The January Philosophy Book of the Month 2019 is The Runaway Species. Discuss The Runaway Species now.

The February Philosophy Book of the Month is The Fourth Age by Byron Reese (Nominated by RJG.) Discuss The Fourth Age now.

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.
User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1210
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Minds and Events

Post by RJG » January 22nd, 2019, 11:17 am

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…
Fdesilva wrote: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.
All entities (pieces of matter; "experiencers") can 'experience' bodily reactions/experiences. But not all entities can 'know' that it experiences. The ones that 'know' are the ones called 'conscious entities' and are therefore "conscious experiencers".

The difference between "experiencers" and "conscious experiencers" is that the latter has 'memory' capability, and because of this memory, can therefore experience 'recognition', ala "knowing".

Those entities with 'memory' have the capability to experience "knowing" in the same manner as those entities with 'eyes' have the capability to experience "seeing". Or to put it even more simply -- Those with eyes can see, and those with memory can know they see.

Everything we experience is still just an experience. And Consciousness itself is just the singular experience of 'recognition' (of our bodily reactions/experiences), made possible by memory.

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

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 23rd, 2019, 1:40 am

RJG wrote:
January 22nd, 2019, 11:17 am
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…
Fdesilva wrote: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.
All entities (pieces of matter; "experiencers") can 'experience' bodily reactions/experiences. But not all entities can 'know' that it experiences. The ones that 'know' are the ones called 'conscious entities' and are therefore "conscious experiencers".

The difference between "experiencers" and "conscious experiencers" is that the latter has 'memory' capability, and because of this memory, can therefore experience 'recognition', ala "knowing".

Those entities with 'memory' have the capability to experience "knowing" in the same manner as those entities with 'eyes' have the capability to experience "seeing". Or to put it even more simply -- Those with eyes can see, and those with memory can know they see.

Everything we experience is still just an experience. And Consciousness itself is just the singular experience of 'recognition' (of our bodily reactions/experiences), made possible by memory.
You state "All entities (pieces of matter; "experiencers") can 'experience' bodily reactions/experiences."
In the world of physics all entities that are made of matter is made of events. Events exist in isolation. What you are calling reactions are also events.
In all your descriptions you are using objects that a present only in minds to describe the mind. If you believe that matter can make the mind you need to use the description of matter from physics and chemistry.
While you recognize the “Conscious experiencer” to be a single thing, you do not see an issue with taking the brain to be the single thing that is a “Conscious experiencer” (mind). The reason is you are using the fact that when you look at a physical brain such as an image or even a real brain, it looks like a single thing. The Q ball also looks like a single thing. However, these things are not single things in the world of physics and chemistry. In the world of physics, the only single thing is an event. Events exist in total isolation. No event is connected to another. All mater is made from events. The brain is not a single thing, it is a collection of events. As such it cannot be the single “Conscious experiencer”. The "conscious experiencer" is a single thing that has the ability to group events with similar properties and identify them as single objects or single things (hence the confusion). However such objects do not exist in the world of matter. The matter of physics and chemistry consist of collections of isolated events. That is why the mind can never be made from matter.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1210
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Minds and Events

Post by RJG » January 23rd, 2019, 8:19 am

Fdesilva wrote:While you recognize the “Conscious experiencer” to be a single thing, you do not see an issue with taking the brain to be the single thing that is a “Conscious experiencer” (mind). The reason is you are using the fact that when you look at a physical brain such as an image or even a real brain, it looks like a single thing. The Q ball also looks like a single thing. However, these things are not single things in the world of physics and chemistry.
Brains, cue balls, and cakes are 'single' things that are composed of ingredients (smaller other 'things').

Fdesilva wrote:In the world of physics, the only single thing is an event.
In the world of logic, this is non-sense. -- For without some-'thing' happening, 'nothing' happens; no happening; no event!

Running can't happen without a runner. Baking can't happen without a baker and something to bake. Spitting can't happen without a spitter and spit. Happenings can't happen without something happening.

Fdesilva wrote:Events exist in total isolation. No event is connected to another. All mater is made from events.
Not so. Events cannot exist on their own.

Events/happenings are the 'interactions of matter'. Without 'something' happening, there can be 'nothing' happening; no event/happening.

Fdesilva wrote:The brain is not a single thing, it is a collection of events.
Not so. The brain is a single thing composed of interacting matter.

