Are spirits stupid?

[_Analytics]

Let's face it. You have converted to materialism and have decided that nothing outside of a material world can exist. Therefore, nothing a person says and no amount of evidence to the contrary will be convincing to you. In this respect you are no different from some Mormons who are equally as intransigent.

If I may jump in here, it seems to me that things outside of the material world could exist. However, to the extent that something outside of the material world does exist, it can’t influence the material world and is thus irrelevant.

In other words, if we have an entirely non-material mind, how could that mind interact with a material brain? How could something outside of the energy and matter of the material world influence—even subtly—the matter and energy inside of the material world?

To the extent something is capable of exerting influence in the material world, in principle scientific instruments that measure matter and energy are capable of detecting it and describing it in terms of matter and energy. Things that can be described in terms of matter and energy are, by definition, in the material world.

[_Tarski]

Let's face it. You have converted to materialism and have decided that nothing outside of a material world can exist. Therefore, nothing a person says and no amount of evidence to the contrary will be convincing to you. In this respect you are no different from some Mormons who are equally as intransigent.

If I may jump in here, it seems to me that things outside of the material world could exist. However, to the extent that something outside of the material world does exist, it can’t influence the material world and is thus irrelevant.

In other words, if we have an entirely non-material mind, how could that mind interact with a material brain? How could something outside of the energy and matter of the material world influence—even subtly—the matter and energy inside of the material world?

To the extent something is capable of exerting influence in the material world, in principle scientific instruments that measure matter and energy are capable of detecting it and describing it in terms of matter and energy. Things that can be described in terms of matter and energy are, by definition, in the material world.

Oh but it has been measures. Once a guy dies and he weighed 42 grams less. Also, have you seen this picture of a blurry glare over this guy who just died? Waddy think that is leaving his body?

It's immaterial cause it blows my mind to think about consciousness (but it's material too but more refined and so harder to measure LOL).//end sarcasm

[_SeekerofTruth]

No the main point is that you are defining away my ability to do it. Defintion: "Consiousness is whatever else but what can be said in terms of brain and information". (Not!)

Answer the heat analogy.

If I say anything at all about neurons you just claim that I didn't explain consciousness since I only mentioned neurons and compuational or functional aspects. Then you ask me to explain consciousness using just neurons.

OK, lets play that. You explain to me how heat can be the average kinetic energy of moving molecules.
Each time you start talking about the molecules I will object "but that isn't heat itself! You are just talking about molecules! Where oh where is the heat? I don't see it in the moving molecules".

You are just stipulating that any brain talk missed the mark. That's called trying win the argument by making it by mere definition, impossible. Don't you comprehend that explanations at different levels of details use different languages and categories? Do you not see that this is how it is with thermodynamics and statistical mechanics or with electronics and software, with neurology and psychology, with chemistry and anatomy.

Essential you are demanding this "Explain to me what consciousness is in terms of the brain but don't talk about neurons or anything physical because I will just deny that it is consciousness"


Explain how heat could be a just mechanical property of ensembles molecules but do so without without talking in terms of molecules. (WTF?)

It literally makes no sense.

Heat to me is a conscious experience, as is cold. Both of them are highly subjective. At one extreme, it is possible under hypnosis for a person to walk unhurt on hot coals, while at the other extreme an individual can immerse his/her arm and hand in a container filled with ice without any indication of pain.

According to materialists, the brain is a physical organism not a psychological concept. You are mixing metaphors if you attempt to explain brain function using psychological terminology. If the experience referred to as consciousness is a product of brain function then you should be able to explain it using neuroscience terminology.

You could take this approach (I actually did for a while in my foolish youth--acid thoughts)--it is essential a version of solipsism. The problem is the whole thing is over in a paragraph and there is no further progress- it is a dead end. I mean where do you go from there? Its is a useless way of looking at the world. How would you test it? What would you do with it? The utter uselessness of it, the utter muteness of any follow up is a huge hint that it is not to be taken seriously. There is no explanitory power in it.

You may as well say its all magic. Done!

If this approach is trivial and childish, there are some very famous physicists who have engaged in this triviality such as Schrodinger, Bohm, and Penrose.

In addition, consider Mishner’s interview of the physicist Fred Alan Wolf:

http://www.intuition.org/txt/wolf.htm

The following article articulates my position better than I can. In it the author addresses your concern about solipsism.

http://www.integralscience.org/ConsciousQM.html

You discard this approach out of hand because, like psi phenomena, it does not fit into your world view. And yet, anyone who thinks about it realizes that we do not directly apprehend the universe that we imagine surrounds us. With further thought it becomes obvious that our brain is part of that universe. What we are left with is our consciousness observing the activity of our brain which is in turn observing the universe. The only part of this that we can be certain actually exists is our conscious awareness.

Of course this approach I have suggested is speculative. But so is your position. You have no way of knowing that your brain actually exists, thus it is speculation that the brain is the source of consciousness. This leaves open the possibility that there is a spirit world that may be as much a product of consciousness as the physical world. Since, for all we know, consciousness is the source of everything, it must be inconceivably intelligent. So getting back to your OP, spirit is not stupid.

