What Is The True Nature of The Mind

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: What Is The True Nature of The Mind

Post by Felix »

Consul said: And in a non-Berkeleyan world percepts and concepts are mental representations existing in the minds/brains of living bodies. Given that brains are extended objects, there's no problem with using the word "in" here.
There is indeed a problem with saying that thoughts "exist" in the brain. When science develops a means to scan people's brains and read their thoughts, you may make that claim.
It's a basic mistake to suppose that (transexperiential) reality or the "things in themselves" are imperceptible and unknowable "noumena".
Kant didn't suppose that so it's irrelevant - he said that phenomenon are an abstraction from sensuous intuition.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Quotidian
Posts: 2681
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: What Is The True Nature of The Mind

Post by Quotidian »

Q: mind is that by which nature itself is disclosed, which provides the basis for any and all judgements about what is matter, what exists, what doesn't exist, and so on.

F: And why is this incompatible with materialism?
Because materialism attempts to explain mind in terms of matter, obviously. Again, naturalist approaches wish to locate mind as a phenomenon within nature, not seeing that 'nature' is itself a matter of attitude and definition; what our culture understands as 'nature' might be entirely different to another culture's notion of it.
Thus the naturalist…sees only nature, and primarily physical
nature. Whatever is is either itself physical, belonging to the
unified totality of physical nature, or it is in fact psychical, but
then merely as a variable dependent on the physical, at best a
secondary “parallel accomplishment”. Whatever is belongs to
psychophysical nature, which is to say that it is univocally
determined by rigid laws. ….

In contrast to the outlook of naturalism, Husserl believed all knowledge,
all science, all rationality depended on conscious acts, acts which cannot
be properly understood from within the natural outlook at all. Consciousness
should not be viewed naturalistically as part of the world at all, since
consciousness is precisely the reason why there was a world there for us in
the first place. For Husserl it is not that consciousness creates the world in
any ontological sense—this would be a subjective idealism, itself a
consequence of a certain naturalising tendency whereby consciousness is
cause and the world its effect—but rather that the world is opened up, made
meaningful, or disclosed through consciousness. The world is inconceivable
apart from consciousness. Treating consciousness as part of the world,
reifying consciousness, is precisely to ignore consciousness’s foundational,
disclosive role.
Routledge introduction to phenomenology, p138

The non-reductive physicalists seem to me those who don't wish to accept scientific reductionism, but fear being lumped in with religious philosophers if they reject physicalism altogether.
Consul wrote:What can be said coherently is that the immaterial ideas of an immaterial soul are located at (not in!) the same point of space that is occupied by the soul.
You can only ever always think in terms of a realist paradigm, which is indicated by the necessity to locate everything you consider real in terms of space and time. So when asked about the reality of numbers and ideas, you can only ever do so with references to 'brains having thoughts'. It would take to take more than philosophical argument to change that.
Consul wrote:It's a basic mistake to suppose that (transexperiential) reality or the "things in themselves" are imperceptible and unknowable "noumena".
Two opinions by physicists which take issue with that:

Bernard D'Espagnat Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind

Richard Conn Henry The Mental Universe

-- Updated September 24th, 2016, 9:15 am to add the following --
Felix wrote:When science develops a means to scan people's brains and read their thoughts, you may make that claim.
Many people will say that fMRI scans have done that already. But there are many major problems with that answer, one of them being that a great proportion of the experimental findings based on such data have been called into question (see Do You Believe in God, or is that a software glitch?.

The other problem is, that in order to deduce anything about what is going on 'inside brains', we have to utilise the very capacity that such experiments are purporting to explain. You can't set aside reasoned inference, and then presume to 'explain' it by looking at it from without. Right from the outset, you have to say 'well, this means that, because you're seeing this, then that must be the case'. And that capacity is always something internal to the act of thinking, you can't explain it with reference to brains or scans or anything else, without utlising the capacity you're wanting to explain.

