To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

JackDaydream wrote: July 7th, 2022, 1:08 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 6th, 2022, 5:56 pm
JackDaydream wrote: July 6th, 2022, 4:13 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 6th, 2022, 11:47 am

Jack!

RE: So, what is the most 'real' reality?

If we ask to what extend we find ourselves in a mind-dependent reality, which is in itself logically necessary (that it requires a consciousness) to even apperceive reality, then we must recognize the primacy of the mind itself. Accordingly, that would lead us to some form of philosophical Subjectivity. And to some extent, the concept of Subjective Idealism would correspond. In short, Subjective truth's that result from that sense of self-awareness, is "most real" to most people.

In that context, your question of what is real or imaginary, would be answered Subjectively by saying both. In other words, no distinction can be made. This is not to deny an external objective existence or reality, it's just to invoke primacy of the subject over the object. And those truth's are real to us and no one else (sort of).
Hello, the division between inner and outer, mind and matter, as well as subjective and objective do all hinge on how the nature of what is real in emphasis. I do see the splitting of these qualities as problematic, especially when taken to the extremes of such position. However, even when I try to go beyond such dualistic thinking it still seems debatable to what extent they can be blended entirely without going towards one of the aspects of duality.

As you say it requires 'to perceive a reality'. This seems to go back to the question as to whether a falling tree makes a sound if no one is around to hear it? This throws the issue of the nature of perception as being connected to the mind, and possibly subjective idealism. Part of the problem is that it is not possible to get out of the mind and perceive without a mind. To a large extent, the validation of reality beyond one's own mind is consensus shared perceptions. That is often how inner and outer are put together in thinking about the nature of reality, but it does often seem that many people seem to come down to the philosophy of realism, with the objects of the material world being primary, and I am not sure that this bias is not too strongly towards physicalism, especially in the understanding of consciousness. Nevertheless, I will admit that the idea of a disembodied mind does seem questionable.
Jack!

Excellent point about 'if the tree falls in the forest and nobody heard it' riddle/phenomenon. This corresponds to things like Kantian neumenon, objectivity, ideal forms, realism, among many abstract philosophical concepts that give us a sense of some things having an independent existence. And that is to emphasize that different language's are required to decode the informational database in order to even attempt understanding the Transcendence of the Subjectivity-Objectivity dichotomy (from our epistemology).

The simple example to the former is that a metaphysical language of mathematics is required to explain the physics of sound waves. The paradox of that particular understanding of sound without a human to hear it, results from something metaphysical (mathematics) describing something physical (sound waves). Our abstract understanding of gravity is yet another example... . And that's in spite of the problem with unchanging objective truth's associated with abstract reasoning (mathematics) that describ change (dualism in the universe). In any event, there is no consistent object-to-object, physical-to-physical, metaphysical-to-, metaphysical language to help reconcile parts if this 'reality' paradox.

All that is to say pure objective reasoning that science uses (mathematics), can also correspond to a platonic existence, independent of our reality. But there again another paradox rears its head, because if it takes a human to appercieve, cognize, or otherwise appreciate mathematics, how could it correspond to something outside of us, having an independent existence? Hence, Subjectivity is, 'more' real (using your phrase) to most all people. And that suggests consciousness itself, takes primacy. Henceforth, the idea of an ordered intelligence within, as well as outside, the universe.

I think, among others, Kant and Schopenhauer understood that dynamic in their metaphysical philosophy... . Einstein's block universe contemplates an independent objective view of space-time. Is that real or an illusion, I wonder?
It does seem that it is seeing from different angles and making links. The particular issue, which you introduced me to about 6 months ago was that of Kant's understanding of the way Schopenhauer translates Kant's idea of 'the thing in itself' down to the human will as an aspect of this. This seems important because it makes consciousness imminent as opposed to transcendent. This is compatible with the idea of emergent consciousness. However, it does still leave the question of order in the universe. Maths looks at this, and the laws of physics raise questions about the manifestation of order amidst chaos as a background, like the Gnostic demuirge.

As humans we can only see from the human perspective, and the many disciplines all contribute. But, it does seem like there is some inherent organisation principle and even the notion of the survival of the fittest suggests order within evolution and, perhaps, consciousness itself is one of the underlying purposes within evolution. This may be compatible with the cosmological anthropic principle, in conjunction with Schopenhauer's understanding of Will. Somehow, this could bring the ideas of Western and Eastern metaphysics together, and with reference to the findings of sciences, especially the ideas of quantum physics. In this way, even though there are many angles and ways of seeing 'reality' it may be possible to build bridges between the various viewpoints.
Jack!