[_Tarski]

You discard this approach out of hand because, like psi phenomena, it does not fit into your world view. .

Not true. I dismissed from a position where it was my world view.

Penrose is does not propose that consciousness is immaterial--he repudiates it. I have read all his stuff.

Fred Alan Wolf is one my shelf and I have to say, from knowing some physics and philosophy, he is simply daft. It happens.


My analogy of heat was with physical heat not you attitude towrd having been in contact with it.

What flows from a hot body to a cool body when they are put in contact? Your subjective experience flows from A to B? What does a thermometer measure?

[_SeekerofTruth]

Tarski wrote:
Penrose is does not propose that consciousness is immaterial--he repudiates it. I have read all his stuff.

Fred Alan Wolf is one my shelf and I have to say, from knowing some physics and philosophy, he is simply daft. It happens.


My analogy of heat was with physical heat not you attitude towrd having been in contact with it.

What flows from a hot body to a cool body when they are put in contact? Your subjective experience flows from A to B? What does a thermometer measure?

The citing of Penrose in support of my proposal was incorrect. Regarding Wolf, I suppose that each of us, depending upon one’s frame of reference, can be so categorized at one time or another.

However, my proposal still stands. Consciousness (the awareness that I exist) is the only noumena and as such constructs (imagines?) the phenomenal world. Each consciousness constructs it differently and what is constructed has evolved over time. Your phenomenal world is obviously different from mine. Within the phenomenal world your consciousness has constructed, you attempt to explain pseudonoumenal consciousness. At some level I do the same. But pseudonoumena and noumena, by definition, cannot be the same, since pseudonoumena exist within the phenomenal world and the phenomenal world is a construct of noumenal consciousness.

What is the source from which the phenomenal world is constructed? Is matter the source and if so, how is it that at some point matter becomes physical objects such as houses, cars and brains? Do these objects exist in and of themselves outside of consciousness? Can we know? Or is it possible that consciousness constructs the phenomenal world ex nihilo? What, if anything, is there about consciousness that would exclude it from doing so? If consciousness can construct a phenomenal world, why can it not also construct a spirit world?

See: www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~charles/Fox-TSC200 ... umenal.pdf

If my proposal is correct, your question about heat is moot.

[_Tarski]

Tarski wrote:
Penrose is does not propose that consciousness is immaterial--he repudiates it. I have read all his stuff.

Fred Alan Wolf is one my shelf and I have to say, from knowing some physics and philosophy, he is simply daft. It happens.


My analogy of heat was with physical heat not you attitude towrd having been in contact with it.

What flows from a hot body to a cool body when they are put in contact? Your subjective experience flows from A to B? What does a thermometer measure?

The citing of Penrose in support of my proposal was incorrect. Regarding Wolf, I suppose that each of us, depending upon one’s frame of reference, can be so categorized at one time or another.

However, my proposal still stands. Consciousness (the awareness that I exist) is the only noumena and as such constructs (imagines?) the phenomenal world. Each consciousness constructs it differently and what is constructed has evolved over time. Your phenomenal world is obviously different from mine. Within the phenomenal world your consciousness has constructed, you attempt to explain pseudonoumenal consciousness. At some level I do the same. But pseudonoumena and noumena, by definition, cannot be the same, since pseudonoumena exist within the phenomenal world and the phenomenal world is a construct of noumenal consciousness.

What is the source from which the phenomenal world is constructed? Is matter the source and if so, how is it that at some point matter becomes physical objects such as houses, cars and brains? Do these objects exist in and of themselves outside of consciousness? Can we know? Or is it possible that consciousness constructs the phenomenal world ex nihilo? What, if anything, is there about consciousness that would exclude it from doing so? If consciousness can construct a phenomenal world, why can it not also construct a spirit world?

See: www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~charles/Fox-TSC200 ... umenal.pdf

If my proposal is correct, your question about heat is moot.

I have no idea what you are talking about despite having read Kant and Husserl. Indeed, I was steeped in it.
This sounds like jibber jabber. Are you going to make any attempt to be clear and define terms, give evidence, anything?

This hidden thing that you can't see that contructs your consciousness is your brain. It's just that looking at it on the table doesn't see it as it is (he he). Maybe you would like it if I pointed out that when you imagine a brain or see one sitting in a vat that it is not the brain but the model your brain is contructing of your brain. In your terms a pseudonoumenon. You keep failing to imagine how the brain could be at the bottom of this becuase you are only using your limited perception of the brain. Brain looking at brain as mere lump over there doesn't understand brain.

[_SeekerofTruth]

Tarski wrote:
I have no idea what you are talking about despite having read Kant and Husserl. Indeed, I was steeped in it.
This sounds like jibber jabber. Are you going to make any attempt to be clear and define terms, give evidence, anything?

I agree. It doesn't make sense to me either. I have been distracted by a family tragedy and will have to pull out for a while.