-- Updated September 24th, 2016, 11:05 am to add the following --
Consul wrote: a materialist can alternatively favor Campbell's trope-field ontology, and hold that the universe is made of spacetime-pervading physical fields.
But then it's no longer 'materialism' at all, it is simply 'a commitment to whatever science, or rathr, some scientists, considers to be real! What is 'a field', anyway?
'For there are many here among us who think that life is but a joke' ~ Dylan
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: What Is The True Nature of The Mind

Post by Fooloso4 »

Quotidian:
Because materialism attempts to explain mind in terms of matter, obviously.
What alternative explanations do you suggest? What do non-reductive materialists miss? I have asked you before: how do you explain mind? You offer only what mind does.
Again, naturalist approaches wish to locate mind as a phenomenon within nature, not seeing that 'nature' is itself a matter of attitude and definition; what our culture understands as 'nature' might be entirely different to another culture's notion of it.
Right, we think within cultural bounds. What outside cultural understanding of nature do you think would be helpful to introduce?
The non-reductive physicalists seem to me those who don't wish to accept scientific reductionism, but fear being lumped in with religious philosophers if they reject physicalism altogether.
That is quite far from the mark. Can you provide specific examples?
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: What Is The True Nature of The Mind

Post by Consul »

Felix wrote:
Consul wrote:And in a non-Berkeleyan world percepts and concepts are mental representations existing in the minds/brains of living bodies. Given that brains are extended objects, there's no problem with using the word "in" here.
There is indeed a problem with saying that thoughts "exist" in the brain. When science develops a means to scan people's brains and read their thoughts, you may make that claim.
The brain is the organ of thought, so where else could thoughts be?
Felix wrote:
Consul wrote:It's a basic mistake to suppose that (transexperiential) reality or the "things in themselves" are imperceptible and unknowable "noumena".
Kant didn't suppose that so it's irrelevant - he said that phenomenon are an abstraction from sensuous intuition.
Yes, Kant did suppose that noumena or things in themselves are not possible objects of perception or cognition.

-- Updated September 23rd, 2016, 10:22 pm to add the following --
Quotidian wrote:
Consul wrote:What can be said coherently is that the immaterial ideas of an immaterial soul are located at (not in!) the same point of space that is occupied by the soul.
You can only ever always think in terms of a realist paradigm, which is indicated by the necessity to locate everything you consider real in terms of space and time. So when asked about the reality of numbers and ideas, you can only ever do so with references to 'brains having thoughts'. It would take to take more than philosophical argument to change that.
"When asked about the reality of numbers and ideas" I answer that such abstract objects aren't real; and what isn't real is nowhere.
Quotidian wrote:
Consul wrote:It's a basic mistake to suppose that (transexperiential) reality or the "things in themselves" are imperceptible and unknowable "noumena".
Two opinions by physicists which take issue with that:

Bernard D'Espagnat Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind

Richard Conn Henry The Mental Universe
"It is a famous anomaly of recent science that while an influential number of physicists, once supposed to be students of physical nature, are suggesting that only conscious experience exists, an equally influential number of psychologists, once supposed to be students of consciousness, have suggested that only physical nature exists."

(Williams, Donald Cary. "The Existence of Consciousness." In Principles of Empirical Realism: Philosophical Essays, 23-40. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1966. p. 23)
Quotidian wrote:
Felix wrote:When science develops a means to scan people's brains and read their thoughts, you may make that claim.
Many people will say that fMRI scans have done that already. But there are many major problems with that answer, one of them being that a great proportion of the experimental findings based on such data have been called into question.
We know that the brain is the organ of the mind, of consciousness and thought.
Quotidian wrote:
Consul wrote:A materialist can alternatively favor Campbell's trope-field ontology, and hold that the universe is made of spacetime-pervading physical fields.
But then it's no longer 'materialism' at all, it is simply 'a commitment to whatever science, or rathr, some scientists, considers to be real! What is 'a field', anyway?
(We could discuss the ontology of fields in another thread.)

