Science and the Akashic Field
Pholus
titled "Science and the Akashic Field". I did a google
search on the talk.origins archives and did not find
a single reference to "Akashic Fields", and I was
surprised that no one has opened this topic for
discussion yet at talk.origins.
The term "Akashic Fields" is another phrase for Akashic
Records, essentially. The theory advanced by Laszlo
is based on the idea that an "infomation" field exists,
much like the "gravity field" or "electromagnetic field"
which is a kind of "cosmic consciousness" that carries
an imprint of information on it much like Rupert Sheldrake's
"morphic resonance" field, I think.
The Akashic Field, or "A-Field" for short, is like
a kind of electronic database which contains a complete
record of everything which occurs on our planet and
throughout the universe. It contains the thoughts,
feelings, emotions, spoken and unspoken words of
everyone, everywhere, throughtout all time.
Our physical brains ordinarily filter out all the
noise of the A-field, except for our own thoughts
and past memories, which can be recalled from the
A-field. This is where all our mental data is
stored, not in our brain. The brain merely facilitates
the recall and operation of our memory data.
I have speculated on this before in another newsgroup
myself. I spoke of our brains as being like "radio
receivers" and our thoughts being like radio waves.
The brain (radio) tunes into the thoughts (radio waves)
which are in the A-field. A damaged brain, does
not pick up the A-field information or data as
well as a normal, or fully-functioning brain.
Anyway, in altered mental states, some people can
pick up on the information in the A-field put there
by other people (currently living or dead). This
would account for some occurrences of psychic
phenomena (remote-viewing, telepathy, pre-cognition, etc.)
Also, some people have abnormal brains which are
more suitable for "tapping into" the A-field data.
Regarding the phenomenon of "reincarnation", what people
are seeing, or experiencing when they have a "past life
regression" is really just a reading of the A-field data
of someone who lived in the past and is currently dead.
Some people have a stronger attraction to A-field data
for some people (possibly past relatives, or some
other strong emotional connection) than others.
So, when a person having a "past life" regression
is "reliving" a past life, it is not really *their*
past life, but someone else's they are picking up
on from the A-field whom they are identifying with.
The author also believes that once a person dies, that's
it. The person does not live on in a conscious way
after death, but the complete record of the person's
life is stored in the A-field for future access by
others (under just the right conditions, and so on).
So, in a way, we all achieve a kind of immortality
by having our life's history live on in the A-field,
even though we die as conscious individuals. We become
part of the ever-growing and evolving A-field which
represents the sum total of all the information
about our universe which occurs over time.
Based on this theory, we are all connected in a very
fundamental way by the A-field. We share information
with each other and with our past memories through
this A-field. This A-field survives the death
of our current universe, and influences the growth,
development and evolution of the next universe which
forms from the "metaverse" or mother universe.
Now, here is where the author pays lip service to
a creator god of some kind, which he avoided throughout
most of his book. The author beieves that this A-field
is really like the "mind of god". It is the spirit
which "informs" our universe, and contains all the
"information" which both the physical and the mental
aspects of our universe depend upon for structure,
composition, and communication. To use John Shelby
Spong's terms, this A-field is the "ground of all being".
-Pholus
Pfusand
Pholus wrote:
> I have recently finished reading a book by Ervin Laszlo
> titled "Science and the Akashic Field". I did a google
> search on the talk.origins archives and did not find
> a single reference to "Akashic Fields", and I was
> surprised that no one has opened this topic for
> discussion yet at talk.origins.
Um, Pholus, the Akashic Record, or Akashic field, is psychic mumbo
jumbo, a set (or two conflicting sets) of glib but empty claims.
I did a quick search of the "Skeptical Inquirer" website, but found
only two mentions of the term. One was about remote viewing, and the
other about ghosts. This is a pity; I'm sure there was an article on
using claims of Akashic power as part of a con game in an old,
paper-only S.I.
This is not a field worth examining, except as a sociological
phenomenon. Think about it: Can you really believe that your memories
are stored outside your body? How come you always access your memories
and not my cat's?
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
Pholus
net to see what other references are out there on "Akashic Fields" and
I noticed a couple of web sites on "Akashic Field Therapy" which also
sounds suspect.
But the thing I find interesting about the theory, and the way it is
presented in Laszlo's book, is the explanatory power that this theory
seems to have for so many different types of phenomena, including
psychic-pheonmena and other unexplained occurrences in nature. Laszo
attempts to develop an "Integral Theory of Everything", and if he is
anywhere near close to being right about the existence of an "A-field"
or "information field", then this theory is certainly a very simple way
of explaining a lot of stuff.
I think it was Steven Weinberg who said "the universe is not only
stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we *can* imagine". If this
is true, then Laslo's "Akashic Field" theory seems much to simple to be
true.
-Pholus
rich hammett
> Thanks for the comments, Pfsuand. I also did a google search of the
> net to see what other references are out there on "Akashic Fields" and
> I noticed a couple of web sites on "Akashic Field Therapy" which also
> sounds suspect.
> But the thing I find interesting about the theory, and the way it is
> presented in Laszlo's book, is the explanatory power that this theory
> seems to have for so many different types of phenomena, including
> psychic-pheonmena
Is it that hard to explain made-up phenomena?
rich
> and other unexplained occurrences in nature. Laszo
> attempts to develop an "Integral Theory of Everything", and if he is
> anywhere near close to being right about the existence of an "A-field"
> or "information field", then this theory is certainly a very simple way
> of explaining a lot of stuff.
> I think it was Steven Weinberg who said "the universe is not only
> stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we *can* imagine". If this
> is true, then Laslo's "Akashic Field" theory seems much to simple to be
> true.
> -Pholus
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
snex
theories that explain phenomena -- such as psychic phenomena -- that
themselves cannot be reproduced unter critical scrutiny are superfluous.
Mike Painter
in the first mind they hit is a better concept anyway.
Just last week the idea for a 100% energy conversion unit about the size of
a grapefruit lodged in the brain of a frog just before it was hit by a car.
John Vreeland
It must have been a simple idea if it lodged in a toad's brain.
Was it a cane toad? They make a nice satisfying *pop* if you hit them
face on. I like to shut off my ignition and coast down the road,
trying to see how many I can explode before I stop. Yep, I wouldn't
mind so much if it were a cane toad's mind that got squished. Just go
lick my tires and you can probably recover the entire lost idea.
John Vreeland (Vreejack)
"Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!"--_Ivanhoe_
JWIL
Thanks for posting the book review. It was well-written. It's a fun
idea, but, unfortunately, completely without merit. Sure unified
theories are all the rage these days, and what better way to have a
"theory of everything" than to have a completely untestable,
unproveable, mystical, magical, hocus pocus theory that plays off
people's insecurities and selfishness? That's the foundation of all
successful religions. The world is a complicated place, and the
universe even more so by all accounts. People are looking for answers.
What does it all mean. Who am I? Why do I have this huge empathy for
cane toads? We are so selfish. We assume there is a sexy, perfect
solution which revolves around us. We need to grow up, get some
humility, and start spending time solving real, solvable problems.
Laszlo could start by donating all proceeds from his novel to finding a
cure for ALS (then we could get Stephen Hawking working again!). I
really find people like Laszlo pathetic. But I do appreciate your
summary. Thanks, John
Robert J. Kolker
> "information" which both the physical and the mental
> aspects of our universe depend upon for structure,
> composition, and communication. To use John Shelby
> Spong's terms, this A-field is the "ground of all being".
There is not a crumb of evidence supporting the existence of the A-field.
Bob Kolker
Pholus
any kind of brain-mind duality theory in general -- or just the A-field
theory in particular?
-Pholus
Robert J. Kolker
What mind? Humans have been sliced, diced, autopsied, shredded and
purred for ten thousand years and a mind has yet to be found in the
fetid and goeey mess. Brains yes. Nerves yes. Glands yes. Bloodvessels
yes. Minds no.
If someone split your skull all they would see is bone fragments, blood
vessesl, nerves and brain tissue.
Bob Kolker
Deadrat
"Pholus" <Pholus_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113585902.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> So, do you also think that sufficient evidence exists to totally reject
> any kind of brain-mind duality theory in general -- or just the A-field
> theory in particular?
>
Gee, it's hard to tell. Please post the field equations for the A-field.
I'll take a look at them and get back to you.
Deadrat
> -Pholus
>
jcon
In science, observation drives theory, which in turn makes
testable predictions that inspire further experiments. That's
how science works.
The "A-field" has nothing whatsoever to do with science, in
that it was pulled whole out of someone's ass.
