The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Minds and Events

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?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 17th, 2019, 11:15 pm

RJG wrote:
January 17th, 2019, 6:42 pm
Fdesilva wrote:My claim is that the currently (scientifically) accepted properties of space/time/matter (B) make it logically impossible that it can give rise to experiencer (A).
Why so? Why is it "logically impossible"? Are you saying that we don't experience "bodily" reactions? Are you denying that physical reactions occur (via space/time/matter)?
It is impossible to make a single thing from B that will have experiences. As such A since it has experiences is not made from the B stuff. The explanation is given in my previous post.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1381
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Minds and Events

Post by RJG » January 17th, 2019, 11:49 pm

Fdesilva, does matter react (with other matter)? If so, then stuff (A) can experience stuff (B). Stuff (A) is therefore the 'experiencer' of stuff (B).

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 18th, 2019, 12:12 am

RJG wrote:
January 17th, 2019, 11:49 pm
Fdesilva, does matter not react (with other matter)?
Matter can only change in time. It cannot feel in time. Lets take what you said about the spot of light. Once it becomes nerve impulses (activity in brain), what to the experiencer and what corresponds to the experience?

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1381
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Minds and Events

Post by RJG » January 18th, 2019, 8:12 am

RJG wrote:Fdesilva, does matter react (with other matter)? If so, then stuff (A) can experience stuff (B). Stuff (A) is therefore the 'experiencer' of stuff (B).
Fdesilva wrote:Matter can only change in time. It cannot feel in time.
What is "feel"? ...isn't "feel" just a bodily reaction? ...just matter reacting with matter?
And what then is the "subjective recognition" of this bodily reaction? ...isn't this again just another bodily reaction?

Fdesilva wrote:Lets take what you said about the spot of light. Once it becomes nerve impulses (activity in brain), what to the experiencer and what corresponds to the experience?
The reaction (neural activity) is the 'experience' (i.e. the 'reaction').
The body (/brain) is the 'experiencer' of this reaction.

Reactions (i.e. 'interactions' of Matter) are made possible by Space and Time. When one particle of matter collides with another particle of matter, 'something' happens! This 'something' is a happening/event/experience/reaction!

Experiencings (as with ALL actions/reactions/interactions/events/happenings) are the product/resultant of Matter/Space/Time.

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 18th, 2019, 3:42 pm

RJG wrote:
January 18th, 2019, 8:12 am
RJG wrote:Fdesilva, does matter react (with other matter)? If so, then stuff (A) can experience stuff (B). Stuff (A) is therefore the 'experiencer' of stuff (B).
Fdesilva wrote:Matter can only change in time. It cannot feel in time.
What is "feel"? ...isn't "feel" just a bodily reaction? ...just matter reacting with matter?
And what then is the "subjective recognition" of this bodily reaction? ...isn't this again just another bodily reaction?

Fdesilva wrote:Lets take what you said about the spot of light. Once it becomes nerve impulses (activity in brain), what to the experiencer and what corresponds to the experience?
The reaction (neural activity) is the 'experience' (i.e. the 'reaction').
The body (/brain) is the 'experiencer' of this reaction.

Reactions (i.e. 'interactions' of Matter) are made possible by Space and Time. When one particle of matter collides with another particle of matter, 'something' happens! This 'something' is a happening/event/experience/reaction!

Experiencings (as with ALL actions/reactions/interactions/events/happenings) are the product/resultant of Matter/Space/Time.
RJG wrote:
January 18th, 2019, 8:12 am
What is "feel"? ...isn't "feel" just a bodily reaction? ...just matter reacting with matter?
It is your claim that Feeling = matter(experiance) reacting with matter(Matter = Experiencer)
My claim is that the properties of matter (known from science) make it impossible for matter to create an experiancer. That is matter = Experiancer is logically impossibility. Now lets take this statements.
RJG wrote:
January 18th, 2019, 8:12 am
#1 The reaction (neural activity) is the 'experience' (i.e. the 'reaction').
#2 The body (/brain) is the 'experiencer' of this reaction.
neural activity creates more neural activity. How does body/brain = neural activity? At most all you can say is neural activity is both the experience (#1) and the experiencer(#2). Do you agree? Let me make the point clearer If John is at his house is expecting david to visit him does the house know about it? If not saying the brain is the experiancer is like saying the house = John

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1381
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Minds and Events

Post by RJG » January 18th, 2019, 5:57 pm

RJG wrote:Experiencings (as with ALL actions/reactions/interactions/events/happenings) are the product/resultant of Matter/Space/Time.
Fdesilva wrote:My claim is that the properties of matter (known from science) make it impossible for matter to create an experiencer.
Not so. When a cue ball collides with the eight ball, isn't there a bodily reaction (impaction forces; internal vibrations; compressions; material elasticity, etc.)? So in this respect, isn't the cue ball the 'experiencer' of these experiences (bodily reactions) when colliding with the eight ball?

