A Journey Into Mind, Seeing, And Light
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
A Journey Into Mind, Seeing, And Light
A) Science Has No explanation
It all started one day when I thought it might be fun to figure out how we See.
I read what the Scientists and the Philosophers had to say.
I studied Eye Physiology and Brain Physiology.
I learned exactly how the Eye, Optic Nerve, and Visual Cortex work.
But I was disappointed, because all this understanding did not explain how we See.
After 25 years of study, I had to face the fact that Science had no Explanation for how we See.
B) Think In New Ways
I discovered that the only thing Science knew for sure was that if certain Neurons fire we can have an Experience of Seeing.
It was reasonable to speculate that there must be something about the Neurons that produced this Experience of Seeing.
To test this, Science has Probed, Measured, Scanned, and Mapped the Brain in every conceivable way.
And after a hundred years, HUGE progress was made with understanding the Neural Activity that happens while Seeing.
But after all this time, Science has made exactly ZERO progress with understanding the Conscious Experience of Seeing.
Ironically, the Seeing part of how we See was still a total mystery.
It became clear to me that it was time to start thinking in New Ways.
But it is difficult to teach people to think in New Ways.
And I found that I can only Nudge people in the right direction, with the hope that they will eventually understand the New Ways.
C) Insight From Floating Lights
So here is a Nudge toward New Ways of thinking, in the form of a little story about Floating Lights.
A lot of times I fall asleep on the couch in my Stereo room at night.
I have multiple Preamps, Power Amps, Processors, and Converters with different Colored LED panel Lights.
It relaxes me to think about these Lights when I’m going to sleep.
The LEDs seem to float “Out There” in space as Colored points of Light punching through the darkness.
It’s just Me … the LEDs … and the Darkness.
At first, because I knew the LEDs were across the room, my Experience was that they really were across the room.
Eventually, I realized that I could Experience the Lights as being close to me.
I could even make them seem like they were located directly in front of my face.
I assumed this was just my Imagination.
D) Conscious Space
But after a while, I realized that this might not be my Imagination.
It was, in fact, the first evidence that I might not be Seeing the Physical LEDs, but rather I was Seeing some kind of Conscious Experience in my Mind.
The Illusion has always been that the Lights were “Out There”.
But the reality is that the Lights were never “Out There” in the first place.
I was Seeing what I call Conscious Lights.
These Conscious Lights were created by my Mind and projected in front of my face.
It seemed Logical to speculate that the Conscious Lights existed in some new conceptual place, which I call Conscious Space.
Next, it became Logical to speculate that each individual Conscious Mind might consist of a little chunk of this Conscious Space.
So we each have our own chunk of Conscious Space, and this is where our separate Conscious Experiences happen.
E) Conscious Experience
Let’s think about Seeing Color and especially let’s think about Seeing Red.
Instead of Seeing Red I like to say we Experience Redness.
This helps point attention to the Redness Experience in the Mind, and not to the Red Electromagnetic Wave phenomenon.
The Redness Experience is in Conscious Space and the Red Electromagnetic Wave is in Physical Space.
The argument is similar for any other Color or combination of Colors, including shades of gray from Black to White.
The Visually impaired can consider the Conscious Experience of other things, like the Sound of the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, the Smell of Bleach, or the Touch of a Rough Surface.
F) The Inter Mind
Science has mapped the various Sensory inputs from the Eyes, Ears, Tongue, Nose, and Skin to specific areas of the Cortex.
So, for example we can say:
1 Neural Activity for Red happens in the Cortex.
2 A Redness Experience happens in the Conscious Mind.
But we have a dilemma because this question screams out at us:
How does the Neural Activity produce the Redness Experience?
From a Systems Engineering and Signal Processing point of view there is a missing processing stage between the Neural Activity and the Conscious Experience.
I call the missing processing stage, the Inter Mind, because it is an Interconnecting stage of Mind between the Physical Mind and the Conscious Mind. Note that Physical Mind means the Brain here.
We can now imagine a three stage diagram of Mind that shows the Physical Mind connected to the Inter Mind and the Inter Mind connected to the Conscious Mind.
I call this diagram the Inter Mind Model of Consciousness.
The Inter Mind does the Processing to Translate Neural Activity in the Physical Mind into the Conscious Experience in the Conscious Mind.
The Inter Mind functionality might exist partly in the Physical Mind and partly in the Conscious Mind.