Yes. Understood. Eastern Metaphysics tries to embrace more of a Monist view of existence v. a Pluralist or Dualist view. And in turn, that's part of what your OP is about, I think. As in, which means and method is the best approach for understanding either type of truth, or a truth about certain aspects of reality...or how do we reconcile a dualist phenomena nonetheless(?).

Since we can never know all the inner workings or shall I say 'design', of things-in-themselves, the true nature of reality does remain as somewhat of a phenomenon. Accordingly, and to your broader scope of Eastern thought, (not to mention the western concepts associated with The Unity of Opposites), that approach to Being is one possibility that can conceivably start here:

In its most basic form, phenomenology attempts to create conditions for the objective study of topics usually regarded as subjective: consciousness and the content of conscious experiences such as judgements, perceptions, and emotions. Although phenomenology seeks to be scientific, it does not attempt to study consciousness from the perspective of clinical psychology or neurology. Instead, it seeks through systematic reflection to determine the essential properties and structures of experience.[3]

There are several assumptions behind phenomenology that help explain its foundations:

Phenomenologists reject the concept of objective research. They prefer grouping assumptions through a process called phenomenological epoché.
They believe that analyzing daily human behavior can provide one with a greater understanding of nature.
They assert that persons should be explored. This is because persons can be understood through the unique ways they reflect the society they live in.
Phenomenologists prefer to gather "capta", or conscious experience, rather than traditional data.
They consider phenomenology to be oriented toward discovery, and therefore they research using methods that are far less restrictive than in other sciences.[4]



Jack, even though the phenomenological approach focuses in on the individual's subjective-ness, it does rely on empirical data to arrive at certain conclusions regarding that which is 'most' real (almost like cognitive science/psychology). But there again, I believe we would want to try for a synthesis of opposites, in order to help explain what is real, hence (U/O):

Dialecticians claim that unity or identity of opposites can exist in reality or in thought. If the opposites were completely balanced, the result would be stasis, but often it is implied that one of the pairs of opposites is larger, stronger or more powerful than the other, such that over time, one of the opposed conditions prevails over the other. Yet rather than 'stasis' the identity of opposites, there being unity within their duality, is taken to be the instance of their very manifestation, the unity between them being the essential principle of making any particular opposite in question extant as either opposing force.

For example 'upward' cannot exist unless there is a 'downward', they are opposites but they co-substantiate one another, their unity is that either one exists because the opposite is necessary for the existence of the other, one manifests immediately with the other. Hot would not be hot without cold, due to there being no contrast by which to define it as 'hot' relative to any other condition, it would not and could not have identity whatsoever if not for its very opposite that makes the necessary prerequisite existence for the opposing condition to be. This is the oneness, unity, principle to the very existence of any opposite. Either one's identity is the contra-posing principle itself, necessitating the other. The criteria for what is opposite is therefore something a priori.


The principles of the metaphysical philosophy gave rise to the belief that, when cognition lapsed into contradictions, it was a mere accidental aberration, due to some subjective mistake in argument and inference. According to Kant, however, thought has a natural tendency to issue in contradictions or antinomies, whenever it seeks to apprehend the infinite. We have in the latter part of the above paragraph referred to the philosophical importance of the antinomies of reason, and shown how the recognition of their existence helped largely to get rid of the rigid dogmatism of the metaphysic of understanding, and to direct attention to the Dialectical movement of thought.

But here too Kant, as we must add, never got beyond the negative result that the thing-in-itself is unknowable, and never penetrated to the discovery of what the antinomies really and positively mean. That true and positive meaning of the antinomies is this: that every actual thing involves a coexistence of opposed elements. Consequently to know, or, in other words, to comprehend an object is equivalent to being conscious of it as a concrete unity of opposed determinations.


There are many many manifestations towards the tendency to dichotomize things whether its everyday discourse in arguing for either/or, or the epistemic need to have the opposite to understand the antecedent. I think the most real way of intellectualizing reality or otherwise just plain thinking would be to at least incorporate that thought process into one's philosophical approach. If nothing else, be aware of its dynamic.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

Post by JackDaydream »

3017Metaphysician wrote: July 7th, 2022, 2:06 pm
JackDaydream wrote: July 7th, 2022, 1:08 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 6th, 2022, 5:56 pm
JackDaydream wrote: July 6th, 2022, 4:13 pm

Hello, the division between inner and outer, mind and matter, as well as subjective and objective do all hinge on how the nature of what is real in emphasis. I do see the splitting of these qualities as problematic, especially when taken to the extremes of such position. However, even when I try to go beyond such dualistic thinking it still seems debatable to what extent they can be blended entirely without going towards one of the aspects of duality.

