logical, cannot infer, etc) when put together in any way and in any quantity still aren't conscious, still can't remember, still can't understand, still can't learn, still can't conclude, still can't be logical, still can't infer, etc).Are you arguing that "qualities we possess which are not made out of energy" can freely launch brain processes, potentially resulting in actions, that would not otherwise occur?
Have you ever played chess against a chess computer? They are purely physical. Alpha Zero Chess even learns from its mistakes and has reached superhuman abilities. If you truly want to know "how?", I suggest you learn a little neuroscience.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:41 am Translation: electrons, neutrons, and protons (unconscious particles which cannot remember, cannot understand, cannot learn, cannot conclude, cannot be logical, cannot infer, etc) somehow, when put together in a certain way are conscious can remember, can understand, can learn, can conclude, can be logical, can infer, etc).
How?
So going back to my question, your answer is what? Yes? No?I'm sayin' electrons, neutrons, and protons (unconscious particles which cannot remember, cannot understand, cannot learn, cannot conclude, cannot be logical, cannot infer, etc) when put together in any way and in any quantity still aren't conscious, still can't remember, still can't understand, still can't learn, still can't conclude, still can't be logical, still can't infer, etc).Are you arguing that "qualities we possess which are not made out of energy" can freely launch brain processes, potentially resulting in actions, that would not otherwise occur?
And yet: here we are, supposedly nuthin' but conglomerations of electrons, neutrons, and protons, remembering, learning, concluding, bein' logical, inferring, etc.
As I asked Phyllo, up-thread...
Which is more likely?
-Unconscious particles somehow become conscious when arranged just right.
-Consciousness, or mind, is sumthin' other than the product of unconscious particles.
Alpha Zero is a calculator: it understands nuthin'. Go, tell it a joke, wait (forever) for the chuckle.Have you ever played chess against a chess computer? They are purely physical. Alpha Zero Chess even learns from its mistakes and has reached superhuman abilities. If you truly want to know "how?", I suggest you learn a little neuroscience.
My answer is...So going back to my question, your answer is what? Yes? No?
Do you mean to imply that Alpha Zero does not know how to play chess? Humans have 86 billion neurons, while Alpha Zero has only a few hundred thousand. Obviously, Alpha Zero does not comprehend every human concept. But you asked "How?", remember? That can be explained with only a handful of neurons. Provided, of course, that you truly want to hear the answer.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 12:12 pmAlpha Zero is a calculator: it understands nuthin'. Go, tell it a joke, wait (forever) for the chuckle.Have you ever played chess against a chess computer? They are purely physical. Alpha Zero Chess even learns from its mistakes and has reached superhuman abilities. If you truly want to know "how?", I suggest you learn a little neuroscience.