But it might exist only in the Physical Mind or only in the Conscious Mind.
Physicalists will insist it is completely in the Physical Mind.
One thing for sure is that the functionality of an Inter Mind must exist somewhere.
G) Physiology of Seeing
Let’s talk about the Physiology of Seeing.
Physical Light from the External Scene enters the Eye and is focused onto the Retina.
The Energy from the Physical Light activates millions of Light Receptors that send signals to the Visual Cortex.
The Visual Cortex performs processing using a cascading, feedback, network of millions of Activated Neurons.
Since all this Neural Activity is Correlated with the Physical Light, I like to call it, the Neural Light.
But we don’t See this Neural Light.
We See a Conscious Light Scene in the Mind that is Correlated with the Neural Light.
The Conscious Light Scene cannot be found in the Physical Mind.
I like to speculate that the whole Conscious Light Scene is in Conscious Space.
H) Reconstruction and Overlay Processing
But let’s talk about what the Physical Mind is actually doing.
The Physical Mind seems to deconstruct the Scene we are looking at with the goal of detecting features of the Scene like lines, edges, motion, and color.
The highest stages seem to be for image recognition.
The lower stages seem to be for control of eye focus, convergence, and target tracking.
There are some edge enhancement and shading effects that are generated in the lower stages that can be Experienced in the Conscious Light Scene.
If there is a damaged area in the lower stages, then an equivalent blacked out area will appear in the Conscious Light Scene.
If there is damage to the Color areas, then the Color Experience will be impaired.
It seems that the Conscious Light Scene that we See, must consist of an Overlay of all the Visual Cortex processing stages.
The deconstructed Cortex information must be Reconstructed into a Coherent Conscious Light Scene.
Unfortunately, there is no known mechanism in the Physical Mind that does this Overlay and Reconstruction Processing.
This missing Processing is sometimes called the Binding Problem.
Since the purpose of the Inter Mind is to Translate the Neural Activity into the Conscious Light Scene, it is Logical to propose that the Inter Mind must perform the Overlay and Reconstruction processing.
I) Three Types of Light
Let’s think about the three types of Light.
First, there are the Electromagnetic Waves, in Physical Space, which I call Physical Light.
Second, there is the Neural Activity, also in Physical Space, which I call Neural Light.
Third, there is the Conscious Experience, in Conscious Space, which I call Conscious Light.
These different Types of Light exist at different stages in the Seeing process.
We have never Seen the Physical Light or the Neural Light.
We have always only Seen the Conscious Light that is in our Conscious Minds.
J) An Important Realization
Since the Conscious Light is in our Conscious Minds we can say the Light is our own internal personal Light.
Even if you are a Physicalist and believe the Conscious Light is in the Neurons, it is still your own internal personal Light.
Since the Conscious Light is internal to us, we can say the Conscious Light is partly what we are.
We can say: We are that Conscious Light.
Or more simply: We are that Light.
For me, this was the most important Realization I have ever had about my own Mind, Being, and Light.
The website will explain what Conscious Light is, and that it is categorically different from the Electromagnetic Light of Science.
K) Now What?
I will now take the next step and ask the obvious question:
What can be done with this new knowledge about Light?
The answer to that question is a work in progress.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: A Journey Into Mind, Seeing, And Light
SK, Nice!SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 20th, 2022, 10:18 am
A) Science Has No explanation
It all started one day when I thought it might be fun to figure out how we See.
I read what the Scientists and the Philosophers had to say.
I studied Eye Physiology and Brain Physiology.
I learned exactly how the Eye, Optic Nerve, and Visual Cortex work.
But I was disappointed, because all this understanding did not explain how we See.
After 25 years of study, I had to face the fact that Science had no Explanation for how we See.
B) Think In New Ways
I discovered that the only thing Science knew for sure was that if certain Neurons fire we can have an Experience of Seeing.
It was reasonable to speculate that there must be something about the Neurons that produced this Experience of Seeing.
To test this, Science has Probed, Measured, Scanned, and Mapped the Brain in every conceivable way.
And after a hundred years, HUGE progress was made with understanding the Neural Activity that happens while Seeing.
But after all this time, Science has made exactly ZERO progress with understanding the Conscious Experience of Seeing.
Ironically, the Seeing part of how we See was still a total mystery.
It became clear to me that it was time to start thinking in New Ways.