It seems that you are confusing "experiencer" with "conscious experiencer". The cue ball can rightfully be called the "experiencer" of the collison (since it DID experience bodily reactions; vibrations, forces, etc), though we both probably agree that the cue ball is not a "conscious (knowing) experiencer".

Many entities can experience (and thereby claim the title "experiencer"), but not many can “know” they experience. The ones that “know”, are the ones that are considered “conscious entities”.

And for entities to "know", they must be able to experience 'recognition' (which is only possible for those entities with memory capability). Those entities that can recognize their bodily reactions/experiences are those that can "know" (be conscious of) their bodily experiences/reactions.

There is no "mind" or other 'middle-man' needed. The (physical) body can experience, and can 'know' he experiences, just fine, all by himself!

Fdesilva wrote:How does body/brain = neural activity?
It doesn't. Body/brain only 'experiences' neural activity. And neural activity is the 'product' of interacting matter.

Fdesilva wrote:At most all you can say is neural activity is both the experience (#1) and the experiencer(#2). Do you agree?
No. Again, neural activity is the 'product' of interacting matter, which is then 'experienced' by the 'experiencer' (body/brain).

Fdesilva wrote:Let me make the point clearer. If John is at his house is expecting david to visit him does the house know about it?
Who is the body in this analogy? Is it John or the House? Whomever does the experiencing is the experiencer!

If the house experiences the "expecting of David", and also experiences the 'recognition' of this particular experience (of expecting David), then the house is the conscious experiencer of this 'expectation'. And if it is John who experiences these experiences, then John is the experiencer.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Burning ghost » January 19th, 2019, 12:35 am

Fdesilva -

I don’t quite see how a “mind” isn’t an “event” in the manner you’ve set out your thinking. Or for that matter how an “event” isn’t of the “mind”?

We cannot imagine a non-event only the absense of an event - which is not the same thing. Take a look at Kantian categories or what Christopher Alexander talks about.
AKA badgerjelly

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 19th, 2019, 4:48 pm

RJG wrote:
January 18th, 2019, 5:57 pm
Not so. When a cue ball collides with the eight ball, isn't there a bodily reaction (impaction forces; internal vibrations; compressions; material elasticity, etc.)? So in this respect, isn't the cue ball the 'experiencer' of these experiences (bodily reactions) when colliding with the eight ball?

It seems that you are confusing "experiencer" with "conscious experiencer". The cue ball can rightfully be called the "experiencer" of the collison (since it DID experience bodily reactions; vibrations, forces, etc), though we both probably agree that the cue ball is not a "conscious (knowing) experiencer".



Many entities can experience (and thereby claim the title "experiencer"), but not many can “know” they experience. The ones that “know”, are the ones that are considered “conscious entities”.

And for entities to "know", they must be able to experience 'recognition' (which is only possible for those entities with memory capability). Those entities that can recognize their bodily reactions/experiences are those that can "know" (be conscious of) their bodily experiences/reactions.
Why are you differentiating between "experiencer" with "conscious experiencer"? Is it to because you are of the view that a thing with "knowing" property can be created by putting together atoms, molecules etc in the same way that you can put water molecules together to make a liquid as such you want to start the narrative by calling water molecules “liquid molecules” ?
Now here is a possible definition of a "conscious experiencer" = “a thing that know” = “mind” <= “brain” <= Human/animal body
1. An "conscious experiencer" is a single thing(it) that has the following attributes
a) It “knows” it is a “single thing”
b) It can see and/or hear and/or smell and/or touch and/or taste etc the "Other"
c) The see , hear etc are all different flavours of the “knows” in a) above that apply only regards to the Other

Do you agree?