-jc
Pholus
>purred for ten thousand years and a mind has yet to be found in the
>fetid and goeey mess. Brains yes. Nerves yes. Glands yes. Bloodvessels
>yes. Minds no.
>If someone split your skull all they would see is bone
>fragments, blood vessesl, nerves and brain tissue.
>Bob Kolker
Perhaps the reason no one has ever found the "mind" in the brain is
because they have been looking for it in the wrong place. But
seriously, "mind" is defined as the collective conscious and
unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence
mental and physical behavior.
Unless you are implying that "mind" does not exist because we have not
been able to weigh, measure or observe any physical properties of
"mind-stuff", I think it's safe to conclude that while the "mind" may
have no currently detectable physical location, there certainly is
evidence that it acts upon, or interacts with physical matter.
The question is whether the mind is an emergent property of the
collective action and interaction of neurons, synapses, and other brain
cells (a bottom to top reductionist effect), or if consciousness
originates outside the brain and causes the interaction of brain cells
to occur (in a top to bottom holistic way).
As an electromagnetic field is produced by the flow of an electric
current, in an analogous way, it's conceivable that the flow of
information, or conscious activity, could also produce an information
field of some kind. Of course, Laszlo postulates that the A-field is
the medium, or information field, in which "mind-stuff" exists, and
through which it propagates.
Until a mechanism is conclusively determined which explains how
consciousness forms from the bio-chemical-electrical interaction of
brain cells, such alternative explanations like cosmic consciousness
theories and Akashic field ideas, (much like mystical or religious
beliefs), will continue to be advanced by scientists and philosophers
alike.
-Pholus
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Unless you are implying that "mind" does not exist because we have not
> been able to weigh, measure or observe any physical properties of
> "mind-stuff", I think it's safe to conclude that while the "mind" may
> have no currently detectable physical location, there certainly is
> evidence that it acts upon, or interacts with physical matter.
First you have to say what mind is before you can say it interacts or
does interact with matter. What is mind? Where is mind? Of what does
mind consist? What are its laws of being and operation? How is it
detected (no fair detecting your mind in your head. You have to detect a
mind in someone else's head)? Is mind in the head? Is mind in the body?
Is mind the same as brain? Is nind even a thing or is it a process? When
you can even hint at an answer to these questions, then we can talk
about mind matter interaction? Until then "mind" is just a word.
Why is it we have a well developed set of theories concerning matter,
fields, energy all brought to fruition in the the last 300 years, but we
have be jabbering about "mind" for three thousand years (at least) are
no closer to understanding what the word "mind" could possibly mean than
when we started. If "mind" is not nonsense, then why are we so far away
from understanding the concept?
Bob Kolker
Deadrat
"jcon" <cire...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113612356.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pholus wrote:
<snip>
> > To use John Shelby
> > Spong's terms, this A-field is the "ground of all being".
> >
> > -Pholus
>
> In science, observation drives theory, which in turn makes
> testable predictions that inspire further experiments. That's
> how science works.
>
> The "A-field" has nothing whatsoever to do with science, in
> that it was pulled whole out of someone's ass.
>
> -jc
>
Of course. What did you think the "A" in A-field stands for?
Deadrat
Marc Carter
> Thanks for the comments, Pfsuand. I also did a google search of the net
> to see what other references are out there on "Akashic Fields" and I
> noticed a couple of web sites on "Akashic Field Therapy" which also sounds
> suspect.
>
> But the thing I find interesting about the theory, and the way it is
> presented in Laszlo's book, is the explanatory power that this theory
> seems to have for so many different types of phenomena, including
> psychic-pheonmena and other unexplained occurrences in nature. Laszo
> attempts to develop an "Integral Theory of Everything", and if he is
> anywhere near close to being right about the existence of an "A-field" or
> "information field", then this theory is certainly a very simple way of
> explaining a lot of stuff.
But that's just it: it's *not* a "simple" way of explaining anything. It
proposes a not-independently-verifiable thing as _explanans_, and this
isn't helpful.
Sometimes a scientist needs to posit some new thing as an _explanans_ for
something, but this should be done with a lot of reluctance, and only if
there isn't some other, simpler way to do it.
Simpler is no guarantee of truth, but history shows that it's a good
principle to stick to.
Also, some of the explicanda of the theory aren't well-established as
real events at all, like "psychic phenomena." So it's sort of doubly bad
to invent things to explain invented things.
[snip]
m
Pholus
A-field.
Well, maybe and maybe not.
While searching the internet this morning on articles about scientific
investigations into the A-field theory, I ran across this web site that
got my attention which discusses a "Global Consciousness Project". Here
is a quote from the introduction of this web site:
http://www.mtec-ag.de/dasneueste.asp?lang=eng
"In the laboratory of Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)
at Princeton University/USA, research on the topic
"mind-machine-interaction" has been ongoing since the late 1970s. As
far back as the late 80s, extensive studies proved that diodes with
white noise might be used as an interface between man and machine.
Since 1998, worldwide about 50 such diodes with white noise have been
measuring not only the consciousness of individuals but also the global
consciousness of mankind within a study called "Global Consciousness
Project". The results have been published and indicate synchronized
reaction of all diodes to incidents of worldwide interest such as the
war in Iraq, Lady Diana's funeral or the terrorist attacks of September
11th 2001 on the World Trade Centre in New York."
According to this study, there seems to be some detectable correlation
between the increases and decreases of "white noise" and individual as
well as global consciousness. If this is true, then this might
indicate a kind of "disturbance in the force", to use a "Star Wars"
phrase to describe the effects of a globally traumatic occurrence on
universal consciousness. This might indicate the presence of some kind
of physical "field", like the postulated "A-field", which may provide
evidence for the existence of a medium or field which records and
propagates consciousness.
-Pholus
rick_...@hotmail.com
Just like flies to sh*t.
rich hammett
> Notice the names of the people in this thread?
> Just like flies to sh*t.
Yes, we do tend to turn up in your threads, don't we?
rich
Stanley Friesen
>
>But the thing I find interesting about the theory, and the way it is
>presented in Laszlo's book, is the explanatory power that this theory
>seems to have for so many different types of phenomena, including
>psychic-pheonmena
Well, first you have to demonstrate that something that could be called
psychic phenomena actually occur. *Then* you can start trying to
develop a theory of them.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Robert J. Kolker
> Well, first you have to demonstrate that something that could be called
> psychic phenomena actually occur. *Then* you can start trying to
> develop a theory of them.
Quite so. So far no pyschic phenomenon has ever been show to exist by
emprical means. All appearences of pyschic phenomena are explainable by
other means.
A human brain generates about 1/10 of a watt of power. That is not
enough to move a feather.
Bob Kolker
>
rich hammett
> Stanley Friesen wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "generate," but the brain consumes
a great deal more power than that.
Robert J. Kolker
> I'm not sure what you mean by "generate," but the brain consumes
> a great deal more power than that.
Energy per unit time given off in an electrical field. Most of the
energy given off by the brain heats up the blood flowing through it and
the skull bone a little bit. The long and skinny is that the brain
cannot by itself push or pull a thing, nor can it transmit a signal
outside the skull. The brain can only produce motion by sending
internal signals to muscles. Some variations in electrical potential can
be picked up by electrodes affixed to the scalp. The brain is a shitty
transmitter and a worse receiver. As for the power of our minds, we
don't have minds. Ten thousand years of slicing, dicing and pureeing
human corposes has not revealed a mind. Not once.
Bob Kolker
Martin
> "In the laboratory of Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)
> at Princeton University/USA, research on the topic
> "mind-machine-interaction" has been ongoing since the late 1970s. As
> far back as the late 80s, extensive studies proved that diodes with
> white noise might be used as an interface between man and machine.
> Since 1998, worldwide about 50 such diodes with white noise have been
> measuring not only the consciousness of individuals but also the global
> consciousness of mankind within a study called "Global Consciousness
> Project". The results have been published
hold on there, you're getting carried away. Where have these results
been published?
If true it sound slike they might be in for a $1M prize.
--
Don't get mad, get even.
Visit http://www.interhead.org
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Robert J. Kolker"
<now...@nowhere.com>:
>rich hammett wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "generate," but the brain consumes
>> a great deal more power than that.
>
>Energy per unit time given off in an electrical field. Most of the
>energy given off by the brain heats up the blood flowing through it and
>the skull bone a little bit. The long and skinny is that the brain
>cannot by itself push or pull a thing, nor can it transmit a signal
>outside the skull. The brain can only produce motion by sending
>internal signals to muscles. Some variations in electrical potential can
>be picked up by electrodes affixed to the scalp. The brain is a shitty
>transmitter and a worse receiver.
Almost certainly true in toto. However...