But it is difficult to teach people to think in New Ways.
And I found that I can only Nudge people in the right direction, with the hope that they will eventually understand the New Ways.
C) Insight From Floating Lights
So here is a Nudge toward New Ways of thinking, in the form of a little story about Floating Lights.
A lot of times I fall asleep on the couch in my Stereo room at night.
I have multiple Preamps, Power Amps, Processors, and Converters with different Colored LED panel Lights.
It relaxes me to think about these Lights when I’m going to sleep.
The LEDs seem to float “Out There” in space as Colored points of Light punching through the darkness.
It’s just Me … the LEDs … and the Darkness.
At first, because I knew the LEDs were across the room, my Experience was that they really were across the room.
Eventually, I realized that I could Experience the Lights as being close to me.
I could even make them seem like they were located directly in front of my face.
I assumed this was just my Imagination.
D) Conscious Space
But after a while, I realized that this might not be my Imagination.
It was, in fact, the first evidence that I might not be Seeing the Physical LEDs, but rather I was Seeing some kind of Conscious Experience in my Mind.
The Illusion has always been that the Lights were “Out There”.
But the reality is that the Lights were never “Out There” in the first place.
I was Seeing what I call Conscious Lights.
These Conscious Lights were created by my Mind and projected in front of my face.
It seemed Logical to speculate that the Conscious Lights existed in some new conceptual place, which I call Conscious Space.
Next, it became Logical to speculate that each individual Conscious Mind might consist of a little chunk of this Conscious Space.
So we each have our own chunk of Conscious Space, and this is where our separate Conscious Experiences happen.
E) Conscious Experience
Let’s think about Seeing Color and especially let’s think about Seeing Red.
Instead of Seeing Red I like to say we Experience Redness.
This helps point attention to the Redness Experience in the Mind, and not to the Red Electromagnetic Wave phenomenon.
The Redness Experience is in Conscious Space and the Red Electromagnetic Wave is in Physical Space.
The argument is similar for any other Color or combination of Colors, including shades of gray from Black to White.
The Visually impaired can consider the Conscious Experience of other things, like the Sound of the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, the Smell of Bleach, or the Touch of a Rough Surface.
F) The Inter Mind
Science has mapped the various Sensory inputs from the Eyes, Ears, Tongue, Nose, and Skin to specific areas of the Cortex.
So, for example we can say:
1 Neural Activity for Red happens in the Cortex.
2 A Redness Experience happens in the Conscious Mind.
But we have a dilemma because this question screams out at us:
How does the Neural Activity produce the Redness Experience?
From a Systems Engineering and Signal Processing point of view there is a missing processing stage between the Neural Activity and the Conscious Experience.
I call the missing processing stage, the Inter Mind, because it is an Interconnecting stage of Mind between the Physical Mind and the Conscious Mind. Note that Physical Mind means the Brain here.
We can now imagine a three stage diagram of Mind that shows the Physical Mind connected to the Inter Mind and the Inter Mind connected to the Conscious Mind.
I call this diagram the Inter Mind Model of Consciousness.
The Inter Mind does the Processing to Translate Neural Activity in the Physical Mind into the Conscious Experience in the Conscious Mind.
The Inter Mind functionality might exist partly in the Physical Mind and partly in the Conscious Mind.
But it might exist only in the Physical Mind or only in the Conscious Mind.
Physicalists will insist it is completely in the Physical Mind.
One thing for sure is that the functionality of an Inter Mind must exist somewhere.
G) Physiology of Seeing
Let’s talk about the Physiology of Seeing.
Physical Light from the External Scene enters the Eye and is focused onto the Retina.
The Energy from the Physical Light activates millions of Light Receptors that send signals to the Visual Cortex.
The Visual Cortex performs processing using a cascading, feedback, network of millions of Activated Neurons.
Since all this Neural Activity is Correlated with the Physical Light, I like to call it, the Neural Light.
But we don’t See this Neural Light.
We See a Conscious Light Scene in the Mind that is Correlated with the Neural Light.
The Conscious Light Scene cannot be found in the Physical Mind.
I like to speculate that the whole Conscious Light Scene is in Conscious Space.
H) Reconstruction and Overlay Processing
But let’s talk about what the Physical Mind is actually doing.
The Physical Mind seems to deconstruct the Scene we are looking at with the goal of detecting features of the Scene like lines, edges, motion, and color.
