On Consciousness

[annnnoid]

this is still mechanical/physical, mechanics under a broad definition can include chemical and electrical events.



the evidence still bears out that it is all physical.

How reassuring…this faith so many have in their ability to attribute certainty to our condition. ‘It’s all physical’….meaning….we don’t really have any idea what it is…but we can spend a lot of time pretending that we do. Somehow that sounds like religion.

Richard Feynman

“One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much.”

 

[tsig]

How reassuring…this faith so many have in their ability to attribute certainty to our condition. ‘It’s all physical’….meaning….we don’t really have any idea what it is…but we can spend a lot of time pretending that we do. Somehow that sounds like religion.

Richard Feynman

“One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much.”

"Any fool can quote a wise man."

 

[dlorde]

Richard Feynman

“One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much.”

But, as with the rules of chess analogy, knowing the rules may not make you a good chess player, but enables you to spot illegal moves. Knowing the laws of physics allows you to better spot impossible claims.

 

[Dancing David]

How reassuring…this faith so many have in their ability to attribute certainty to our condition. ‘It’s all physical’….meaning….we don’t really have any idea what it is…but we can spend a lot of time pretending that we do. Somehow that sounds like religion.

Richard Feynman

“One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much.”

Did I say we did?
I said consciousness is physical, period.

 

[annnnoid]

Did I say we did?
I said consciousness is physical, period.

Since we neither know what consciousness is (or how it’s produced) nor do we have a scientific meaning for the word ‘physical’… suggesting we can make definitive statements about either ( “ consciousness is physical “ ) is clearly inappropriate. A statement of faith…not fact. Thus…religion.

….not to mention…that there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that consciousness has some very strange features that no conventional meaning of the word ‘physical’ can accommodate (except by ignoring them, dismissing them, or explaining them away). Evidence. It was Pixy, I believe, who insisted that anecdotal reports are a valid source of evidence. And since there is absolutely no mechanism whatsoever to falsify conscious reality (since we have no idea how it’s produced…there can be no way to establish that something did, or did not…in fact…occur)…subjective experience has de facto primacy. As Tesordyne once put it…” The only ontologies that have anything like absolute status are perception and the abstract mind. “

But, as with the rules of chess analogy, knowing the rules may not make you a good chess player, but enables you to spot illegal moves. Knowing the laws of physics allows you to better spot impossible claims.

…and one of those impossible claims is that the laws of physics can explain their own existence. That is the deception…that all this science somehow produces an intelligible condition. At the heart of it all…the exact opposite is the case. Religion reigns. However distasteful that fact may be. Science is a model. Religion, in essence, is nothing more than the acquisition of meaning through relevant models (the relevance of some may be supremely dubious…but that is a subjective matter). We don’t know how we create the model, we don’t know how we are created, and we don’t know what science is a model of. It’s a mystery but, thankfully, a surprisingly functional mystery. Science works! The illusion of intelligibility has its limits though.

 

[tsig]

Since we neither know what consciousness is (or how it’s produced) nor do we have a scientific meaning for the word ‘physical’… suggesting we can make definitive statements about either ( “ consciousness is physical “ ) is clearly inappropriate. A statement of faith…not fact. Thus…religion.

….not to mention…that there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that consciousness has some very strange features that no conventional meaning of the word ‘physical’ can accommodate (except by ignoring them, dismissing them, or explaining them away). Evidence. It was Pixy, I believe, who insisted that anecdotal reports are a valid source of evidence. And since there is absolutely no mechanism whatsoever to falsify conscious reality (since we have no idea how it’s produced…there can be no way to establish that something did, or did not…in fact…occur)…subjective experience has de facto primacy. As Tesordyne once put it…” The only ontologies that have anything like absolute status are perception and the abstract mind. “




…and one of those impossible claims is that the laws of physics can explain their own existence. That is the deception…that all this science somehow produces an intelligible condition. At the heart of it all…the exact opposite is the case. Religion reigns. However distasteful that fact may be. Science is a model. Religion, in essence, is nothing more than the acquisition of meaning through relevant models (the relevance of some may be supremely dubious…but that is a subjective matter). We don’t know how we create the model, we don’t know how we are created, and we don’t know what science is a model of. It’s a mystery but, thankfully, a surprisingly functional mystery. Science works! The illusion of intelligibility has its limits though.