> As for the power of our minds, we
>don't have minds. Ten thousand years of slicing, dicing and pureeing
>human corposes has not revealed a mind. Not once.
The same process fails to reveal any such thing as
"thought", "opinion" or "belief". I guess they just don't
exist...
How about "mind is consciousness aware of itself"; IOW a
term for something experienced but not demonstrated to be a
physical entity - an emergent property of the complexity of
our brains.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Robert J. Kolker
> The same process fails to reveal any such thing as
> "thought", "opinion" or "belief". I guess they just don't
> exist...
Thought is organized activity among the neurons of the brain. We just
experience it subjectively. However thoughts and intentions have been
actually scanned out but CATSCAN and PETSCAN machines. Don't let the
subjective aspect of qualia and such like prevent you from seeing that
it is the result of very physical activity in the brain.
The notion of an immaterial mind living inside our skulls has no
evidence to support it. We have brains, nerves, glands, blood vessel and
all sorts of gooey messy parts. Where is the "mind" in all of this?
>
> How about "mind is consciousness aware of itself"; IOW a
> term for something experienced but not demonstrated to be a
> physical entity - an emergent property of the complexity of
> our brains.
An emmergent property of a physical system is still physical even if it
is difficult or impossible to effect a reduction to something simpler.
Physical causes have physical effects.
Bob Kolker
Marc Carter
> Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> The same process fails to reveal any such thing as "thought", "opinion"
>> or "belief". I guess they just don't exist...
>
> Thought is organized activity among the neurons of the brain. We just
> experience it subjectively. However thoughts and intentions have been
> actually scanned out but CATSCAN and PETSCAN machines. Don't let the
> subjective aspect of qualia and such like prevent you from seeing that it
> is the result of very physical activity in the brain.
No argument that thoughts and such are the activity of a brain. Question
whether thoughts and intentions have been scanned. *Big* question.
But you say "We just experience it subjectively."
Who is "we"? Is that "we" something that exists separately from a brain?
If not, is it the case then that experience (awareness, whatever you want
to call it) is just a brain experiencing itself? If that's true, then how
can a physical thing have experience?
> The notion of an immaterial mind living inside our skulls has no evidence
> to support it. We have brains, nerves, glands, blood vessel and all sorts
> of gooey messy parts. Where is the "mind" in all of this?
The activity of brains. Mind is what brains do. "Mind" is behavior. It
is real, it is quantifiable, but it is not physical in the sense of matter.
>> How about "mind is consciousness aware of itself"; IOW a term for
>> something experienced but not demonstrated to be a physical entity - an
>> emergent property of the complexity of our brains.
>
> An emmergent property of a physical system is still physical even if it is
> difficult or impossible to effect a reduction to something simpler.
> Physical causes have physical effects.
I *hate* "emergent" stuff. What *is* that?
What do we mean when we say that something is an "emergent" property?
m
Marc Carter
Yeah. I would like to know about this "Global Consciousness." Tell, do
tell!
John Vreeland
>I *hate* "emergent" stuff. What *is* that?
>
>What do we mean when we say that something is an "emergent" property?
>
An emergent property is one that is not obvious when considering the
fundamental physical forces involved. The most obvious example is
temperature. Temperature is an important concept, and one that is
obvious to all, but it is simply the average kinetic energy of the
molecules of a substance. Where in all those colliding molecules are
the rules of temperature written? If we had started from the small
end it would have taken a lot longer to figure out. Even so,
Boltzmann had to do some work to show how temperature is a statistical
phenomenon involving the average behavior of a whole lot of small
particles.
A couple of other simple emergent properties are entropy and friction.
Marc Carter
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:50:34 -0500, Marc Carter
>
>>I *hate* "emergent" stuff. What *is* that?
>>
>>What do we mean when we say that something is an "emergent" property?
>>
>>
> An emergent property is one that is not obvious when considering the
> fundamental physical forces involved. The most obvious example is
> temperature. Temperature is an important concept, and one that is obvious
> to all, but it is simply the average kinetic energy of the molecules of a
> substance. Where in all those colliding molecules are the rules of
> temperature written? If we had started from the small end it would have
> taken a lot longer to figure out. Even so, Boltzmann had to do some work
> to show how temperature is a statistical phenomenon involving the average
> behavior of a whole lot of small particles.
That's *way* better than any example I've seen before. Almost always
people offer me examples that require an experience (water is "wet," for
example), which isn't saying anything more than "an experience is an
experience." I haven't found that satisfying.
But still, in this example, you mention "rules" of temperature. Wouldn't
it be okay to say that temperature just is the average kinetic energy of
the molecules and that a thorough description of molecular behavior
thoroughly describes "temperature"? We measure it with thermometers; we
experience it as a sensation of heat; it radiates if the energy is high
enough, and that radiation can be absorbed by other substances.
We might then say that the rules of temperature emerge from the activity
of all those molecules. But why is that emergent? Why isn't it the case
that the activity of all those molecules *just is* "temperature," and a
description of that activity is a description of the average kinetic
energy of the molecules?
I guess I do not understand enough about temperature to not understand why
it cannot be "reduced" to the activity of the molecules. That's my
hangup. I see the word used a lot, and it seems more ignorance than good
measurement. I wonder if you could direct me to something rigorous that
would help me understand why it is irreducible.
What really gets me, though, is when people start talking about
consciousness and throw around that word without really explaining what it
means. I'm not picking on things; I'm just trying to understand them.
It reminds me of when I first started studying philosophy and could not at
all understand why an infinite regress was disallowed. This may not be
the same thing, but it has the same feel. It will also very likely
induce in you a feeling of exasperation (at least, that's what it did for
Fr. Watson). But if you have time, bear with me. I may be slow, but like
to think I am not stupid.
> A couple of other simple emergent properties are entropy and friction.
Again, my major beef may just be that consciousness studies types have
co-opted a phrase with a perfectly consistent meaning in physics, and I
cannot understand quite how it works wrt consciousness.
m
Robert J. Kolker
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:50:34 -0500, Marc Carter
>
>
>>I *hate* "emergent" stuff. What *is* that?
>>
>>What do we mean when we say that something is an "emergent" property?
>>
>
>
> An emergent property is one that is not obvious when considering the
> fundamental physical forces involved.
"Not obvious" indicates a lack of knowledge. Which means emergence is an
epistemological concept rather than an ontological concept. Reductionism
rules!
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> But you say "We just experience it subjectively."
>
> Who is "we"?
We as in each of us individually.
> The activity of brains. Mind is what brains do. "Mind" is behavior. It
> is real, it is quantifiable, but it is not physical in the sense of matter.
O.K. Now mind is demoted from object to process. I can live with that. I
have no trouble with the stomach/digestion non-dichotomy. Digestion is
what the stomach does and mind is what the brain does. But most people
who speak of mind regard it as a substance with a different nature from
matter. Descartes made a distinction between res cogitens (mind) and res
extensa (matter). Two different things with different underlying being
and laws.
If you deny duality of mind and brain, then mind is a physical process
that occurs in a physical brain according to physical laws. No problem
with that.
>
>
>>>How about "mind is consciousness aware of itself"; IOW a term for
>>>something experienced but not demonstrated to be a physical entity - an
>>>emergent property of the complexity of our brains.
>>
>>An emmergent property of a physical system is still physical even if it is
>>difficult or impossible to effect a reduction to something simpler.
>>Physical causes have physical effects.
>
>
> I *hate* "emergent" stuff. What *is* that?
>
> What do we mean when we say that something is an "emergent" property?
Emergent is a fancy way of saying: And then a miracle happens. Or it is
an admission of ignorance that says one does not know how to do the
reduction of effect to cause.
Bob Kolker
John Wilkins
1. Not easily calculable from a knowledge of the prior conditions and
componential properties, and
2. Not already known or expected.
In short, emergence is a function of our cognitive capacities, as you
say. Most typically, emergence arises when the system under
consideration is nonlinear, and so simple extrapolation fails. It is, we
might say, the surprisal value of a higher order property.
"Water is wet" is emergent only because we would not expect the
properties of liquids from a characterisation of the bonding and atomic
properties of water molecules. However, what was true in Mill's day (see
the discussion in _System of Logic_) is no longer true, and why? because
we have computers that *can* work out the microstructural properties of
water from the properties of individual H2O molecules, and from that the
macroproperties of water.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis
in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Marc Carter
> Marc Carter wrote:
>>
>> But you say "We just experience it subjectively."
>>
>> Who is "we"?
>
> We as in each of us individually.
The trouble comes, then, when I ask "What is 'each of us'?" I mean, what
does the experiencing? What's a "we," other than a plural "I," and then,
what's an "I"?