The highest stages seem to be for image recognition.
The lower stages seem to be for control of eye focus, convergence, and target tracking.
There are some edge enhancement and shading effects that are generated in the lower stages that can be Experienced in the Conscious Light Scene.
If there is a damaged area in the lower stages, then an equivalent blacked out area will appear in the Conscious Light Scene.
If there is damage to the Color areas, then the Color Experience will be impaired.
It seems that the Conscious Light Scene that we See, must consist of an Overlay of all the Visual Cortex processing stages.
The deconstructed Cortex information must be Reconstructed into a Coherent Conscious Light Scene.
Unfortunately, there is no known mechanism in the Physical Mind that does this Overlay and Reconstruction Processing.
This missing Processing is sometimes called the Binding Problem.
Since the purpose of the Inter Mind is to Translate the Neural Activity into the Conscious Light Scene, it is Logical to propose that the Inter Mind must perform the Overlay and Reconstruction processing.
I) Three Types of Light
Let’s think about the three types of Light.
First, there are the Electromagnetic Waves, in Physical Space, which I call Physical Light.
Second, there is the Neural Activity, also in Physical Space, which I call Neural Light.
Third, there is the Conscious Experience, in Conscious Space, which I call Conscious Light.
These different Types of Light exist at different stages in the Seeing process.
We have never Seen the Physical Light or the Neural Light.
We have always only Seen the Conscious Light that is in our Conscious Minds.
J) An Important Realization
Since the Conscious Light is in our Conscious Minds we can say the Light is our own internal personal Light.
Even if you are a Physicalist and believe the Conscious Light is in the Neurons, it is still your own internal personal Light.
Since the Conscious Light is internal to us, we can say the Conscious Light is partly what we are.
We can say: We are that Conscious Light.
Or more simply: We are that Light.
For me, this was the most important Realization I have ever had about my own Mind, Being, and Light.
The website will explain what Conscious Light is, and that it is categorically different from the Electromagnetic Light of Science.
K) Now What?
I will now take the next step and ask the obvious question:
What can be done with this new knowledge about Light?
The answer to that question is a work in progress.
Your Op reminds me of the problem of intentionality (or the Will). Science does not have a clue about this. For example, when I think about moving my arm, and then it suddenly moves, we understand that the physiology includes things like neuro activity, but we don't understand the thinking part of our self-consciousness. Other than genetic coding (biological design/emergence), science does not have a proven model nor certainly a ToE. Similarly, you posit the "redness" experience which we all know is part of that mind-body problem associated with one's quality of consciousness (Qualia) which only serves as proof of the metaphysical experience.
Then of course, you ask question(s) about seeing things. One may ask, can we communicate the qualities of the color red to a blind person? It's very difficult, if not impossible, particularly relative to the typical subject-object dynamic and the quality of something existing in someone's mind rather than the external world.
Metaphysically, science only leaves us wondering about the nature of conscious existence... . Philosophically, the "Journey into Mind", must include the subject-object dichotomy. In that sense, there are subjective truth's, as well as objective truth's; physical and metaphysical, inanimate matter, animate matter, seen and unseen, observed and unobserved, so on and so forth... .
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Re: A Journey Into Mind, Seeing, And Light
Thank You.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 20th, 2022, 1:39 pm
SK, Nice!
Your Op reminds me of the problem of intentionality (or the Will). Science does not have a clue about this. For example, when I think about moving my arm, and then it suddenly moves, we understand that the physiology includes things like neuro activity, but we don't understand the thinking part of our self-consciousness. Other than genetic coding (biological design/emergence), science does not have a proven model nor certainly a ToE. Similarly, you posit the "redness" experience which we all know is part of that mind-body problem associated with one's quality of consciousness (Qualia) which only serves as proof of the metaphysical experience.
Then of course, you ask question(s) about seeing things. One may ask, can we communicate the qualities of the color red to a blind person? It's very difficult, if not impossible, particularly relative to the typical subject-object dynamic and the quality of something existing in someone's mind rather than the external world.
Metaphysically, science only leaves us wondering about the nature of conscious existence... . Philosophically, the "Journey into Mind", must include the subject-object dichotomy. In that sense, there are subjective truth's, as well as objective truth's; physical and metaphysical, inanimate matter, animate matter, seen and unseen, observed and unobserved, so on and so forth... .