Steve3007
Posts: 5715
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Steve3007 » January 23rd, 2019, 1:08 pm

Fdesilva wrote:Steve if you are reading this, thanks for butting in.
No problem. Sorry this follow-up reply is so late.
Physics explanations come in 3 flavours.
1. Newtonian physics.
2. Einstein’s Special and General relativity.
3. Quantum mechanics.
I guess you can divide physics up in all sorts of different ways. Those aren't the only ones. The most fundamental division still seems to be between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Newtonian physics in an approximation of both of those.
In Newtonian physics two events 1mm or for that matter any distance apart can be connected instantaneously because forces etc can work at infinite speed. One of the key ingredients Einstein brought to the table was the fact that nothing (not even forces) can work faster that the speed of light (~300k per sec). What that means is two events that happen at the same time 1mm apart has absolutely no connection with each other.
Yes, I roughly agree so far. Although the absence of a universal single "Newtonian" time means that we have to be careful when we think about what exactly it means for two events to happen at the same time. According to Relativity, simultaneity depends on the movements of observers. Two observers can disagree as to which of two events happened first or whether they are simultaneous, and both have a perfect right, from their own chosen reference frame, to regard themselves as correct. Two events that are simultaneous as measured against one reference frame can be non-simultaneous as measured against a different reference frame.
They cannot be expected in themselves together to create anything that exist.
I agree with your subsequent description of space-like and time-like intervals but I don't understand the above statement. In what sense are you talking about an event "creating something that exists"?
Q1: Does an event that happened one hour to the past, exist right now? That is say you are at 3pm, do the events that happened in the world at 2pm exist? Does the world 1 hour to the future exist? How about the world a billionth of a second to the past or the future existing right now?
In the context of the language of Relativity, an "event" is a point in spacetime. So your questions are equivalent to asking something like "is an event the same as a different event?" or "is a point in time a different point in time?". Clearly, by definition, the answer is no.
Now the first thing I am going to show you is that the answer to the above would have to be yes for any chance of A (the experiencer) being made of B (space/time/matter).
Since the answer is, by definition, no I'm interested to see this.
Take you subjective experience of being A (the experiencer). It is a single thing. It is the essence of the concept of one. (Note : This statement is given as an axiom) As such its existence at a given instant of time will be limited to a single point in space time, that is a single event.
I disagree with this. An experience is a vaguely defined concept, but if it happens in a human brain then it is clearly distributed over both space and time.
Please note an event is even smaller than a single electron.
I don't think that this sentence makes sense. An event is not an object. It is the idealised concept of a point in spacetime.
Now is your subjective understanding of the experiencer compatible with it being made of say a single electron(or similar) at any given moment in time?
No, it's a set of numerous events spread through a brain and spread over a period of time.
Remember we are assuming the world a billionth of a second to the past does not exist, only the now.
Your concept of what it means for something to exist seems vague to me. If you mean "exist now" then clearly, by definition, the set of events which constitutes the world of a period of time ago is a different set of events to that which constitutes the world now.
For the experiencer #2(I) to see the experienced #1(U) they would both have to be a single event (not two things #1,#2 ). How much fanciful can a single electron size event be to create #2 and #1 in a single event? Further if that is the case would we not have to assume any electron (or what ever fundamental particle it is) must be consist of a experiencer#1/experience#2 where ever it may exist?
I'm afraid you've lost me. I don't understand what your argument is.

If there are two events happening at my current location and they are both the receipt of photons of light, then I can infer that they are caused by two other events that happened at different locations some time in my past. The nature of those two photon events might also lead me to infer that the two different events that I regard as their cause happened simultaneously, as measured against my reference frame.

Do you agree?

Steve3007
Posts: 5715
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Steve3007 » January 23rd, 2019, 1:14 pm

Jumping into a much more recent remark aimed at RJG:
Fdesilva wrote:You state "All entities (pieces of matter; "experiencers") can 'experience' bodily reactions/experiences." In the world of physics all entities that are made of matter is made of events. Events exist in isolation.
I think there's still some confusion here as to what an "event" is. As I said, an event is a point in spacetime. It's usually used to mean something happening at that particular point in spacetime, but it doesn't have to. Events are generally regarded as causing other events. So they don't exist in isolation.

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

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 23rd, 2019, 7:39 pm

Hello @RJG and @Steve3307
Steve3007 wrote:
January 23rd, 2019, 1:14 pm
Jumping into a much more recent remark aimed at RJG:
Fdesilva wrote:You state "All entities (pieces of matter; "experiencers") can 'experience' bodily reactions/experiences." In the world of physics all entities that are made of matter is made of events. Events exist in isolation.
I think there's still some confusion here as to what an "event" is. As I said, an event is a point in spacetime. It's usually used to mean something happening at that particular point in spacetime, but it doesn't have to. Events are generally regarded as causing other events. So they don't exist in isolation.
Definition of an Event