What is some of this relevant meaning?

A dead man returning to life?

An angel delivering the word 'o god to a man in a cave?

A farm boy talking thru his hat?

 

[deadendmind2013]

But, as with the rules of chess analogy, knowing the rules may not make you a good chess player, but enables you to spot illegal moves. Knowing the laws of physics allows you to better spot impossible claims.

 

[deadendmind2013]

Since we neither know what consciousness is (or how it’s produced) nor do we have a scientific meaning for the word ‘physical’… suggesting we can make definitive statements about either ( “ consciousness is physical “ ) is clearly inappropriate. A statement of faith…not fact. Thus…religion.

Well, although we really can't say for sure what exactly consciousness "is", we sure can say what it is not though.
Of course there is no scientific meaning, how could it ever be, since your "physical" interpretation and meaning of the word itself is clearly different than mine?
We stumble on the "subjective experience" here. And until we have a generally accepted philosophical/scientific understanding about it, we cannot really agree, can we? We can play with words all day long but we will still have no idea what any of us is talking about, and for what reason.

 

[Dancing David]

Since we neither know what consciousness is (or how it’s produced) nor do we have a scientific meaning for the word ‘physical’… suggesting we can make definitive statements about either ( “ consciousness is physical “ ) is clearly inappropriate. A statement of faith…not fact. Thus…religion.

….

Don't play in traffic, ontology doesn't care, you end up dead.

 

[annnnoid]

Don't play in traffic, ontology doesn't care, you end up dead.

Just cause we don't know the truth...does that make it ok to pretend that we do?

 

[Dancing David]

No, it is moot point. All that the universe is is a monism, dualism is incoherent.

So whatever the ontology, what is here is physical.

Words is words.

 

[MaartenVergu]

I always wondered wether consciousness is just one phenomenon of a whole category of simular phenomena in the universe. Maybe there are other materials (biochemical, electrochemical, etc) in this world, with 'another side' (crf
a brain) and we will never be able to discover that.
It cannot communicate with us that it is not just 'interacting materials'. And we only see its material side.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Just cause we don't know the truth...does that make it ok to pretend that we do?

What I've been asking for is evidence for dualism. Got any? Something a little more scientific than feelings or holy books?

Also, it's been suggested that some physical phenomena cannot be modeled scientifically, specifically, those essential to consciousness, so no physical machine we make could be conscious. Evidence for that would also be appreciated.

It's also been suggested that consciousness requires laws of physics we've not yet discovered. Again, evidence?

From wiki (dualism):

In philosophy of mind, dualism is the position that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are not identical. Thus, it encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, and is contrasted with other positions, such as physicalism, in the mind–body problem.

 

[eijah]

What I've been asking for is evidence for dualism. Got any? Something a little more scientific than feelings or holy books?

Also, it's been suggested that some physical phenomena cannot be modeled scientifically, specifically, those essential to consciousness, so no physical machine we make could be conscious. Evidence for that would also be appreciated.

It's also been suggested that consciousness requires laws of physics we've not yet discovered. Again, evidence?

From wiki (dualism):

Right on as usual!!! OTOH... This past week-end, YaleL encouraged attendees at a Math/Physics/MetaPhysics gathering in Afton VA to consider the singular and dual aspects of "wholeness" and/vs. "oneness" from the point of view of a so-called "monordinate system" number line (or whatever). A good time was had by all who had a lot of fun vigorously and rigorously contemplating what is found at http://truetyme.org/MonordinateSystem&MoreIntro.pdf .

Nice to see good old YaleL back in the game.