I'm not trying to yank a chain here, I just like asking the question.
>> The activity of brains. Mind is what brains do. "Mind" is behavior.
>> It is real, it is quantifiable, but it is not physical in the sense of
>> matter.
>
> O.K. Now mind is demoted from object to process. I can live with that. I
Why "demoted"? Processes are no less "real" than hunks of brain, right?
> have no trouble with the stomach/digestion non-dichotomy. Digestion is
> what the stomach does and mind is what the brain does. But most people who
> speak of mind regard it as a substance with a different nature from
> matter. Descartes made a distinction between res cogitens (mind) and res
> extensa (matter). Two different things with different underlying being and
> laws.
'Cogitans,' and you're right: I'd agree most people are dualists.
Substance dualism (in one of my favorite phrases) fails. Some people sort
of ignore the 'res' parts and try to slip by with other sorts of dualisms,
but I still think they fail.
I'd say, to be fair to Descartes, "mental stuff" and "physical stuff."
Two sorts of substances in the universe.
> If you deny duality of mind and brain, then mind is a physical process
> that occurs in a physical brain according to physical laws. No problem
> with that.
Me either.
>>>>How about "mind is consciousness aware of itself"; IOW a term for
>>>>something experienced but not demonstrated to be a physical entity - an
>>>>emergent property of the complexity of our brains.
>>>
>>>An emmergent property of a physical system is still physical even if it
>>>is difficult or impossible to effect a reduction to something simpler.
>>>Physical causes have physical effects.
>>
>>
>> I *hate* "emergent" stuff. What *is* that?
>>
>> What do we mean when we say that something is an "emergent" property?
>
> Emergent is a fancy way of saying: And then a miracle happens. Or it is an
> admission of ignorance that says one does not know how to do the reduction
> of effect to cause.
That makes sense to me; I just get bugged when people wave it around as
though it were some sort of magic pixie dust that somehow is supposed to
explain all the hard parts.
m
Bob Casanova
[Now that Giganews is back up...]
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> The same process fails to reveal any such thing as
>> "thought", "opinion" or "belief". I guess they just don't
>> exist...
>Thought is organized activity among the neurons of the brain. We just
>experience it subjectively. However thoughts and intentions have been
>actually scanned out but CATSCAN and PETSCAN machines.
Not quite. What has been demonstrated is that certain
physical and mental processes correspond to increased
activity (measured various ways) in certain areas of the
brain. No one has even come close to "This physical activity
by these specific neurons means that the subject is thinking
about how rare he prefers his steak.". And I doubt it will,
at least for the foreseeable future.
> Don't let the
>subjective aspect of qualia and such like prevent you from seeing that
>it is the result of very physical activity in the brain.
Of course it's the result of physical activity in the brain.
What about my post made you think that I thought otherwise?
>The notion of an immaterial mind living inside our skulls has no
>evidence to support it. We have brains, nerves, glands, blood vessel and
>all sorts of gooey messy parts.
All correct. So?
> Where is the "mind" in all of this?
Again, where *specifically* is "thought" or "opinion" or
"belief"? All of these occur in the brain, but by your own
rules ("...we don't have minds. Ten thousand years of
slicing, dicing and pureeing human corposes has not revealed
a mind.") they don't exist. Which notion, due to personal
experience, I'm forced to categorically reject.
>> How about "mind is consciousness aware of itself"; IOW a
>> term for something experienced but not demonstrated to be a
>> physical entity - an emergent property of the complexity of
>> our brains.
>An emmergent property of a physical system is still physical even if it
>is difficult or impossible to effect a reduction to something simpler.
>Physical causes have physical effects.
And this rules out "mind" as a convenient term for all the
processes relating to consciousness, occurring in and due to
a physical substrate but not demonstrable via dissection of
corpses...how?
Don't get me wrong; I agree with your rejection of the
pseudo-mystical notion of "mind" as a distinct entity apart
from the physical brain, but your claim that mind doesn't
exist was, IMHO, a bit over the top. And that was *all* I
was attempting to point out.
John Vreeland
Pholus wrote:
[snip]
> According to this study, there seems to be some detectable
correlation
> between the increases and decreases of "white noise" and individual
as
> well as global consciousness. If this is true, then this might
> indicate a kind of "disturbance in the force", to use a "Star Wars"
> phrase to describe the effects of a globally traumatic occurrence on
> universal consciousness. This might indicate the presence of some
kind
> of physical "field", like the postulated "A-field", which may provide
> evidence for the existence of a medium or field which records and
> propagates consciousness.
> -Pholus
Interesting. Since white noise in diodes is a pretty well-understood
physical phenomenon, this is not unlike saying that salt will dissolve
faster in water during these episodes of "world conciousness." Or that
the earth's gravitational field detectably changes. If these A-fields
truly existed there are much more sensitive devices than gross diodes
to detect their presence, especially diodes spitting large amounts of
white noise. Wouldn't it make more sense to use a circuit that was not
creating any noise at all when the A-field was low? Trying to find a
signal in the noise is usually hard enough. When you intentionally
create more noise it seems more likely that you are trying to hide
something.
Since this test seems to thrive on subjective evaluation of noise
perhaps a better analogy would be to use one of those old televisions
that doesn't blue-screen unreceived channels You could test if viewers
are more likely to see relevant images in the picture snow during
moments of "world consiousness." you might very well find a strong
correlation, but I doubt the scientific community would care.
Mxsmanic
> A human brain generates about 1/10 of a watt of power. That is not
> enough to move a feather.
A typical human brain at rest dissipates about 100 times that much, or
about 10 watts.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mxsmanic
> The long and skinny is that the brain
> cannot by itself push or pull a thing, nor can it transmit a signal
> outside the skull.
How do you explain EEGs?
> As for the power of our minds, we
> don't have minds. Ten thousand years of slicing, dicing and pureeing
> human corposes has not revealed a mind. Not once.
That's because human consciousness is a metaphysical phenomenon. It
doesn't have a physical existence, so no physical measurement can
demonstrate its presence. And yet there it is.
Mxsmanic
> How about "mind is consciousness aware of itself"; IOW a
> term for something experienced but not demonstrated to be a
> physical entity - an emergent property of the complexity of
> our brains.
Something that exists but is not a physical entity can only be a
metaphysical entity. Consciousness is proof of a metaphysical reality.
Mxsmanic
> Thought is organized activity among the neurons of the brain.
That depends on how you define thought. If you define thought as
synonymous consciousness, then it is not taking place among the neurons
of the brain.
> We just experience it subjectively.
This is tautological. You're saying "we experience it as an
experience," which means nothing.
Experience has no existence in the physical world, because it cannot be
observed. We do indeed experience our consciousness, and so we know
absolutely and unconditionally that it it exists (experience is
infallible, unlike observation). But since we cannot observe
consciousness, it cannot have a physical existence. Therefore our
experience of our own consciousness is incontrovertible proof of
metaphysical reality, and consciousness itself is a metaphysical
phenomenon.
> However thoughts and intentions have been actually scanned
> out but CATSCAN and PETSCAN machines.
Perhaps, but consciousness has not.
> Don't let the subjective aspect of qualia and such like prevent
> you from seeing that it is the result of very physical activity
> in the brain.
The experience of consciousness is not the result of any physical
activity. In fact, it's the other way around: physical activity is a
result of consciousness.
> The notion of an immaterial mind living inside our skulls has no
> evidence to support it.
A metaphysical entity need not "live" anywhere.
> We have brains, nerves, glands, blood vessel and
> all sorts of gooey messy parts. Where is the "mind" in all of this?
Consciousness, you mean? It is independent of it all.
> An emmergent property of a physical system is still physical even if it
> is difficult or impossible to effect a reduction to something simpler.
Consciousness is not a property of any physical system. Consciousness
is the ultimate origin of physical systems.
> Physical causes have physical effects.
And something that has no physical effect has no physical existence.
But if it still exists, it can only be a metaphysical phenomenon.
Consciousness is in this category.
Mxsmanic
> But you say "We just experience it subjectively."
>
> Who is "we"? Is that "we" something that exists separately from a brain?
That's the flaw in this type of argument. It's like saying
"consciousness is an illusion." Well, an illusion is something that is
consciously experienced. If consciousness is an illusion ... whose
illusion is it?
> If not, is it the case then that experience (awareness, whatever you want
> to call it) is just a brain experiencing itself? If that's true, then how
> can a physical thing have experience?
It can't. Consciousness is a metaphysical phenomenon.
> The activity of brains. Mind is what brains do. "Mind" is behavior. It
> is real, it is quantifiable, but it is not physical in the sense of matter.