Yes we must ask all Questions and Think all Thoughts and Possibilities when it comes to Consciousness.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: A Journey Into Mind, Seeing, And Light
Totally agree!! Not to drop a name here, but Kantian synthetic a priori reasoning rears its head again Was there a pun in there somewhere, I wonder(?)SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 8:41 amThank You.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 20th, 2022, 1:39 pm
SK, Nice!
Your Op reminds me of the problem of intentionality (or the Will). Science does not have a clue about this. For example, when I think about moving my arm, and then it suddenly moves, we understand that the physiology includes things like neuro activity, but we don't understand the thinking part of our self-consciousness. Other than genetic coding (biological design/emergence), science does not have a proven model nor certainly a ToE. Similarly, you posit the "redness" experience which we all know is part of that mind-body problem associated with one's quality of consciousness (Qualia) which only serves as proof of the metaphysical experience.
Then of course, you ask question(s) about seeing things. One may ask, can we communicate the qualities of the color red to a blind person? It's very difficult, if not impossible, particularly relative to the typical subject-object dynamic and the quality of something existing in someone's mind rather than the external world.
Metaphysically, science only leaves us wondering about the nature of conscious existence... . Philosophically, the "Journey into Mind", must include the subject-object dichotomy. In that sense, there are subjective truth's, as well as objective truth's; physical and metaphysical, inanimate matter, animate matter, seen and unseen, observed and unobserved, so on and so forth... .
Yes we must ask all Questions and Think all Thoughts and Possibilities when it comes to Consciousness.
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Re: A Journey Into Mind, Seeing, And Light
I'm still wondering about the Pun too. Kant assumes there is some Objective way to See an external Object. I don't think there is any Objective view of any Object. The only thing that can be done is to Detect an Object. That is what our Sensory inputs do for us. Also, consider that he makes a big deal out of the a priori Reasoning versus the a posteriori. Both of these require a Conscious Experience and are thus both equally disconnected from any kind of Reality.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 9:08 amTotally agree!! Not to drop a name here, but Kantian synthetic a priori reasoning rears its head again Was there a pun in there somewhere, I wonder(?)SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 8:41 amThank You.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 20th, 2022, 1:39 pm
SK, Nice!
Your Op reminds me of the problem of intentionality (or the Will). Science does not have a clue about this. For example, when I think about moving my arm, and then it suddenly moves, we understand that the physiology includes things like neuro activity, but we don't understand the thinking part of our self-consciousness. Other than genetic coding (biological design/emergence), science does not have a proven model nor certainly a ToE. Similarly, you posit the "redness" experience which we all know is part of that mind-body problem associated with one's quality of consciousness (Qualia) which only serves as proof of the metaphysical experience.
Then of course, you ask question(s) about seeing things. One may ask, can we communicate the qualities of the color red to a blind person? It's very difficult, if not impossible, particularly relative to the typical subject-object dynamic and the quality of something existing in someone's mind rather than the external world.
Metaphysically, science only leaves us wondering about the nature of conscious existence... . Philosophically, the "Journey into Mind", must include the subject-object dichotomy. In that sense, there are subjective truth's, as well as objective truth's; physical and metaphysical, inanimate matter, animate matter, seen and unseen, observed and unobserved, so on and so forth... .
Yes we must ask all Questions and Think all Thoughts and Possibilities when it comes to Consciousness.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: A Journey Into Mind, Seeing, And Light
SK!SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 9:56 amI'm still wondering about the Pun too. Kant assumes there is some Objective way to See an external Object. I don't think there is any Objective view of any Object. The only thing that can be done is to Detect an Object. That is what our Sensory inputs do for us. Also, consider that he makes a big deal out of the a priori Reasoning versus the a posteriori. Both of these require a Conscious Experience and are thus both equally disconnected from any kind of Reality.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 9:08 amTotally agree!! Not to drop a name here, but Kantian synthetic a priori reasoning rears its head again Was there a pun in there somewhere, I wonder(?)SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 8:41 amThank You.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 20th, 2022, 1:39 pm
SK, Nice!
Your Op reminds me of the problem of intentionality (or the Will). Science does not have a clue about this. For example, when I think about moving my arm, and then it suddenly moves, we understand that the physiology includes things like neuro activity, but we don't understand the thinking part of our self-consciousness. Other than genetic coding (biological design/emergence), science does not have a proven model nor certainly a ToE. Similarly, you posit the "redness" experience which we all know is part of that mind-body problem associated with one's quality of consciousness (Qualia) which only serves as proof of the metaphysical experience.