[_Tarski]

Tarski wrote:
I have no idea what you are talking about despite having read Kant and Husserl. Indeed, I was steeped in it.
This sounds like jibber jabber. Are you going to make any attempt to be clear and define terms, give evidence, anything?

I agree. It doesn't make sense to me either. I have been distracted by a family tragedy and will have to pull out for a while.

Sorry to hear that.
I hope things get better for you and your family.

[_SeekerofTruth]

Tarski wrote"
Sorry to hear that.
I hope things get better for you and your family.

Thanks. They will in time.

To continue, I assume that what I experience is similar, but not necessarily identical, to what others experience.

I seem to exist in a phenomenal world: a world of matter that is formed into specific objects such a people, houses, automobiles, etc. I have the experience of being in direct contact with this world. In other words, when I pick up an object, I experience picking up that object directly. I experience it as being solid and having a specific recognizable shape. This is my experience, while at the same time I realize it is an illusion. The object is not necessarily what it appears to be and it is not apprehended directly. The sensors of my body, such as those for vision and touch, relay information about the object to my brain. I become conscious of the object only after the information has been processed in some way by my brain and made available in some way as a unified conscious experience. I do not know first hand what the object is actually like or if it even exists. I only experience what my brain has allowed me to experience. This is my phenomenal world.

I know when I am having an experience. Why do I think that experience is originating in my brain? Do I experience my brain directly or is my brain like all other phenomena? I suspect the latter. If this is the case, my brain is not necessarily what I experience it to be nor is it necessarily doing what I think it is doing. It may also be an illusion. I find this perplexing.

I am back to square one: I know that I exist and that I am having an experience of a phenomenal world. Does this phenomenal world exist in and of itself? For me, when I am conscious, this world exists. When I am unconscious, for me it ceases to exist. But does it really cease to exist? Others must be consciously experiencing their individual phenomenal worlds while I am unconscious. But they are not experiencing “my” phenomenal world. My phenomenal world seems to have been created specifically by or for me and to exist only when I am conscious.

I ask myself: "is this experience that I have a part of the phenomenal world or is it something else?" I am no longer certain that my brain is producing this experience. Maybe this experience exists separately from the phenomenal world. Maybe it is part of what is referred to as the noumenal world. In other words, maybe it is a noumenal experience.

Okay, maybe I have a noumenal experience (I exist) and I experience a phenomenal world. I think I have convinced myself that my phenomenal world does not exist in and of itself. And one thing seems apparent. Each individual experiences a unique phenomenal world. What is uncertain is whether there is a physical world that exists outside of each individual phenomenal world, and, if so, what that physical world would be like if I could experience it directly. I ask myself another question: "even though the phenomenal world I experience is unique to me, was it created for me by something material (i.e. my brain) from something material (i.e. a physical world) or did I create it ex nihilo?"

The possibility exists that there is a physical world that exists in and of itself, with human bodies as a part of this physical world. Each human body in some way creates a phenomenal world and the experience of being conscious. This would not be true noumenal consciousness but rather pseudonoumenal consciousness. In other words, I have the experience of being conscious separate from the existence of my body, but this is only an illusion.

Which of these possibilities is correct? I conclude that I really can’t know one way or the other. My dilemma is kind of like the following Zen story:

“The great Taoist master Chuang Tzu once dreamt that he was a butterfly fluttering here and there. In the dream he had no awareness of his individuality as a person. He was only a butterfly. Suddenly, he awoke and found himself laying there, a person once again. But then he thought to himself, ‘Was I before a man who dreamt about being a butterfly, or am I now a butterfly who dreams about being a man?’”

Am I a physical being in a physical world having the experience of being conscious or, from within a noumenal world, am I consciously having the experience of a physical being existing within a physical world?

[_Chap]

I assume that what I experience is similar, but not necessarily identical, to what others experience.

I seem to exist in a phenomenal world: a world of matter that is formed into specific objects such a people, houses, automobiles, etc. I have the experience of being in direct contact with this world. In other words, when I pick up an object, I experience picking up that object directly. I experience it as being solid and having a specific recognizable shape. This is my experience, while at the same time I realize it is an illusion. The object is not necessarily what it appears to be and it is not apprehended directly. The sensors of my body, such as those for vision and touch, relay information about the object to my brain. I become conscious of the object only after the information has been processed in some way by my brain and made available in some way as a unified conscious experience. I do not know first hand what the object is actually like or if it even exists. I only experience what my brain has allowed me to experience. This is my phenomenal world.

To make your problem meaningful, could you kindly explain to us what it would mean for a creature of flesh and blood to "know first hand what [an] object is actually like", in some way that does not involve the activity of sensory nerves and the information processing of the central nervous system?

Your problem would, I suggest, go away if you dropped the idea (implicit in your discussion, I think) that there is a non-physical 'you' somewhere that only perceives the world 'through' the apparatus of the body. The body is you. Its 'perception' involves many parts of itself in all kinds of interconnected activity. There is no evidence that the body is merely mediating contact with some 'non-physical' entity such as a separate 'you' that uses it as a medium of perception.