Yes I agree that is the normal usage of the term event is used to designate that something took place at some point in space time. However, in my usage nothing happening at a point in space-time is as important as something happening.
Let me explain. Consider two electrons A and B. The paths traced out by A and B over a period of time would be a set of events. Now based on its current velocity and position of A (defined as The current event of A = A0) we can predict that A will be at say time=1.1, x=1.4,y=1.9,z=2.1. = Event X0. Now suppose sometime before Event X0, the electron B collides with Electron A thus changing the path of Electron A, Then Electron A will not get to Event X0. X0 is no longer in the set of events that constitute the path of A. X0 now becomes a nothing event.
So, from the above as you can see, if I am to describe the events of two electrons colliding, then the fact that the immediate space-time around it has other electrons(events) or no electrons (empty events) is equally important. So all of space time is an event space consisting of “nothing events” and “something events”. This is the meaning I am giving the word event.

Events exist in isolation

What I mean by this is the following.

1. By its very definition 2 events cannot be in the same location. If two electrons collide that collision is the single event of interest.
2. Any given event has no connection what soever will all events that are space-like separated from it. Thus simultaneous events have no connection with each other or are isolated from each other.
3. Now lets us consider the events to the past of a given event A that are time like(as well as light like) separated from it. Such events can very well be the cause of event A. For sure event A has billions of events that are responsible for it creation. However, when event A takes place, at that instant in time, all those events that caused it a dead and gone. This is true for any reference frame. As such because all the causative events are dead and gone, event A is isolated from the events that caused it
Based on the above it can be seen that events exist in isolation.

The definition of a Conscious experience
Consider the conscious experience of spotting a flash of light. This experience consists of two components.
1. The experience = “U” (The flash of light)
2. The experiencer = “I” (The thing that we call “me”. The thing that sees the light)

Definition of Consciousness
A series of consecutive Conscious experience as defined above in which “I” feels itself to be continually in existence across a period of time.

Please note: The above description of consciousness is given as an axiom. If you accept it, then what I am about to say follows. I am not trying to prove that the above is the right definition of consciousness. Its up to the reader to evaluate it against their own experience of consciousness and agree or disagree.

The big question: Can “I” exist in a given instant in time?

Consider the brain at a given instant of time. It consists of a set of space-like separated events (isolated events). It is impossible for these space like separated events together create a single thing “I” as needed by the conscious experience. Therefore, a “conscious experience” does not exist in a given instant of existence of the brain.
Do you agree?
If you do, then it follows that a conscious experience must exist across time as a 4 Dimensional object. The physical brain exists from instant to instant. At every instant the brain is fully defined (by its events) an exists. Just like a car or a book. However conscious experience cannot exist in an instant. It can only exist as an object that spans across space and time. Do you agree.

Steve3007
Posts: 5715
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Steve3007 » January 24th, 2019, 3:43 am

Fdesilva wrote:...However, in my usage nothing happening at a point in space-time is as important as something happening. ... This is the meaning I am giving the word event.
Yes, as I've said, as used in the language of Relativity physics the word "event" simply means a location in spacetime. Note: In Relativity physics the word "interval" also has a particular meaning. It is a distance in spacetime.
1. By its very definition 2 events cannot be in the same location. If two electrons collide that collision is the single event of interest.
Agreed.
2. Any given event has no connection what soever will all events that are space-like separated from it. Thus simultaneous events have no connection with each other or are isolated from each other.
I disagree. If two events are separated by a space-like interval in spacetime this means that neither event can be deemed to be the cause of the other. And it means that different observers, moving at different speeds relative to these events, can disagree as to which one happened first or whether they happened simultaneously. The fact that neither event can possibly be the cause of the other means that this fact does not violate the principle of causality (i.e. that causes precede their effects).

That doesn't mean they can have no connection to each other. They could, for example, both be deemed to be caused by a third event which is separated from each of them by a time-like interval.
3. Now lets us consider the events to the past of a given event A that are time like(as well as light like) separated from it. Such events can very well be the cause of event A. For sure event A has billions of events that are responsible for it creation. However, when event A takes place, at that instant in time, all those events that caused it a dead and gone...
Saying those events are "dead and gone" is simply another way of saying that the time part of their location in spacetime is less than the time part of event A's location in spacetime.
...This is true for any reference frame...
The thing that is true of events that are separated by a time-like or light-like interval, for any reference frame, is that observers measuring against all reference frames agree which event happened first. So they all agree which event can be the cause and which the effect. This is what is not necessarily true for space-like intervals.
...As such because all the causative events are dead and gone, event A is isolated from the events that caused it
Based on the above it can be seen that events exist in isolation.
I disagree. As I said, being "dead and gone" simply means that an event is agreed by all observers to be in the past. It's simply a statement about the value if the event's location in spacetime. As I said, I don't think it follows in any sense that events "exist in isolation".