RJG wrote:
January 18th, 2019, 5:57 pm
There is no "mind" or other 'middle-man' needed. The (physical) body can experience, and can 'know' he experiences, just fine, all by himself!
This is your claim. You need to show how it is true. The Mind is in the body like the heart or the lungs are in the body but no biologist will say there is no such this as the heart or lung its all just body.
RJG wrote:
January 18th, 2019, 5:57 pm
It doesn't. Body/brain only 'experiences' neural activity. And neural activity is the 'product' of interacting matter.
“neural activity is the 'product' of interacting matter.” Yes and how the interacting matter creates neural activity has been explained starting from atoms/molecules etc now what is needed is to do the same. That is show how an "conscious experiencer" can be made from neural activity.
“Body/brain only 'experiences' neural activity” the question is how does the body/brain do the a), b) c) given above
Stating you claim is not an explanation.
RJG wrote:
January 18th, 2019, 5:57 pm
No. Again, neural activity is the 'product' of interacting matter, which is then 'experienced' by the 'experiencer' (body/brain).
Your statement 'experienced' by the 'experiencer' (body/brain). Is your claim, what you need to explain is how is it the case either starting from atoms/molecules or neural activity that the brain brings about the property or becomes a "conscious experiencer" .
RJG wrote:
January 18th, 2019, 5:57 pm
Who is the body in this analogy? Is it John or the House? Whomever does the experiencing is the experiencer!
If the house experiences the "expecting of David", and also experiences the 'recognition' of this particular experience (of expecting David), then the house is the conscious experiencer of this 'expectation'. And if it is John who experiences these experiences, then John is the experiencer.
What I mean is the following
1. The statement “John can see” is true
2. The statement “John sees with his eyes” is true
3. The statement “John sees with his hand” is false
4. The statement “John sees with his brain” is true
5. The statement “John sees with his visual cortex is true”
Now we have progressed the conversation beyond the eyes to neural activity within the brain. You need to now start using components within the brain such as visual cortex etc to show how theses components can bring about a experiencer as by a), b) c) above

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 19th, 2019, 4:56 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
January 19th, 2019, 12:35 am
Fdesilva -

I don’t quite see how a “mind” isn’t an “event” in the manner you’ve set out your thinking. Or for that matter how an “event” isn’t of the “mind”?

We cannot imagine a non-event only the absense of an event - which is not the same thing. Take a look at Kantian categories or what Christopher Alexander talks about.
If you see a spot of light(event) The spot of light is part of your brain, yet you recognise it as not me so if you believe events can explan the "me" you need to show how.

The brain is like a perfect mirror. It reflects the world out side it. Yet the reflection is part of the brain. So there fore just as the brain creates the reflection (easy problem), how does it create the thing experiencing it (hard problem)?

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1381
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Minds and Events

Post by RJG » January 19th, 2019, 10:26 pm

RJG wrote:Body/brain only 'experiences' neural activity. And neural activity is the 'product' of interacting matter.
Fdesilva wrote:“neural activity is the 'product' of interacting matter.” Yes and how the interacting matter creates neural activity has been explained starting from atoms/molecules etc now what is needed is to do the same. That is show how an "conscious experiencer" can be made from neural activity.
The conscious experiencer is NOT made/created by neural activity! Conscious experiencer is just the name given to the 'thing' (piece of matter) that experiences neural activity. If there is no neural activity, it does not mean the 'thing' stops existing, or can't exist.

For example, a person is called a "runner" when he experiences a "running activity". When the person stops running, this does not mean he poofs away into non-existence. He is still a piece of matter, and when he runs, then he is a piece of matter called "runner".

RJG wrote:Again, neural activity is the 'product' of interacting matter, which is then 'experienced' by the 'experiencer' (body/brain).
Fdesilva wrote:...what you need to explain is how is it the case either starting from atoms/molecules or neural activity that the brain brings about the property or becomes a "conscious experiencer" .
There is NO property of "conscious experiencer"! "Conscious experiencer" is just the NAME given to the 'thing' that consciously experiences!

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Burning ghost » January 20th, 2019, 12:44 am

Fdesilva wrote:
January 19th, 2019, 4:56 pm
Burning ghost wrote:
January 19th, 2019, 12:35 am
Fdesilva -

I don’t quite see how a “mind” isn’t an “event” in the manner you’ve set out your thinking. Or for that matter how an “event” isn’t of the “mind”?

We cannot imagine a non-event only the absense of an event - which is not the same thing. Take a look at Kantian categories or what Christopher Alexander talks about.
If you see a spot of light(event) The spot of light is part of your brain, yet you recognise it as not me so if you believe events can explan the "me" you need to show how.

The brain is like a perfect mirror. It reflects the world out side it. Yet the reflection is part of the brain. So there fore just as the brain creates the reflection (easy problem), how does it create the thing experiencing it (hard problem)?
Reflective surfaces are mirrors. The brain isn’t much of a reflective surface. Avoid analogies that cloud whatever it is you were trying to say.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 360
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Minds and Events

Post by chewybrian » January 20th, 2019, 6:41 am

Burning ghost wrote:
January 20th, 2019, 12:44 am
Fdesilva wrote:
January 19th, 2019, 4:56 pm
The brain is like a perfect mirror. It reflects the world out side it. Yet the reflection is part of the brain. So there fore just as the brain creates the reflection (easy problem), how does it create the thing experiencing it (hard problem)?
Reflective surfaces are mirrors. The brain isn’t much of a reflective surface. Avoid analogies that cloud whatever it is you were trying to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruE6VpBHQrE
Her heart won't just wipe clean, like this bathroom counter top; it absorbs everything that touches it, like this bathroom rug.
I don't think the brain reflects the world. It interprets it, and the interpretation can vary greatly between individuals. A reflection would be the same, wouldn't it (as two individuals encounter the same object or event)?