BTW, he asked me to send you all his regards.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Right on as usual!!! OTOH... This past week-end, YaleL encouraged attendees at a Math/Physics/MetaPhysics gathering in Afton VA to consider the singular and dual aspects of "wholeness" and/vs. "oneness" from the point of view of a so-called "monordinate system" number line (or whatever). A good time was had by all who had a lot of fun vigorously and rigorously contemplating what is found at http://truetyme.org/MonordinateSystem&MoreIntro.pdf .

Nice to see good old YaleL back in the game.

BTW, he asked me to send you all his regards.

Haha! YaleL has as persuasive an argument for dualism as any other I've seen.

Who is this YaleL person?

 

[eijah]

Haha! YaleL has as persuasive an argument for dualism as any other I've seen.

Who is this YaleL person?

If you start a new thread using the above post of mine which you responded to, you will have loads of fun finding out. I would do it myself, but there are those here who would think that dirty pool or worse for any of his fans, so I won't. That said, how about you as a neutral party starting something non-inflammatory like A Proposed Monordinate System Number Line? And then seeing how quickly the thread grows and in what direction(s)? It won't hold a candle to this thread, which is truly wonderful, but I do think it will be another feather in your very worthy cap.

Regards

 

[Mr. Scott]

If you start a new thread using the above post of mine which you responded to, you will have loads of fun finding out. I would do it myself, but there are those here who would think that dirty pool or worse for any of his fans, so I won't. That said, how about you as a neutral party starting something non-inflammatory like A Proposed Monordinate System Number Line? And then seeing how quickly the thread grows and in what direction(s)? It won't hold a candle to this thread, which is truly wonderful, but I do think it will be another feather in your very worthy cap.

Regards

You are too kind! There's so little positive reinforcement here at the JREF forum I sometimes feel my cap is featherless.

The idea of initiating a thread called "A Proposed Monordinate System Number Line" leaves me rather cold, sorry, so I'll yield to you and hope you can start it without any dirty pool accusations.

Good luck! ...and let me know when it starts rolling so I won't miss the fun.

 

[eijah]

You are too kind! There's so little positive reinforcement here at the JREF forum I sometimes feel my cap is featherless.

The idea of initiating a thread called "A Proposed Monordinate System Number Line" leaves me rather cold, sorry, so I'll yield to you and hope you can start it without any dirty pool accusations.

Good luck! ...and let me know when it starts rolling so I won't miss the fun.

No need to apologize!

As for little positive reinforcement, alas, not surprising if you are exploring thoughts about anything here that is too far beyond conventional bounds of thinking. YaleL told me that someone rather big in the math world recently told him that his "monordinate system number line" was a provocative way to "contain infinity". But the math Prof. asked him not to consider that a formal thumbs up. And certainly no endorsement.

As for my own views about this, I already know enough about YaleL's escapades here -- and elsewhere. So I have no need nor any desire to stir up a hornets nest. OTOH, I think that you might have fun playing around with his rather simple-minded way of expanding the hyperreals to possibly, e.g., include clusters of infinitesimal look & feel-like numbers around the integers. Maybe.

 

[eijah]

For anyone looking to see YaleL's monordinate system number line pdf (which, though not claimed as such, seems to be a possible way of portraying the containment of infinity)...

Sorry, but it seems to only be gotten when accessed via Windows pc's. Or at least not by Android devices. Don't know why that is. -(

 

[eijah]

Haha! YaleL has as persuasive an argument for dualism as any other I've seen.

Who is this YaleL person?

Personally, I am more inclined to see YaleL's monordinate system number line's fixed vs. infinite orthogonal parts as having a lot of the look and feel of a curious kind of dual aspect or neutral monism akin to Thomas Nagel's exploration of beyond reductionism consciousness. But that said, making a distinction between dual aspect and duality may be as useless as seeking to make a distinction like whether mathematics are discovered or invented. Or, I suppose, whether mathematical inventions lead to mathematical discoveries and/or vice versa.