The non-physical part is not handled by the brain.
> I *hate* "emergent" stuff. What *is* that?
It's what you call things that you can't otherwise explain without
violating sacred doctrines.
> What do we mean when we say that something is an "emergent" property?
See above.
Mxsmanic
> What really gets me, though, is when people start talking about
> consciousness and throw around that word without really explaining what it
> means.
Many people don't know what it means, and thus cannot explain it.
Consciousness is something we all experience, but it is also something
that we cannot observe. It is difficult to objectively describe what we
_are_.
> It reminds me of when I first started studying philosophy and could not at
> all understand why an infinite regress was disallowed. This may not be
> the same thing, but it has the same feel.
If you combine infinite regression with the Copenhagen Interpretation,
you get metaphysical consciousness as your end result. Hmm.
> Again, my major beef may just be that consciousness studies types have
> co-opted a phrase with a perfectly consistent meaning in physics, and I
> cannot understand quite how it works wrt consciousness.
They don't know what else to call it, without admitting that it's not
something physical at all.
Mxsmanic
> An emergent property is one that is not obvious when considering the
> fundamental physical forces involved.
But consciousness is much less than obvious: it is completely
unobservable. And since a fundamental tenet of science is that all
things with a physical existence can be observed, in practice or in
theory, then consciousness can only be metaphysical.
> The most obvious example is
> temperature. Temperature is an important concept, and one that is
> obvious to all, but it is simply the average kinetic energy of the
> molecules of a substance. Where in all those colliding molecules are
> the rules of temperature written? If we had started from the small
> end it would have taken a lot longer to figure out. Even so,
> Boltzmann had to do some work to show how temperature is a statistical
> phenomenon involving the average behavior of a whole lot of small
> particles.
>
> A couple of other simple emergent properties are entropy and friction.
Odd that all of these exist only in the consciousness of the observer.
Mxsmanic
> Don't get me wrong; I agree with your rejection of the
> pseudo-mystical notion of "mind" as a distinct entity apart
> from the physical brain ...
You're arguing pretty effectively in favor of it for someone who claims
to reject it. Why do you reject it?
Robert J. Kolker
>
> A typical human brain at rest dissipates about 100 times that much, or
> about 10 watts.
Not after the skull absorbs the energy. Most of the power generated by
the brain heats up the blood the flows through the membranes surround
the brain and the skull bone. The output of the brain is barely
detectable through electrodes attached to the scalp.
In any case the brain cannot put out enough power to effect telekinesis.
The closest thing to telekinesis we have is muscular movement triggered
by electrochemical activity in the brain.
Bob Kolker
Mxsmanic
> The trouble comes, then, when I ask "What is 'each of us'?" I mean, what
> does the experiencing? What's a "we," other than a plural "I," and then,
> what's an "I"?
Ultimately, we are all the same entity. I once had a proof of this, but
I didn't write it down.
> That makes sense to me; I just get bugged when people wave it around as
> though it were some sort of magic pixie dust that somehow is supposed to
> explain all the hard parts.
What else can they do?
Robert J. Kolker
> Something that exists but is not a physical entity can only be a
> metaphysical entity. Consciousness is proof of a metaphysical reality.
Consciousness is neurons a-popping.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
> And something that has no physical effect has no physical existence.
> But if it still exists, it can only be a metaphysical phenomenon.
> Consciousness is in this category.
This is Cartesian dualism crap.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> But consciousness is much less than obvious: it is completely
> unobservable.
That means anything you say about is not falsiable in principle. Which
means it is metaphysical bullshit. It has not emprical traction
whatever. Anything unobservable cannot be distinguished from what does
not exist.
Why don't you invoke ghosts, demons and spirits while you are at it.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> That's because human consciousness is a metaphysical phenomenon.
There are no metaphysical phenomena. Everythihng in the universe is
physical. You are spouting woo woo mysticism.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Ultimately, we are all the same entity. I once had a proof of this, but
> I didn't write it down.
Right. And we all shit in the same pot. Right?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> They don't know what else to call it, without admitting that it's not
> something physical at all.
That which is not physical at all does not exist in this universe.
Bob Kolker
>
Mxsmanic
> That means anything you say about is not falsiable in principle.
Not necessarily. We have knowledge of consciousness through our own
experience thereof, and we can test various hypotheses on that basis.
However, we cannot _observe_ consciousness, and so no conventional
scientific test of consciousness is possible.
> Which means it is metaphysical bullshit.
I have experiential proof of metaphysical reality, as do all conscious
entities. Unlike "proof" based on observation, experiential proof is
incontrovertible, and so nothing more is required.
> It has not emprical traction whatever.
See above. It is entirely empirical.
> Anything unobservable cannot be distinguished from what does
> not exist.
From the viewpoint of conventional science, yes, since science does not
even recognize the possible existence of things that cannot be observed.
The only problem is that I'm experiencing something that cannot be
observed right now. I therefore know it exists in absolute terms, and
yet I also know that it doesn't exist in the eyes of science. Since
science describes all physical reality, this means that what I'm
experiencing can only be _metaphysical_.
> Why don't you invoke ghosts, demons and spirits while you are at it.
They are not topics of discussion here, and I would not know how to
invoke them (I don't even know if they exist).
Mxsmanic
> This is Cartesian dualism crap.
If it's crap, you can show the flaw in my logic. If all you can do is
call it crap, then I assume there is no flaw in my logic.
Mxsmanic
> Consciousness is neurons a-popping.
Neurons a-popping are observed phenomena. Consciousness is experienced.
Mxsmanic
> Not after the skull absorbs the energy.
If it absorbed the energy, EEG measurements would be impossible.
> Most of the power generated by
> the brain heats up the blood the flows through the membranes surround
> the brain and the skull bone. The output of the brain is barely
> detectable through electrodes attached to the scalp.
Last time I checked, the scalp was on the side of the skull opposite the
brain.
> In any case the brain cannot put out enough power to effect telekinesis.
Human beings cannot exert enough force with their arms to destroy a
city. And yet cities have been destroyed with far less human exertion.
Mxsmanic
> There are no metaphysical phenomena.
There is at least one.
> Everythihng in the universe is physical.
That cannot be, because I'm conscious, and yet my consciousness has no
demonstrable physical existence.
> You are spouting woo woo mysticism.
Mysticism is not physical ... so it cannot exist--right?
Mxsmanic
> Right. And we all shit in the same pot. Right?
Not quite. All consciousness is part of the same whole; we are not
really isolated and independent islands of consciousness, although we
maintain that illusion for ourselves out of our own preference.
Everyone born in the U.S. is an American, and yet they are all
individuals, too. Same principle, roughly.
Mxsmanic
> That which is not physical at all does not exist in this universe.
Only if "this universe" means only a physical universe. But there is
more than just a physical universe, and we have proof of that.
Robert J. Kolker
> Human beings cannot exert enough force with their arms to destroy a
> city. And yet cities have been destroyed with far less human exertion.
That is not telekinesis, that is muscles at work.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Everyone born in the U.S. is an American, and yet they are all
> individuals, too. Same principle, roughly.
Loose thinking and much nonsense, roughly.
Bob Kolker
Mxsmanic
> That is not telekinesis, that is muscles at work.
What makes you think that telekinesis is any different?
Mxsmanic
> Loose thinking and much nonsense, roughly.
In other words, you disagree.
rich hammett
> Robert J. Kolker writes:
>> That which is not physical at all does not exist in this universe.
> Only if "this universe" means only a physical universe. But there is
> more than just a physical universe, and we have proof of that.
Wow. You two deserve each other.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com>:
>Bob Casanova writes:
>
>> Don't get me wrong; I agree with your rejection of the
>> pseudo-mystical notion of "mind" as a distinct entity apart
>> from the physical brain ...
>
>You're arguing pretty effectively in favor of it for someone who claims
>to reject it. Why do you reject it?
You need to re-read that in the context of my other posts
and in the context of my response to Robert. I reject the
notion that the "mind" is an entity *apart from* the
substrate in which it exists - the physical brain; IOW, if
you destroy the physical brain the mind, whatever it might
be, no longer exists.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Robert J. Kolker writes:
>
> > Consciousness is neurons a-popping.
>
> Neurons a-popping are observed phenomena. Consciousness is
experienced.
>
What is the difference between "observed" and "experienced"?
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me
directly.
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Robert J. Kolker writes:
>
> > Right. And we all shit in the same pot. Right?
>
> Not quite. All consciousness is part of the same whole; we are not
> really isolated and independent islands of consciousness,
Are our bodies part of the same whole? If so, does that mean when I run
into allergies, you sneeze? If not, why not, and why doesn't *that
explanation apply to minds?