I prefer the opposite. I am fond of saying that the world is a fun house mirror. It does not reflect exactly what you send out, but you do get back a lot of what you give. You will see the world through the lens of your preconceptions and your attitude, because the facts are able to be interpreted in more than one way. If you go out the door with a grateful disposition, you are likely to be able to find things for which you can feel grateful. In addition, people will react to you according to your disposition. If you see a miserable world, it may be, at least in part, because you are miserable. People may not be as friendly to you when you are not friendly to the world, or at least they will tend to avoid you. If you are in a good mood, your attitude is often reflected in the behavior of others. You will 'find' more happy people in the world if you are happy.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 20th, 2019, 3:51 pm

RJG wrote:Body/brain only 'experiences' neural activity. And neural activity is the 'product' of interacting matter.
Fdesilva wrote:“neural activity is the 'product' of interacting matter.” Yes and how the interacting matter creates neural activity has been explained starting from atoms/molecules etc now what is needed is to do the same. That is show how an "conscious experiencer" can be made from neural activity.
RJG wrote:
January 19th, 2019, 10:26 pm
The conscious experiencer is NOT made/created by neural activity! Conscious experiencer is just the name given to the 'thing' (piece of matter) that experiences neural activity. If there is no neural activity, it does not mean the 'thing' stops existing, or can't exist.
I can agree with you on the following
1) conscious experiencer is NOT made/created by neural activity
2) no neural activity, it does not mean the 'thing' stops existing, or can't exist.
Now previously you said
RJG wrote: "It seems that you are confusing "experiencer" with "conscious experiencer". The cue ball can rightfully be called the "experiencer" of the collison (since it DID experience bodily reactions; vibrations,"
That is matter can create "experiancers" and "conscious experiencer". The way matter creates a cue ball is well understood. It is understood via physics and chemistry. In the same way what is the explanation for the "conscious experiencer" ? You are claiming a difference so you need to explain how the difference comes about.

Now you say above the brain is the "conscious experiencer". You view is that the neural events are the experiances experienced by the brain = "conscious experiencer". So when you take the neural events out what you are left with is nerve cells, blood vessels, connective tissue, fluid cavities etc. This is the only matter left. So from what you are saying they would be the "conscious experiencer". Do you agree? If you don't please explain thanks.

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 20th, 2019, 4:00 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
January 20th, 2019, 12:44 am
Reflective surfaces are mirrors. The brain isn’t much of a reflective surface. Avoid analogies that cloud whatever it is you were trying to say.
1)When looking at a flash of light, the person sees the flash at some point in time. At the point in time at which the person says he/she sees a flash of light, where are the physical events pertianing to the flash located?
2)Is it possible to directly stimulate the brain and make a person see a flash of light? If so where is the activity pertaining to the light?

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 20th, 2019, 4:07 pm

chewybrian wrote:
January 20th, 2019, 6:41 am
Burning ghost wrote:
January 20th, 2019, 12:44 am


Reflective surfaces are mirrors. The brain isn’t much of a reflective surface. Avoid analogies that cloud whatever it is you were trying to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruE6VpBHQrE
Her heart won't just wipe clean, like this bathroom counter top; it absorbs everything that touches it, like this bathroom rug.
I don't think the brain reflects the world. It interprets it, and the interpretation can vary greatly between individuals. A reflection would be the same, wouldn't it (as two individuals encounter the same object or event)?

I prefer the opposite. I am fond of saying that the world is a fun house mirror. It does not reflect exactly what you send out, but you do get back a lot of what you give. You will see the world through the lens of your preconceptions and your attitude, because the facts are able to be interpreted in more than one way. If you go out the door with a grateful disposition, you are likely to be able to find things for which you can feel grateful. In addition, people will react to you according to your disposition. If you see a miserable world, it may be, at least in part, because you are miserable. People may not be as friendly to you when you are not friendly to the world, or at least they will tend to avoid you. If you are in a good mood, your attitude is often reflected in the behavior of others. You will 'find' more happy people in the world if you are happy.
I agree with all you say. However I think you are speaking about everything that comes after observing a flash of light(You thought about the flash seen). What I mean by the brain is a perfect mirror is the fact that the flash of light or anything that anybody sees is within their brain. Think about it. Close your eyes and you no longer see the flash of light.

Post Reply