Steve3007
Posts: 5715
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Steve3007 » January 24th, 2019, 4:33 am

Continuing from the previous post:
Consider the brain at a given instant of time. It consists of a set of space-like separated events (isolated events). It is impossible for these space like separated events together create a single thing “I” as needed by the conscious experience. Therefore, a “conscious experience” does not exist in a given instant of existence of the brain. Do you agree?
Not entirely. A brain is a collection of millions of neurons slightly separated from each other in space. So your second sentence seems ok. But, as I said, I don't agree with you that the set of spacetime events which constitutes the brain at a particular instant in time are completely unconnected from each other. For example, if a neuron fires and causes a cascade of other neurons to fire then the firing of those other, spatially separated, neurons might occur at events separated by space-like intervals. But they still have a common cause.
If you do, then it follows that a conscious experience must exist across time as a 4 Dimensional object...
Any object of finite (as opposed to infinitesimal) size, such as a brain, clearly must have waves of cause and effect moving through it at finite speed (i.e. no faster than light speed). I would say that thought processes involving the firing of neurons would count as such.
...The physical brain exists from instant to instant. At every instant the brain is fully defined (by its events) an exists. Just like a car or a book. However conscious experience cannot exist in an instant. It can only exist as an object that spans across space and time. Do you agree.
Conscious experience is not an "object" as I understand that word. It is a process occurring within an object.
The big question: Can “I” exist in a given instant in time?
If by "I" you mean a process happening in a brain then no. Processes, by definition, evolve over time. This is true of anything happening inside a finite sized object, not just consciousness. For example, it's true of the process of crumpling that happens when a car drives into a wall.

The process of perceiving a flash of light with the eyes also evolves over time. It starts at the retina, goes down the optic nerve and then causes the firing of neurons in various areas of the brain, in finite time.

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

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 24th, 2019, 2:42 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
January 24th, 2019, 4:33 am

If by "I" you mean a process happening in a brain then no. Processes, by definition, evolve over time. This is true of anything happening inside a finite sized object, not just consciousness. For example, it's true of the process of crumpling that happens when a car drives into a wall.

The process of perceiving a flash of light with the eyes also evolves over time. It starts at the retina, goes down the optic nerve and then causes the firing of neurons in various areas of the brain, in finite time.
Firstly from what you have written I am sure we are on the same page in regards to way events evolve.
Now what you have written above is all we need to focus on. You say
"If by "I" you mean a process happening in a brain then no."
Now this is where the problem lies. You need to identify the "I" from your own conscious experiance. What do you think it is. Firstly you need to estanlish from your own conscious experiance does such a thing exist. When you are looking at somethine such as a flash of light do you see the flash as something other than you self. The thing you call "me" in the contex of the experiance is what I mean by "I".
Now to me the thing I call "I" is the essence of a "single thing" If it can be created by a process is something that needs to be established. My own experiance of the "I" does not in any way make it abundently clear that it is a process or a result of a process. That is what needs to be established. Can a process create the "I". So my question to you is what is your experiance of the "I" . Does it exist in the context of your own conscious experiance? How would you describe it? Thanks

Steve3007
Posts: 5715
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Steve3007 » January 25th, 2019, 6:29 am

I think the concept of "I" or "Me" is far too vague, qualitative and subjective for the question of whether it is "a single thing" to be meaningful. Our personal, subjective experience of time is fuzzy and has very low resolution. Maybe about 1/10 of a second. So I can't realistically make an assessment as to whether my consciousness is a process simply by introspecting about the concept of "I". If I do more than that and examine some of the science of how the neurons in my brain work then it seems to me pretty reasonable to see it as a process happening over a finite period of time in a finite volume of space (my brain).

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2989
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Burning ghost » January 25th, 2019, 9:38 am

Fdesilva -

The term “I” is a symbolic expression used to communicate a conscious state to another perceived conscious state. “I” is not static nor completely unbound.
AKA badgerjelly

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 1851
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Belindi » January 25th, 2019, 9:48 am

Burning ghost wrote:
January 25th, 2019, 9:38 am
Fdesilva -

The term “I” is a symbolic expression used to communicate a conscious state to another perceived conscious state. “I” is not static nor completely unbound.
I agree and if I may, Ghost, I'd like to add that my I is that feeling of having chosen between outcomes. If I am unfortunate in having no choices perhaps because I am a slave, or am demented ,or so on my I is unattached to power and my I feels unhappy.