I have never seen signs of a mind outside its brain. What evidence do
you have that the mind is anything other than what living brains *do?
> although we
> maintain that illusion for ourselves out of our own preference.
Ah. I *could read your mind if I wanted to, but deep down inside I
really *don't.
>
> Everyone born in the U.S. is an American, and yet they are all
> individuals, too. Same principle, roughly.
So since we are both Americans, you and I are really one and the same
person?
Or what?
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me
directly.
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
You keep speaking of telekenesis, Bob. Think outside the box; there is
*so much more that the mind cannot do!
My mind cannot insert thoughts directly into yours, without the
intercession of body language or speech. My mind cannot leave its brain
in space and time and retrieve data from the future. My mind cannot
perceive events in far distant lands, except with the aid of
communication technology or my imagination (which has proven pretty
unreliable so far).
Open your vistas!
Kermit
Robert J. Kolker
>
> My mind cannot insert thoughts directly into yours, without the
> intercession of body language or speech.
Speech is our mode of insertion. Given me a loud enough speaker and I
will insert my thoughts whether you want them or not. Beaming pure
thought is never going to happen. Some people cannot accept that we are
physical beings embedded in a physical universe. Spirit makes a lousy
transmission modality.
> My mind cannot leave its brain
> in space and time and retrieve data from the future. My mind cannot
> perceive events in far distant lands, except with the aid of
> communication technology or my imagination (which has proven pretty
> unreliable so far).
Indeed. We have to be connected to what we perceive by some kind of
physical energy transfer which is almost certain to be electromagnetic
for very long distances. Long and skinny: our perceptions are sense
limited. So there goes telepathy.
Bob Kolker
Mxsmanic
> I reject the notion that the "mind" is an entity *apart
> from* the substrate in which it exists - the physical brain ...
If by "mind" you mean "consciousness," how do you explain its existence
if you reject its metaphysical reality? It cannot be observed, so it
can't have a physical existence, and yet you know it's there, because
you experience it. So where is it?
> ... IOW, if you destroy the physical brain the mind, whatever it might
> be, no longer exists.
How do you know this?
Mxsmanic
> Are our bodies part of the same whole?
They are all part of the same physical universe. They aren't all part
of the same biological entity, though.
> If so, does that mean when I run into allergies, you sneeze?
See above.
> If not, why not, and why doesn't *that explanation apply to minds?
Because the physical universe is a creation of consciousness, and a
given universe can only be created by one consciousness at a time. I
had a much more elegant proof of why this must be so, but I don't
remember it now.
> I have never seen signs of a mind outside its brain.
I've never seen signs of a black hole or an atomic nucleus. But people
claim that they exist.
> What evidence do you have that the mind is anything other than
> what living brains *do?
The metaphysical nature of consciousness is proof of this. I've already
provided the proof, but I'll provide it again:
1. Everything that exists in physical reality is observable, in practice
or in theory.
2. Consciousness is not observable.
3. Consciousness exists because we experience it.
4. Therefore, consciousness cannot be a physical phenomenon, but since
we know it exists, it can only be a _metaphysical_ phenomenon.
> Ah. I *could read your mind if I wanted to, but deep down inside I
> really *don't.
Not quite, but it is something along those lines.
> So since we are both Americans, you and I are really one and the same
> person?
We are part of one and the same nation.
Mxsmanic
> What is the difference between "observed" and "experienced"?
Observation is information that comes to you via your senses.
Experience is what you are. Everything in the physical universe is
observed; science makes no provision for things experienced. Therefore
something that is only experienced cannot have any physical existence;
and consciousness is in this category.
Consciousness itself is not the only thing with a purely metaphysical
existence. Anything that is known only through conscious experience is
also metaphysical, including love, beauty, knowledge, and so on.
Mxsmanic
> Some people cannot accept that we are
> physical beings embedded in a physical universe.
Some people cannot accept that we are metaphysical beings that have
created the physical universe.
John Wilkins
> Robert J. Kolker writes:
>
>
>>Some people cannot accept that we are
>>physical beings embedded in a physical universe.
>
>
> Some people cannot accept that we are metaphysical beings that have
> created the physical universe.
>
steamroller with the word embossed on it ran over their head. Hint: it
is not the antonym of "physical".
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Mxsmanic
> Some people wouldn't know the meaning of the word "metaphysical" if a
> steamroller with the word embossed on it ran over their head. Hint: it
> is not the antonym of "physical".
I know. In this context, metaphysical reality is a reality that
includes, but is not limited to, physical reality. Some things exist
only in the part of metaphysical reality that is outside physical
reality, like consciousness.
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins writes:
>
>
>>Some people wouldn't know the meaning of the word "metaphysical" if a
>>steamroller with the word embossed on it ran over their head. Hint: it
>>is not the antonym of "physical".
>
>
> I know. In this context, metaphysical reality is a reality that
> includes, but is not limited to, physical reality. Some things exist
> only in the part of metaphysical reality that is outside physical
> reality, like consciousness.
>
metaphysically speaking, it is hardly defensible. Neutral monism is
better, and physicalism is perhaps the only *philosophically* defensible
account these days. The devil is in the details of that view.
And don't try to employ qualia as a defence. In one respect I agree with
Dennett - you know everything there is to know, including how it "feels"
if you have a full physical model of the brain. [About the only respect
I unqualifiedly agree with Dennett.]
Mike Painter
> Bob Casanova writes:
>
>> I reject the notion that the "mind" is an entity *apart
>> from* the substrate in which it exists - the physical brain ...
>
> If by "mind" you mean "consciousness," how do you explain its
> existence if you reject its metaphysical reality? It cannot be
> observed, so it can't have a physical existence, and yet you know
> it's there, because you experience it. So where is it?
You seem to equate observation only with "see", there are any number of
things that can be observed that can never be directly seen, felt, or heard.
We can observe the behavior of a tunnel diode but never see anything
happening.
Can you demonstrate *any* function of what you call consciousness that can't
be mechanically altered in the mind of the person who claims he or she is
conscious.
Can you demonstrate anything if the person is brain dead?
Can you show anything that supports the idea that it is more than
electrochemical reactions?
If you can't you and your "axiomatic physics" is right there with godidit.
rich hammett
>> I reject the notion that the "mind" is an entity *apart
>> from* the substrate in which it exists - the physical brain ...
> If by "mind" you mean "consciousness," how do you explain its existence
> if you reject its metaphysical reality?
Is that "metaphysical reality" like "love" or "hunger," or
metaphysical reality like "invisible pink unicorns"?
> It cannot be observed, so it
> can't have a physical existence, and yet you know it's there, because
> you experience it. So where is it?
Where, oh where is fancy bred?
>> ... IOW, if you destroy the physical brain the mind, whatever it might
>> be, no longer exists.
> How do you know this?
For starters, there's no evidence to the contrary.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Mxsmanic wrote:
> unrestra...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> > Are our bodies part of the same whole?
>
> They are all part of the same physical universe. They aren't all
part
> of the same biological entity, though.
Ah. Since the mind is one of the things some biological entities do, I
wonder why you think our minds would be merged, since our bodies
clearly aren't.
>
> > If so, does that mean when I run into allergies, you sneeze?
>
> See above.
>
> > If not, why not, and why doesn't *that explanation apply to minds?
>
> Because the physical universe is a creation of consciousness,
Time out!
I have seen minds spring from matter, never the other way. Why do you
think the physical universe is a "Creation of consciousness"? Because
it's cooler (for sufficient values of cool)?
> and a
> given universe can only be created by one consciousness at a
> time.
Sez who?
> I
> had a much more elegant proof of why this must be so, but I don't
> remember it now.
<snicker>
>
> > I have never seen signs of a mind outside its brain.
>
> I've never seen signs of a black hole or an atomic nucleus. But
people
> claim that they exist.
Because *they have seen signs of them.
Read an introductory book on physics, and many signs of these things
(aka as "evidence") will be described.
>
> > What evidence do you have that the mind is anything other than
> > what living brains *do?
>
> The metaphysical nature of consciousness is proof of this. I've
already
> provided the proof, but I'll provide it again:
>
> 1. Everything that exists in physical reality is observable, in
practice
> or in theory.
> 2. Consciousness is not observable.
Sure it is.
> 3. Consciousness exists because we experience it.
Um, no. We experience it, or perceive it, or observe it, because it
exists, and we are in a good position to observe it. Specifically, I
observe mine directly, and yours indirectly.
> 4. Therefore, consciousness cannot be a physical phenomenon, but
since
> we know it exists, it can only be a _metaphysical_ phenomenon.