As you presumably know, many contemporary philosophers prefer "physicalism" to "materialism", because they think that materialism is associated with an obsolete metaphysical/ontological picture of the physical world. But in fact…

"The materialist, holding that the world is matter, is not wedded to any one doctrine of the nature of matter."

(Williams, Donald Cary. "Naturalism and the Nature of Things." In Principles of Empirical Realism: Philosophical Essays, 212-238. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1966. p. 220)

"Materialist metaphysicians want to side with physics, but not to take sides within physics."

(Lewis, David. "New Work for a Theory of Universals." 1983. Reprinted in Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology, 8-55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. pp. 37-8)

I still like and use the good old label "materialism", knowing that materialism is compatible even with the most exotic physical theories of matter, energy, space, and time.

"I say 'materialistic' where some would rather say 'physicalistic': an adequate theory must be consistent with the truth and completeness of some theory in much the style of present-day physics. ('Completeness' is to be explained in terms of supervenience.)
Some fear that 'materialism' conveys a commitment that this ultimate physics must be a physics of matter alone: no fields, no radiation, no causally active spacetime. Not so! Let us proclaim our solidarity with forebears who, like us, wanted their philosophy to agree with ultimate physics. Let us not chide and disown them for their less advanced ideas about what ultimate physics might say."


(Lewis, David. "Naming the Colours." 1997. Reprinted in Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology, 332-358. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. p. 332, fn. 2)

"[Materialism] was so named when the best physics of the day was the physics of matter alone. Now our best physics acknowledges other bearers of fundamental properties: parts of pervasive fields, parts of causally active spacetime. But it would be pedantry to change the name on that account, and disown our intellectual ancestors. Or worse, it would be a tacky marketing ploy, akin to British Rail's decree that second class passengers shall now be called 'standard class customers'."

(Lewis, David. "Reduction of Mind." In A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind, edited by Samuel D. Guttenplan, 412-431. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994. p. 413)

-- Updated September 23rd, 2016, 10:27 pm to add the following --
Quotidian wrote:Because materialism attempts to explain mind in terms of matter, obviously. Again, naturalist approaches wish to locate mind as a phenomenon within nature, not seeing that 'nature' is itself a matter of attitude and definition; what our culture understands as 'nature' might be entirely different to another culture's notion of it.
When materialists or (materialistic) naturalists speak of nature, they mean physical nature, the MEST (matter-energy-space-time) world.

Mind is a state of matter because there is nothing else it could be a state of.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Quotidian
Posts: 2681
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: What Is The True Nature of The Mind

Post by Quotidian »

In my view what you're advocating is not philosophy as such, but simply common-sense realism, supported with quotations.

When challenged by the fact that physics has undermined materialism as such, you simply change the term 'matter' to 'matter-energy-space-time', as if tthese now amount to 'fundamental principles', when they too might be subject to all manner of further modification and ad hoc development.

You put 'physical' in italics, as if that makes clear what you mean, when it is precisely the definition of what constitutes 'physical' that is at the bottom of the crisis in physics. But, doesn't matter, you say, we're not really interested in physics.

It's just common-sense realism, and those are my final words.
'For there are many here among us who think that life is but a joke' ~ Dylan
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: What Is The True Nature of The Mind

Post by Burning ghost »

It looks to me like Consul is presenting, broadly, the perspective of the world as seen physically and materially. He is presenting the ideas and limitation of physicalism and materialism.

Abstract objects are nowhere. They do not physically exist, but obviously they are existent in some way. Abstract concepts have the general "appearance" of transcending common physicalist representation of the world we live in. Geometry has a meaning beyond physical space and time yet it is well worth arguing thatbwe only come to present such absolute abstract terms by way of physical relation. Nevertheless numbers do not vary in form over time nor in space (in a physical sense) only in application because they do not "exist" physically.