As you say it requires 'to perceive a reality'. This seems to go back to the question as to whether a falling tree makes a sound if no one is around to hear it? This throws the issue of the nature of perception as being connected to the mind, and possibly subjective idealism. Part of the problem is that it is not possible to get out of the mind and perceive without a mind. To a large extent, the validation of reality beyond one's own mind is consensus shared perceptions. That is often how inner and outer are put together in thinking about the nature of reality, but it does often seem that many people seem to come down to the philosophy of realism, with the objects of the material world being primary, and I am not sure that this bias is not too strongly towards physicalism, especially in the understanding of consciousness. Nevertheless, I will admit that the idea of a disembodied mind does seem questionable.
Jack!

Excellent point about 'if the tree falls in the forest and nobody heard it' riddle/phenomenon. This corresponds to things like Kantian neumenon, objectivity, ideal forms, realism, among many abstract philosophical concepts that give us a sense of some things having an independent existence. And that is to emphasize that different language's are required to decode the informational database in order to even attempt understanding the Transcendence of the Subjectivity-Objectivity dichotomy (from our epistemology).

The simple example to the former is that a metaphysical language of mathematics is required to explain the physics of sound waves. The paradox of that particular understanding of sound without a human to hear it, results from something metaphysical (mathematics) describing something physical (sound waves). Our abstract understanding of gravity is yet another example... . And that's in spite of the problem with unchanging objective truth's associated with abstract reasoning (mathematics) that describ change (dualism in the universe). In any event, there is no consistent object-to-object, physical-to-physical, metaphysical-to-, metaphysical language to help reconcile parts if this 'reality' paradox.

All that is to say pure objective reasoning that science uses (mathematics), can also correspond to a platonic existence, independent of our reality. But there again another paradox rears its head, because if it takes a human to appercieve, cognize, or otherwise appreciate mathematics, how could it correspond to something outside of us, having an independent existence? Hence, Subjectivity is, 'more' real (using your phrase) to most all people. And that suggests consciousness itself, takes primacy. Henceforth, the idea of an ordered intelligence within, as well as outside, the universe.

I think, among others, Kant and Schopenhauer understood that dynamic in their metaphysical philosophy... . Einstein's block universe contemplates an independent objective view of space-time. Is that real or an illusion, I wonder?
It does seem that it is seeing from different angles and making links. The particular issue, which you introduced me to about 6 months ago was that of Kant's understanding of the way Schopenhauer translates Kant's idea of 'the thing in itself' down to the human will as an aspect of this. This seems important because it makes consciousness imminent as opposed to transcendent. This is compatible with the idea of emergent consciousness. However, it does still leave the question of order in the universe. Maths looks at this, and the laws of physics raise questions about the manifestation of order amidst chaos as a background, like the Gnostic demuirge.

As humans we can only see from the human perspective, and the many disciplines all contribute. But, it does seem like there is some inherent organisation principle and even the notion of the survival of the fittest suggests order within evolution and, perhaps, consciousness itself is one of the underlying purposes within evolution. This may be compatible with the cosmological anthropic principle, in conjunction with Schopenhauer's understanding of Will. Somehow, this could bring the ideas of Western and Eastern metaphysics together, and with reference to the findings of sciences, especially the ideas of quantum physics. In this way, even though there are many angles and ways of seeing 'reality' it may be possible to build bridges between the various viewpoints.
Jack!

Yes. Understood. Eastern Metaphysics tries to embrace more of a Monist view of existence v. a Pluralist or Dualist view. And in turn, that's part of what your OP is about, I think. As in, which means and method is the best approach for understanding either type of truth, or a truth about certain aspects of reality...or how do we reconcile a dualist phenomena nonetheless(?).

Since we can never know all the inner workings or shall I say 'design', of things-in-themselves, the true nature of reality does remain as somewhat of a phenomenon. Accordingly, and to your broader scope of Eastern thought, (not to mention the western concepts associated with The Unity of Opposites), that approach to Being is one possibility that can conceivably start here:

In its most basic form, phenomenology attempts to create conditions for the objective study of topics usually regarded as subjective: consciousness and the content of conscious experiences such as judgements, perceptions, and emotions. Although phenomenology seeks to be scientific, it does not attempt to study consciousness from the perspective of clinical psychology or neurology. Instead, it seeks through systematic reflection to determine the essential properties and structures of experience.[3]

There are several assumptions behind phenomenology that help explain its foundations:

Phenomenologists reject the concept of objective research. They prefer grouping assumptions through a process called phenomenological epoché.
They believe that analyzing daily human behavior can provide one with a greater understanding of nature.
They assert that persons should be explored. This is because persons can be understood through the unique ways they reflect the society they live in.
Phenomenologists prefer to gather "capta", or conscious experience, rather than traditional data.
They consider phenomenology to be oriented toward discovery, and therefore they research using methods that are far less restrictive than in other sciences.[4]