Confused thinking. I have seen no evidence that minds are anything but
what working brains *do. I have seen no evidence that they are somehow
directly connected. And to assert that the physical world is a *product
of any mind flies in the faces of reason and all evidence of the
senses.
>
> > Ah. I *could read your mind if I wanted to, but deep down inside I
> > really *don't.
>
> Not quite, but it is something along those lines.
[...]
>
> > So since we are both Americans, you and I are really one and the
same
> > person?
>
> We are part of one and the same nation.
>
Strangely enough, (American) football bores me. We are all different,
aren't we?
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me
directly.
I'm actually having trouble believing you can cross the street by
yourself safely, let alone have come to any realizations.
Do you have anything besides semantically empty assertions?
Kermit
Mxsmanic
> You seem to equate observation only with "see" ...
Experience and observation are mutually exclusive. Science recognizes
only the latter.
> We can observe the behavior of a tunnel diode but never see anything
> happening.
We cannot experience it, however.
Conversely, we can experience emotion, but we cannot observe it.
> Can you demonstrate *any* function of what you call consciousness that can't
> be mechanically altered in the mind of the person who claims he or she is
> conscious.
Consciousness cannot be observed, so it is impossible to demonstrate
anything about it.
> Can you demonstrate anything if the person is brain dead?
See above.
> Can you show anything that supports the idea that it is more than
> electrochemical reactions?
Consciousness doesn't exist in the physical world. However, it still
exists, and that is the problem (at least for those who do not wish to
accept metaphysical reality).
Mxsmanic
> Is that "metaphysical reality" like "love" or "hunger," or
> metaphysical reality like "invisible pink unicorns"?
All consciousness is metaphysical, irrespective of the topic upon which
it is focused.
> For starters, there's no evidence to the contrary.
Anyone who is conscious has evidence to the contrary.
rich hammett
> Consciousness cannot be observed, so it is impossible to demonstrate
> anything about it.
Well, that should put an end to THIS conversation.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Mike Painter writes:
>
> > You seem to equate observation only with "see" ...
>
> Experience and observation are mutually exclusive. Science
recognizes
> only the latter.
When I see you, am I not experiencing your appearance?
When I am punched, do I not observe my pain?
All I observe is experienced thru the senses, all I experience I
observe in myself.
>
> > We can observe the behavior of a tunnel diode but never see
anything
> > happening.
>
> We cannot experience it, however.
When you look at the moon, do you not experience it?
>
> Conversely, we can experience emotion, but we cannot observe it.
>
That's only because we're guys :)
> > Can you demonstrate *any* function of what you call consciousness
that can't
> > be mechanically altered in the mind of the person who claims he or
she is
> > conscious.
>
> Consciousness cannot be observed,
Really? So you are not self-aware?
> so it is impossible to demonstrate
> anything about it.
<snort>
We have been observing our own and other people's minds in new ways for
some decades now. The mind is a function of the brain.
Other than your assertions, have you any evidence that:
Mind can exist without a functioning brain?
Mind causally preceeded the physical universe?
Minds are linked other than in clumsy and indirect ways?
>
> > Can you demonstrate anything if the person is brain dead?
>
> See above.
If a person is brain dead, there is no evidence of a mind.
>
> > Can you show anything that supports the idea that it is more than
> > electrochemical reactions?
>
> Consciousness doesn't exist in the physical world. However, it still
> exists, and that is the problem (at least for those who do not wish
to
> accept metaphysical reality).
What does consciousness without matter look like? Can you show me a
disembodied mind, or must I accept your assertions, when I am pretty
sure you don't know what you are talking about?
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me
directly.
Kermit
Mxsmanic
> That is one metaphysical position, known as substance dualism.
I have no idea what the trademarked term for it is, but from what I've
understood of dualism, it's not that.
There is only _one_ reality, but we cannot or will not acknowledge all
of it. Instead, we acknowledge only certain parts that we find easy to
understand, and currently those parts are limited to the physical
universe, the universe that is subject to scientific observation. The
physical universe isn't fundamentally different from the rest of
reality, but it happens that, in our very circumscribed existence, it is
something that we can understand through what we call observation. Most
people choose to look no further, and some (such as yourself,
apparently) seem to draw a great thick line between the physical
universe and the rest of reality (which I refer to as metaphysical
reality--the part that extends outside physical reality).
> But metaphysically speaking, it is hardly defensible. Neutral monism is
> better, and physicalism is perhaps the only *philosophically* defensible
> account these days. The devil is in the details of that view.
Better? Nobody really knows, at least in theory. I don't worry much
about fashions in philosophy, though. I'm only concerned with
discovering the ultimate nature of reality, and the world's philosophers
don't really have any particular advantage over me; they, spend a lot of
time speculating, and they don't really know anything for sure, beyond
their own consciousness (which I, too, know equally well).
> And don't try to employ qualia as a defence.
I care nothing about qualia; I'm not interested in philosophy, or in how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Sometimes I think a study
of philosophy clouds the mind.
Mxsmanic
> When I see you, am I not experiencing your appearance?
You are conscious of something you call an observation. There's no way
of knowing if it is truly an observation.
> When I am punched, do I not observe my pain?
See above.
> All I observe is experienced thru the senses, all I experience I
> observe in myself.
Observations are only inferences that you make; you cannot be sure if
they are what you believe them to be. Your experience of consciousness,
on the other hand, is direct and undeniable. You _know_ that you are
conscious. You do not know if you truly observe, nor do you know what
those observations (if any) might truly be.
> When you look at the moon, do you not experience it?
I experience only my consciousness. I come to believe that I see the
moon. I don't know if I actually do or not.
> Really? So you are not self-aware?
I experience my consciousness. I don't observe it.
> We have been observing our own and other people's minds in new ways for
> some decades now. The mind is a function of the brain.
We've been observing brain functions. We have not observed (and cannot
observe) consciousness. We infer that brain functions and consciousness
are linked somehow, but we have no evidence to support this.
> Other than your assertions, have you any evidence that:
> Mind can exist without a functioning brain?
Since mind (consciousness) does not depend on a brain, naturally it can
exist without one.
> Mind causally preceeded the physical universe?
It is inevitable, since the physical universe has no firm existence
until it is "observed," and the observed must be external to the
universe.
> Minds are linked other than in clumsy and indirect ways?
There is only one, divided into branches.
> If a person is brain dead, there is no evidence of a mind.
There is never evidence of a mind, anyway, only evidence of brain
function. Brain death changes only the latter, not the former.
> What does consciousness without matter look like?
Consciousness cannot be observed.
> Can you show me a disembodied mind ...
No.
> ... or must I accept your assertions ...
No. But you have your own consciousness as proof of what I assert.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Mxsmanic wrote:
> rich hammett writes:
>
> > Is that "metaphysical reality" like "love" or "hunger," or
> > metaphysical reality like "invisible pink unicorns"?
>
> All consciousness is metaphysical, irrespective of the topic upon
which
> it is focused.
>
> > For starters, there's no evidence to the contrary.
>
> Anyone who is conscious has evidence to the contrary.
>
Please point me to someone who has evidence that they exist without a
functioning brain. *You have none. Your string of confused assertions
don't count.
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me
directly.
Kermit
Glend
-of it. Instead, we acknowledge only certain parts that we find easy
to
-understand, and currently those parts are limited to the physical
-universe, the universe that is subject to scientific observation.
No, we only understand the understandable, and experience what we do
not understand. We know of nothing that can distinguish between "the
physical universe" and anything we might call "reality. As far as we
know, nothing that we experience is off limits to "physical
understanding" in some manner or other.
-Most
-people choose to look no further, and some (such as yourself,
-apparently) seem to draw a great thick line between the physical
-universe and the rest of reality (which I refer to as metaphysical
-reality--the part that extends outside physical reality).
That seems to be what you're doing. We're not the ones claiming that
mind is beyond our understanding, we're just noting that your
"metaphysics" has no discernable possibility to explain where science
and philosophy would be said to have failed.
Neutral monism is
> better, and physicalism is perhaps the only *philosophically*
defensible
> account these days. The devil is in the details of that view.
-Better? Nobody really knows, at least in theory.
No, it isn't better, because it assumes that there is some sense to
"monism", when all we have is a mind that can split or combine
indifferently. That is to say, nothing prevents one from producing a
consistent and coherent model of experience utilizing dualism. Dualism
and monism are just interpretations, and frankly, philosophy has no
capacity for judging reality, only approaches and interpretations.
The fact that no one can pronounce one sort of interpretation better
than the other goes back to your lack of justification for your
"metaphysical" claims about the mind. The fact is that there is
nothing at all that reliably demarcates mind from brain, and it is up
to the one proposing such a split to actually produce evidence for that
"split".