We are not in any position to declare this or that as better. We are in a position to understand every philosophical position can be refined further or split further.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Quotidian
Posts: 2681
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: What Is The True Nature of The Mind

Post by Quotidian »

However, I don't regard common-sense realism, and materialism, as being philosophy, proper. Philosophy is 'the search for wisdom', and that presumes that it is hard to acquire, and the wisdom in it, hard to discern. Materialism takes the rhetorical skills and techniques of philosophy, and then turns it against philosophy.
'For there are many here among us who think that life is but a joke' ~ Dylan
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: What Is The True Nature of The Mind

Post by Fooloso4 »

Quotidian:
Philosophy is 'the search for wisdom', and that presumes that it is hard to acquire, and the wisdom in it, hard to discern. Materialism takes the rhetorical skills and techniques of philosophy, and then turns it against philosophy.
The question of what is fundamental is a legitimate philosophical concern and bears directly on questions of mind, life, the universe, and human existence. Philosophy as the search for wisdom has been a problematic description at least since the advent of modern philosophy.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: What Is The True Nature of The Mind

Post by Consul »

Burning ghost wrote:Abstract objects are nowhere. They do not physically exist, but obviously they are existent in some way.
If abstract objects exist, their existence is anything but obvious.
Burning ghost wrote:Abstract concepts have the general "appearance" of transcending common physicalist representation of the world we live in.
The phrase "abstract concept" is ambiguous, because if concepts are (tokens of) mental representations, they are ontologically concrete entities rather than ontologically abstract ones. So mental concepts had better be called "abstractive". But if concepts are Fregean predicate-senses and components of Fregean "thoughts", i.e. of ontologically abstract propositions, they are abstract in the ontological sense and nonmental.
When Locke, Hume, and Berkeley speak of "abstract ideas", they mean concrete, mental entities existing in the mind rather than abstract, nonmental, Platonic entities existing nowhere.

For the ontology of concepts, see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts/
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: What Is The True Nature of The Mind

Post by Burning ghost »

Consul -

I am not referring directly to any philosopher you've mentioned above. I am saying numbers are abstract and that they have some kind of "existence". Mental is an abstract term too.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: What Is The True Nature of The Mind

Post by Consul »

Quotidian wrote:In my view what you're advocating is not philosophy as such, but simply common-sense realism, supported with quotations. When challenged by the fact that physics has undermined materialism as such, you simply change the term 'matter' to 'matter-energy-space-time', as if these now amount to 'fundamental principles', when they too might be subject to all manner of further modification and ad hoc development.
That alleged fact doesn't exist!
How could physics undermine materialism/physicalism?
You'll presumably refer to subjectivist or mentalist interpretations of quantum mechanics, according to which the physical world is observer-dependent or -determined. But even if physical measurements influence the physical processes measured, it doesn't follow that there is no measurement- and observer-independent physical reality.
Anyway, the minds of the physicists are themselves physical systems, viz. central nervous systems.
Quotidian wrote:You put 'physical' in italics, as if that makes clear what you mean, when it is precisely the definition of what constitutes 'physical' that is at the bottom of the crisis in physics. But, doesn't matter, you say, we're not really interested in physics.
Physicists are doing physics, not semantics. Their job is to discover the real essence or nature of MEST. Of course, the metaphysicists are doing semantics by quarrelling over the meanings of "physical" and "mental", especially in the context of physicalism.

The interpretational, metaphysical/ontological "crisis in physics" is mainly due to the circumstance that "[m]athematically, [quantum] theory is well understood; we know what its parts are, how they are put together, and why, in the mechanical sense (i.e., in a sense that can be answered by describing the internal grinding of gear against gear), the whole thing performs the way it does, how the information that gets fed in at one end is converted into what comes out the other. The question of what kind of a world it describes, however, is controversial; there is very little agreement, among physicists and among philosophers, about what the world is like according to quantum mechanics."

Quantum Mechanics: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/

"Despite its status as a core part of contemporary physics, there is no consensus among physicists or philosophers of physics on the question of what, if anything, the empirical success of quantum theory is telling us about the physical world. This gives rise to the collection of philosophical issues known as 'the interpretation of quantum mechanics'."