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

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 25th, 2019, 4:42 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
January 25th, 2019, 6:29 am
I think the concept of "I" or "Me" is far too vague, qualitative and subjective for the question of whether it is "a single thing" to be meaningful. Our personal, subjective experience of time is fuzzy and has very low resolution. Maybe about 1/10 of a second. So I can't realistically make an assessment as to whether my consciousness is a process simply by introspecting about the concept of "I". If I do more than that and examine some of the science of how the neurons in my brain work then it seems to me pretty reasonable to see it as a process happening over a finite period of time in a finite volume of space (my brain).
Fine if you do not agree with my description of consciousness, which I have put forward as an axiom, then my argument that consciousness involves the non-physical you will not agree. Having said that, could you please put forward your description of consciousness. I am sure you will agree with me unless you have a definite description of what you mean by the “experience of consciences” you cannot have a meaningful discussion on how the physical activity in the brain creates it. So the description I am after is what is it like for you to see something. Since we are talking about a car smashing into a wall, what would it be like to be watch that car from the outside? (You are not a passage or the drive)
Now while I await your description, I will like to progress this discussion a step further. Let us say we are looking at this car/wall at 3pm. Now consider the events that form the car an the wall at this instant in time. You agree with me that these events are all space like separated. However if you look at each event individually, say an atom that is part of the car. This atom(event) will have a velocity and mass. It will also have a force that is the resultant of all the forces acting on it. Using this information, we can predict exactly what will happen in the next billionth of a sec. These predictions can be extended to cover all events into the future until the crash is done and dusted. Do you agree? Everything about the car is nothing more and nothing less than these individual events. That’s is the car is not a single thing but a collection of events. Further knowing the properties of each event and there location we can predict what exactly is going to happen into the future. Please note I am not talking of the car/wall that you see in your mind but the car/wall in the world out there.
Now for this statement you made
Steve3007 wrote: “Not entirely. A brain is a collection of millions of neurons slightly separated from each other in space. So your second sentence seems ok. But, as I said, I don't agree with you that the set of spacetime events which constitutes the brain at a particular instant in time are completely unconnected from each other. For example, if a neuron fires and causes a cascade of other neurons to fire then the firing of those other, spatially separated, neurons might occur at events separated by space-like intervals. But they still have a common cause..”
Now you agree with me that at 3pm, in that instant, all the events in the brain are space like separated. However you do not agree with my view that in that instant these space-like separated events cannot give rise to a single “Conscious experience”.? The reason you say so is because the space-like separated events would have been caused (in the past) by a common event.

So the only connection that you can think of between these events is that they have a common cause in the past. It is because of this common cause that you also don’t agree with my statement that events exist in isolation. Do you agree?

Now let us consider a possible chain of causation. Lets say we take event A, it causes event A1, and A2. A1 causes event A1-B1 and A1-B2. Event A2 causes event A2-C1 and event A2-C2. Now lets assume that the events A1-B1, A1-B2,A2-C1, A2-C2 all happen at the same time , as such are space like separated. However you say they cannot be considered as isolated events because they share a common causing event A. Do you agree?

Now if space like separated events are to be considered as connected because they have a common cause, then that connection from the past, is also there in connection pertaining to events in any other part of your body say the leg or the heart. Further more that type of connection is also there in an inanimate thing like the car. Do you agree?
Finally all events in the universe at 3pm are connected because they have a common cause in the big bang. Do you agree?

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

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 28th, 2019, 7:29 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
January 25th, 2019, 9:38 am
Fdesilva -

The term “I” is a symbolic expression used to communicate a conscious state to another perceived conscious state. “I” is not static nor completely unbound.
If you are watching a car do you feel yourself to be one and the same as the car or the car to be something other than your self? My experience is the car is something other than me as such in that conscious state the perceived car and my self "I" are both components of the conscious state. It would be impossible to have the state without the self. So as such I don't see how you can call "I" symbolic. Sure you can equate "I" to mean the totality of the experience yet when you go into the details you will still need to describe the perceiver.

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

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 28th, 2019, 7:37 pm

Belindi wrote:
January 25th, 2019, 9:48 am
Burning ghost wrote:
January 25th, 2019, 9:38 am
Fdesilva -

The term “I” is a symbolic expression used to communicate a conscious state to another perceived conscious state. “I” is not static nor completely unbound.
I agree and if I may, Ghost, I'd like to add that my I is that feeling of having chosen between outcomes. If I am unfortunate in having no choices perhaps because I am a slave, or am demented ,or so on my I is unattached to power and my I feels unhappy.
If you are watching a car is there a "I" in the context of that experience? If not what is your description of the experience? If yes how would you describe the "I"

Post Reply