-the world's philosophers
-don't really have any particular advantage over me
The knowledgeable ones have an advantage over you, for they know that
you cannot justify your position without using a priori beliefs that
are far less justifiable than "scientific assumptions" or, say,
Nietzschean philosophy. Thus they don't fall into metaphysical
speculation.
> And don't try to employ qualia as a defence.
-I care nothing about qualia;
Neither does Dennett, really. If he's almost certainly correct that
qualia are accounted for once a complete "physical model" exists,
that's just sort of a definitional truism. If he would ever deal
properly with qualia he'd begin to understand what needs to be modeled
in a good scientific model of the mind.
-I'm not interested in philosophy, or in how
-many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Sometimes I think a study
-of philosophy clouds the mind.
Much of it does. That's why philosophy should stick mostly with the
relationships between thought and language, and leave "reality" to
empirical studies. And some philosophy does this.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com>:
>Bob Casanova writes:
>
>> I reject the notion that the "mind" is an entity *apart
>> from* the substrate in which it exists - the physical brain ...
>
>If by "mind" you mean "consciousness," how do you explain its existence
>if you reject its metaphysical reality? It cannot be observed, so it
>can't have a physical existence, and yet you know it's there, because
>you experience it. So where is it?
I see you missed the part about "emergent property of the
complexity of the brain"; that's why I suggested you read
back. And it's why I disagreed with Robert's initial claim
that "the mind doesn't exist". ISTM that he same argument
could be used to claim that "color" doesn't exist, and it
doesn't, as a physical entity; "color" is the term we give
to our perception of the reflection (or direct impingement)
of light of a particular wavelength, but no wavelength has
intrinsic "color". Color is an emergent property of the
interaction of our perception and certain frequencies of EM
radiation.
>> ... IOW, if you destroy the physical brain the mind, whatever it might
>> be, no longer exists.
>
>How do you know this?
It's an assertion, based on the fact that no disembodied
mind has been demonstrated to exist. (Feel free to provide
evidence to the contrary if you wish.) But if, as I suspect
based on your comments/questions, all you want to do is
engage in navel-inspection and games of "what-if..." and
"but we can't *know*...", please count me out. I read and
enjoy both hard SF and fantasy, but the "willing suspension
of disbelief" is a major factor which does *not* apply to
reality.
John Wilkins
mind...
KelvynT
>> And don't try to employ qualia as a defence.
>
>I care nothing about qualia; I'm not interested in philosophy, or in how
>many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Sometimes I think a study
>of philosophy clouds the mind.
Just recovering from a first accidental encounter with a Dennett book,
I'd say rather it makes you realise how cloudy your mind is..
Kelvyn
Mike Painter
> Mike Painter writes:
>
>> You seem to equate observation only with "see" ...
>
> Experience and observation are mutually exclusive. Science recognizes
> only the latter.
>
>> We can observe the behavior of a tunnel diode but never see anything
>> happening.
>
> We cannot experience it, however.
>
> Conversely, we can experience emotion, but we cannot observe it.
We can observe it as well as we can observe the behavior of a tunnel diode
by seeing watching the physical changes tha occur in the brain.
>
>> Can you demonstrate *any* function of what you call consciousness
>> that can't be mechanically altered in the mind of the person who
>> claims he or she is conscious.
>
> Consciousness cannot be observed, so it is impossible to demonstrate
> anything about it.
>
>> Can you demonstrate anything if the person is brain dead?
>
> See above.
>
>> Can you show anything that supports the idea that it is more than
>> electrochemical reactions?
>
> Consciousness doesn't exist in the physical world. However, it still
> exists, and that is the problem (at least for those who do not wish to
> accept metaphysical reality).
Consciousness does exist in the physical world and is caused by
electrochemical processes.
It can be altered, turned on or off, or stopped by applying the proper
stimuli to those processes.
I can put you in a room, set you to a task, introduce a change and you would
go to your grave with the belief that absolutely noting happened and you
finished the task.
Which is why it is videotaped today.
Mike Painter
> unrestra...@hotmail.com writes:
>
>> When I see you, am I not experiencing your appearance?
>
> You are conscious of something you call an observation. There's no
> way of knowing if it is truly an observation.
>
>> When I am punched, do I not observe my pain?
>
> See above.
>
>> All I observe is experienced thru the senses, all I experience I
>> observe in myself.
>
> Observations are only inferences that you make; you cannot be sure if
> they are what you believe them to be. Your experience of
> consciousness, on the other hand, is direct and undeniable. You
> _know_ that you are conscious. You do not know if you truly observe,
> nor do you know what those observations (if any) might truly be.
>
>> When you look at the moon, do you not experience it?
>
> I experience only my consciousness. I come to believe that I see the
> moon. I don't know if I actually do or not.
>
short order that they do in fact see the moon.
Chances are good that Mxsmanic would find it strange indeed if, when he said
"look at the moon" several people said they could not see it and the rest
looked in different positions of the sky.
Chances are even better that if he stuck his hand in a hole he would know if
somebody licked it or nailed it to the table.
Mxsmanic
> Sophomoric. The reality is that all sane people come to believe in very
> short order that they do in fact see the moon.
And they probably do. But they cannot be certain of that.
Mxsmanic
> We can observe it as well as we can observe the behavior of a tunnel diode
> by seeing watching the physical changes tha occur in the brain.
No, we cannot. Consciousness is something experienced, not something
observed, and there is no connection between the two.
> Consciousness does exist in the physical world and is caused by
> electrochemical processes.
No, it doesn't, and it has nothing to do with chemical processes.
> It can be altered, turned on or off, or stopped by applying the proper
> stimuli to those processes.
No, it cannot.
> I can put you in a room, set you to a task, introduce a change and you would
> go to your grave with the belief that absolutely noting happened and you
> finished the task.
But I would find out what really happened afterwards.
Mxsmanic
> I see you missed the part about "emergent property of the
> complexity of the brain" ...
Consciousness is not in that category. Properties are observed, not
experienced. Consciousness is experienced, not observed.
> It's an assertion, based on the fact that no disembodied
> mind has been demonstrated to exist.
No mind in a body has ever been demonstrated to exist, either.
Mxsmanic
> Please point me to someone who has evidence that they exist without a
> functioning brain.
Anyone who is consciousness has _proof_ that he exists, with or without
a brain.
Mxsmanic
> No, we only understand the understandable, and experience what we do
> not understand.
That is coincidence, not a necessary state.
> We know of nothing that can distinguish between "the
> physical universe" and anything we might call "reality.
We have consciousness, which makes that distinction.
> As far as we
> know, nothing that we experience is off limits to "physical
> understanding" in some manner or other.
We experience only one thing: consciousness. And that is completely
inaccessible to physical understanding.
> That seems to be what you're doing. We're not the ones claiming that
> mind is beyond our understanding, we're just noting that your
> "metaphysics" has no discernable possibility to explain where science
> and philosophy would be said to have failed.
They have not _failed_ so much as they have not _tried_. Science
recognizes only physical things, and thus cannot deal with metaphysical
things by definition (and in practice). Philosophy is nothing more than
conjecture and so cannot fail or succeed; it merely takes up time.
> The fact is that there is nothing at all that reliably demarcates
> mind from brain ...
Mind is experienced, brain is observed.
> The knowledgeable ones have an advantage over you ...
Unless they know the true nature of reality with certainty, they don't
have any more knowledge than I do.
Mxsmanic
> I get the strong idea that you think the study of *anything* clouds the
> mind...
Then you get the wrong idea.
Mike Painter
> Mike Painter writes:
>
>> We can observe it as well as we can observe the behavior of a tunnel
>> diode by seeing watching the physical changes tha occur in the brain.
>
> No, we cannot. Consciousness is something experienced, not something
> observed, and there is no connection between the two.
>
>> Consciousness does exist in the physical world and is caused by
>> electrochemical processes.
>
> No, it doesn't, and it has nothing to do with chemical processes.
There significent evidence that it is and none that it is not.
Your argument can be applied to Easter bunnies, the IPU, both OE and PM
machines, and the chocalate cake with 12 candles in orbit around Neptune
this week. Next week it will be around Pluto and teh candles will be lit.
>
>> It can be altered, turned on or off, or stopped by applying the
>> proper stimuli to those processes.
>
> No, it cannot.
>
>> I can put you in a room, set you to a task, introduce a change and
>> you would go to your grave with the belief that absolutely noting
>> happened and you finished the task.
>
> But I would find out what really happened afterwards.
Would you be conscious?