Philosophical Issues in Quantum Theory: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-issues/

Note that this interpretational crisis in theoretical physics and metaphysics is not a crisis of physicalism in general! That is to say, it doesn't discredit, let alone disconfirm physicalism.
Quotidian wrote:It's just common-sense realism, and those are my final words.
Common-sense realism is not non-sense realism!
There is a version of direct (perceptual) realism called "naive realism", which is the view that the external, material objects of perception are always perceived as they really are. This view is false, but non-naive direct realism is not.

"The view of perception that I have stated, that we directly perceive objects and states of affairs, is often called 'Direct Realism', and sometimes called 'Naive Realism.' It is called 'realism' because it says we do have perceptual access to the real world, and 'direct' because it says that we do not first have to perceive something else by way of which we perceive the real world."

(Searle, John R. Seeing Things As They Are: A Theory of Perception. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. p. 15)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: What Is The True Nature of The Mind

Post by Burning ghost »

Sorry I meant "Mental is an ambiguous term too."
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: What Is The True Nature of The Mind

Post by Consul »

Quotidian wrote:However, I don't regard common-sense realism, and materialism, as being philosophy, proper. Philosophy is 'the search for wisdom', and that presumes that it is hard to acquire, and the wisdom in it, hard to discern. Materialism takes the rhetorical skills and techniques of philosophy, and then turns it against philosophy.
??? :?

Image

Materialism is not an antiphilosophy-philosophy. Of course, it does reject certain philosophies: the supernaturalistic, spiritualistic, or occultistic ones.

"Philosophy is the intellectual effort, which is undertaken with a view to combining the common experiences of life and the results of scientific investigation into a harmonious and consistent world-theory; a world-theory moreover, which is adapted to satisfy the requirements of the understanding and the demands of the heart."

(Jerusalem, Wilhelm. Introduction to Philosophy. Translated by Charles F. Sanders. [Transl. of 4th Germ. ed., 1909. 1st Germ. ed. 1899.] New York: Macmillan, 1914. p. 1)

"The search for wisdom" includes the search for truth; and as for "the demands of the heart", there is certainly no guarantee that the truth will warm our hearts and make us happy. Those who are enthusiastic about "God, Soul and Immortality" think the materialistic worldview is bleak and cold. But, actually, a materialistic world free of God, Soul and Immortality doesn't have to be a bleak and cold place for us to live in. It depends on us.

-- Updated September 24th, 2016, 1:36 pm to add the following --
Burning ghost wrote:I am not referring directly to any philosopher you've mentioned above. I am saying numbers are abstract and that they have some kind of "existence".
There are many kinds of existents, but there is only one kind of existing. "To exist" is univocal. Something either exists or it doesn't exist—period.
Burning ghost wrote:Mental is an abstract term too.
"Mentality" is an abstract common noun. When we speak of nouns (or any other kind of words), we speak either of ontologically abstract noun-types or of ontologically concrete noun-tokens.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: What Is The True Nature of The Mind

Post by Felix »

Consul said: The brain is the organ of thought, so where else could thoughts be?
No where in particular because they are not concrete material things. That's like saying, "a radio set is an instrument of radio wave transmissions so it must be the source of those radio waves."

Consul: Yes, Kant did suppose that noumena or things in themselves are not possible objects of perception or cognition.

Actually, Kant suggested that noumenon could be intuited, I quote: "Hence arise the concept of noumenon, which, however, is not positive, nor a definite knowledge of anything, but which implies only the thinking of something without taking any account of the form of sensuous intuition. But, in order that a noumenon may signify a real object that can be distinguished from all phenomena, it is not enough that I should free my thought of all conditions of sensuous intiition, but I must besides have some reason for admitting another kind of intuition besides the sensuous, in which such an object can be given, otherwise my thought would be empty, however free it may be from contradictions."