Then of course, you ask question(s) about seeing things. One may ask, can we communicate the qualities of the color red to a blind person? It's very difficult, if not impossible, particularly relative to the typical subject-object dynamic and the quality of something existing in someone's mind rather than the external world.
Metaphysically, science only leaves us wondering about the nature of conscious existence... . Philosophically, the "Journey into Mind", must include the subject-object dichotomy. In that sense, there are subjective truth's, as well as objective truth's; physical and metaphysical, inanimate matter, animate matter, seen and unseen, observed and unobserved, so on and so forth... .
Yes we must ask all Questions and Think all Thoughts and Possibilities when it comes to Consciousness.
Since I'm in that causation mode here of late, Kant's metaphysics includes the quality of our own intuition as an intrinsic, fixed, a priori thing-in-itself that causes one to not only wonder, but to postulate possibility. It's something we seemingly cannot escape from or help from asking... .For example, when one utters 'all events must have a cause', one should take the time to reflect on why that actually is, and how that comes about.
The one similarity there, towards one's sense of a purely objective reality or truth (to your point), would be our understanding of mathematics. Mathematics is an objective a priori truth that effectively describes (and to a lesser degree) explains the cosmos. But one of the problems at this so-called level of certainty (Objectivity) is that mathematical truth does not change with time. The cosmos does. Hence the paradox between matter and mind, matter and change, a time dependent universe, so on and so forth.
You may be referring to the concept of noumenon where Kant intuited that like causation itself, there must be another realm that breathed fire into those cosmological equation's ala Stephen Hawking. Yes?
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Re: A Journey Into Mind, Seeing, And Light
I would say that all Events in Physical Space must have a Cause. However, all Events in Conscious Space might not need a Cause.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 1:23 pmSK!SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 9:56 amI'm still wondering about the Pun too. Kant assumes there is some Objective way to See an external Object. I don't think there is any Objective view of any Object. The only thing that can be done is to Detect an Object. That is what our Sensory inputs do for us. Also, consider that he makes a big deal out of the a priori Reasoning versus the a posteriori. Both of these require a Conscious Experience and are thus both equally disconnected from any kind of Reality.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 9:08 amTotally agree!! Not to drop a name here, but Kantian synthetic a priori reasoning rears its head again Was there a pun in there somewhere, I wonder(?)SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 8:41 am
Thank You.
Yes we must ask all Questions and Think all Thoughts and Possibilities when it comes to Consciousness.
Since I'm in that causation mode here of late, Kant's metaphysics includes the quality of our own intuition as an intrinsic, fixed, a priori thing-in-itself that causes one to not only wonder, but to postulate possibility. It's something we seemingly cannot escape from or help from asking... .For example, when one utters 'all events must have a cause', one should take the time to reflect on why that actually is, and how that comes about.
The inherent reality of the Cosmos does not change. It is what it is. Science just has better and better ways of understanding it. I think the connection with Mathematics is mostly coincidental. The Mathematics never really completely depicts any Physical Phenomenon. There are always limits and boundaries of validity for any Mathematics with regard to Physical Processes.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 1:23 pm The one similarity there, towards one's sense of a purely objective reality or truth (to your point), would be our understanding of mathematics. Mathematics is an objective a priori truth that effectively describes (and to a lesser degree) explains the cosmos. But one of the problems at this so-called level of certainty (Objectivity) is that mathematical truth does not change with time. The cosmos does. Hence the paradox between matter and mind, matter and change, a time dependent universe, so on and so forth.
Here's how I would say it: I think that a Conscious Mind can have an effect on a Physical Mind (Brain) which can then cause Events to happen in the Physical World.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 1:23 pm You may be referring to the concept of noumenon where Kant intuited that like causation itself, there must be another realm that breathed fire into those cosmological equation's ala Stephen Hawking. Yes?
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: A Journey Into Mind, Seeing, And Light
SK!SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 25th, 2022, 8:35 amI would say that all Events in Physical Space must have a Cause. However, all Events in Conscious Space might not need a Cause.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 1:23 pmSK!SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 9:56 amI'm still wondering about the Pun too. Kant assumes there is some Objective way to See an external Object. I don't think there is any Objective view of any Object. The only thing that can be done is to Detect an Object. That is what our Sensory inputs do for us. Also, consider that he makes a big deal out of the a priori Reasoning versus the a posteriori. Both of these require a Conscious Experience and are thus both equally disconnected from any kind of Reality.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 9:08 am
Totally agree!! Not to drop a name here, but Kantian synthetic a priori reasoning rears its head again Was there a pun in there somewhere, I wonder(?)