Kant's "nonsensuous intuition" is the intellectual intuition of Schelling, et. al.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What Is The True Nature of The Mind

Post by Sy Borg »

Quotidian wrote:We also know that changes to mood, anxiety, etc, will cause changes to brain chemistry. I could do it right now, if I were a good enough writer - I could say something to cause a surge of adrenaline in your body, yet nothing material will have past between us. Likewise neuroplasticity and various other discoveries, have shown that there can be a causal effect from mind to brain (not to mention the placebo effect.) All of those cases mitigate against materialist explanations.

The problem is that thinking of 'mind' as any kind of objective reality is mistaken, in my view. It is the fact that such an approach doesn't make sense, that leads to the reaction of it being 'spooky', a 'ghost in the machine', and so on, and then immediately rejected on that account. This has happened a dozen times in this thread already.

To follow Husserl, mind is that by which nature itself is disclosed, which provides the basis for any and all judgements about what is matter, what exists, what doesn't exist, and so on. Naturalism and materialism, generally, don't acknowledge that, and then they proceed to argue that mind is something the reality of which can't be shown (in the case of eliminative materialism) or that it can be explained in terms of 'what the brain is doing', the neurological reductionist approach. But I am saying, such approaches are radically mistaken (as do, for example, Chalmers, McGinn, and Nagel, all on different grounds.)
I agree with your points but none provide the slightest justification for adopting the deity of ancient people to the question of the mind. One cannot assume "God". One can suspect the existence of "a fundamental mind", but not logically assume or believe it. If you can agree with me on this, we have no debate.

Further, aside from regressive influences, taking cues from ancient people who weren't even aware of bacteria is a problematic philosophical approach, reducing what may be a multi-faceted mystery to a "God vs nature" binary. The question "Does God exist?" may well be irrelevant and entirely miss the point of larger goings on, but we seem locked into a binary construction of diametrically opposed models where each conception is almost certainly wrong.

Galen Strawson has a interesting and thought-provoking view that turns the question around:
Every day, it seems, some verifiably intelligent person tells us that we don’t know what consciousness is. The nature of consciousness, they say, is an awesome mystery. It’s the ultimate hard problem. The current Wikipedia entry is typical: Consciousness “is the most mysterious aspect of our lives”; philosophers “have struggled to comprehend the nature of consciousness.”

I find this odd because we know exactly what consciousness is — where by “consciousness” I mean what most people mean in this debate: experience of any kind whatever. It’s the most familiar thing there is, whether it’s experience of emotion, pain, understanding what someone is saying, seeing, hearing, touching, tasting or feeling. It is in fact the only thing in the universe whose ultimate intrinsic nature we can claim to know. It is utterly unmysterious.

The nature of physical stuff, by contrast, is deeply mysterious, and physics grows stranger by the hour. (Richard Feynman’s remark about quantum theory — “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics” — seems as true as ever.) Or rather, more carefully: The nature of physical stuff is mysterious except insofar as consciousness is itself a form of physical stuff. This point, which is at first extremely startling, was well put by Bertrand Russell in the 1950s in his essay “Mind and Matter”: “We know nothing about the intrinsic quality of physical events,” he wrote, “except when these are mental events that we directly experience.” In having conscious experience, he claims, we learn something about the intrinsic nature of physical stuff, for conscious experience is itself a form of physical stuff.
nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciou ... atter.html

I personally disagree with GS. Consciousness is more available than familiar, not least because the line between the conscious and unconscious is undefined so our deeper motives are often mysterious to even ourselves, driven by impulses about which we know little on a personal level. The idea that consciousness is physical is reasonable enough but, until QM and the Planck scale are better understood, I remain on the fence regarding this.

Earlier you spoke of forum members exchanging information that results in physiological and psychological changes. As far as we know, information requires a physical component, even if at Planck scales. Then again, the Planck scale can barely be referred to as "material" since strings (or other types of Planck scale entities) cannot be "made from" anything and would thus seem to be pure information. Spiritualist physicist John Hagelin would say that that that information is the "Unified Field" consisting of pure consciousness, pure intelligence. Beautiful idea. Maybe he's right, maybe not. If so, I see no reason why such "consciousness" and "intelligence" would be in any way familiar (or even recognisable) to us.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021