Since I'm in that causation mode here of late, Kant's metaphysics includes the quality of our own intuition as an intrinsic, fixed, a priori thing-in-itself that causes one to not only wonder, but to postulate possibility. It's something we seemingly cannot escape from or help from asking... .For example, when one utters 'all events must have a cause', one should take the time to reflect on why that actually is, and how that comes about.
The inherent reality of the Cosmos does not change. It is what it is. Science just has better and better ways of understanding it. I think the connection with Mathematics is mostly coincidental. The Mathematics never really completely depicts any Physical Phenomenon. There are always limits and boundaries of validity for any Mathematics with regard to Physical Processes.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 1:23 pm The one similarity there, towards one's sense of a purely objective reality or truth (to your point), would be our understanding of mathematics. Mathematics is an objective a priori truth that effectively describes (and to a lesser degree) explains the cosmos. But one of the problems at this so-called level of certainty (Objectivity) is that mathematical truth does not change with time. The cosmos does. Hence the paradox between matter and mind, matter and change, a time dependent universe, so on and so forth.
Here's how I would say it: I think that a Conscious Mind can have an effect on a Physical Mind (Brain) which can then cause Events to happen in the Physical World.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 1:23 pm You may be referring to the concept of noumenon where Kant intuited that like causation itself, there must be another realm that breathed fire into those cosmological equation's ala Stephen Hawking. Yes?
Thank you for the reply! Two quick questions.
1. Are you thinking that the cosmos/universe is not time dependent in some ways?
2. Do you have any examples of your idea or thinking about those effects of the conscious mind over the "Physical World"?
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Re: A Journey Into Mind, Seeing, And Light
Yes, and the reason is in this link: https://theintermind.com/#Timelessness3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 25th, 2022, 11:07 amSK!SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 25th, 2022, 8:35 amI would say that all Events in Physical Space must have a Cause. However, all Events in Conscious Space might not need a Cause.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 1:23 pmSK!SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 9:56 am
I'm still wondering about the Pun too. Kant assumes there is some Objective way to See an external Object. I don't think there is any Objective view of any Object. The only thing that can be done is to Detect an Object. That is what our Sensory inputs do for us. Also, consider that he makes a big deal out of the a priori Reasoning versus the a posteriori. Both of these require a Conscious Experience and are thus both equally disconnected from any kind of Reality.
Since I'm in that causation mode here of late, Kant's metaphysics includes the quality of our own intuition as an intrinsic, fixed, a priori thing-in-itself that causes one to not only wonder, but to postulate possibility. It's something we seemingly cannot escape from or help from asking... .For example, when one utters 'all events must have a cause', one should take the time to reflect on why that actually is, and how that comes about.
The inherent reality of the Cosmos does not change. It is what it is. Science just has better and better ways of understanding it. I think the connection with Mathematics is mostly coincidental. The Mathematics never really completely depicts any Physical Phenomenon. There are always limits and boundaries of validity for any Mathematics with regard to Physical Processes.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 1:23 pm The one similarity there, towards one's sense of a purely objective reality or truth (to your point), would be our understanding of mathematics. Mathematics is an objective a priori truth that effectively describes (and to a lesser degree) explains the cosmos. But one of the problems at this so-called level of certainty (Objectivity) is that mathematical truth does not change with time. The cosmos does. Hence the paradox between matter and mind, matter and change, a time dependent universe, so on and so forth.
Here's how I would say it: I think that a Conscious Mind can have an effect on a Physical Mind (Brain) which can then cause Events to happen in the Physical World.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 1:23 pm You may be referring to the concept of noumenon where Kant intuited that like causation itself, there must be another realm that breathed fire into those cosmological equation's ala Stephen Hawking. Yes?
Thank you for the reply! Two quick questions.
1. Are you thinking that the cosmos/universe is not time dependent in some ways?
Best answer is in this link: https://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 25th, 2022, 11:07 am 2. Do you have any examples of your idea or thinking about those effects of the conscious mind over the "Physical World"?
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023