Jack, even though the phenomenological approach focuses in on the individual's subjective-ness, it does rely on empirical data to arrive at certain conclusions regarding that which is 'most' real (almost like cognitive science/psychology). But there again, I believe we would want to try for a synthesis of opposites, in order to help explain what is real, hence (U/O):

Dialecticians claim that unity or identity of opposites can exist in reality or in thought. If the opposites were completely balanced, the result would be stasis, but often it is implied that one of the pairs of opposites is larger, stronger or more powerful than the other, such that over time, one of the opposed conditions prevails over the other. Yet rather than 'stasis' the identity of opposites, there being unity within their duality, is taken to be the instance of their very manifestation, the unity between them being the essential principle of making any particular opposite in question extant as either opposing force.

For example 'upward' cannot exist unless there is a 'downward', they are opposites but they co-substantiate one another, their unity is that either one exists because the opposite is necessary for the existence of the other, one manifests immediately with the other. Hot would not be hot without cold, due to there being no contrast by which to define it as 'hot' relative to any other condition, it would not and could not have identity whatsoever if not for its very opposite that makes the necessary prerequisite existence for the opposing condition to be. This is the oneness, unity, principle to the very existence of any opposite. Either one's identity is the contra-posing principle itself, necessitating the other. The criteria for what is opposite is therefore something a priori.


The principles of the metaphysical philosophy gave rise to the belief that, when cognition lapsed into contradictions, it was a mere accidental aberration, due to some subjective mistake in argument and inference. According to Kant, however, thought has a natural tendency to issue in contradictions or antinomies, whenever it seeks to apprehend the infinite. We have in the latter part of the above paragraph referred to the philosophical importance of the antinomies of reason, and shown how the recognition of their existence helped largely to get rid of the rigid dogmatism of the metaphysic of understanding, and to direct attention to the Dialectical movement of thought.

But here too Kant, as we must add, never got beyond the negative result that the thing-in-itself is unknowable, and never penetrated to the discovery of what the antinomies really and positively mean. That true and positive meaning of the antinomies is this: that every actual thing involves a coexistence of opposed elements. Consequently to know, or, in other words, to comprehend an object is equivalent to being conscious of it as a concrete unity of opposed determinations.


There are many many manifestations towards the tendency to dichotomize things whether its everyday discourse in arguing for either/or, or the epistemic need to have the opposite to understand the antecedent. I think the most real way of intellectualizing reality or otherwise just plain thinking would be to at least incorporate that thought process into one's philosophical approach. If nothing else, be aware of its dynamic.
The nature of opposites, or duality is an aspect of the wider picture of reality. Kant's idea of the unknowable may come into this too. However, the idea of the unknowable can be problematic too, because it suggests a hidden reality beyond the world of appearances. However, it may be that this area is where philosophy and the understanding of reality becomes extremely complex.

What is apparent in opposites, including ideas such as good and evil are relative to some extent and bound by with the human construction of ideas. This is related to the human conceptions of ideas, but, also connected to what lies outside the human mind. In thinking of ideas, especially the nature of opposites, it is hard to know where human constructs lie in terms of possible realities end. It may even be asked what is a mind and a body? Some may see matter as the foremost substance behind experience and what is perceived as reality. This is in contrast to idealism, which sees mind as the underlying source. So, the question may be about where mind and matter begin and end, and coincide. It may be about origins or it may be about metaphysics, outside of space and time.

On the other hand, others may see metaphysics as a construction of the human mind. It is hard to know to what extent this view is based on psychology, and also what the ultimate perspective may be gained, in the physical sciences or philosophy. The question of the basis for understanding the nature of reality may depend on how people see its basic construction, and whether it is physical, or whether the idea of consciousness is able to transcend the duality of mind and body.

As human beings we see splits between mind and body, inner and outer, but, at the same time, the experience of self and consciousness make these splits complicated, which is one of the reasons why the idea of consciousness beyond death appears to be problematic to many. On the other hand, the reduction of consciousness to matter may be problematic because mind, and the nature of consciousness seems to point to a realm which is of such a different nature to the material one, but the nature of mind involves ideas and imagination. These have a basis in the perception of the sensory aspects but, also, appear to go beyond it in making connections with abstract and symbolic ideas, and whatever basis or source from which these arise.
value
Premium Member
Posts: 750
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

Post by value »

JackDaydream wrote: July 6th, 2022, 3:53 pm Your post gives a really good description of eliminative materialism. The way in which you portray is very clear and when evaluating an argument it is worth examining the viewpoint in it's best form, in order to understand strengths and weaknesses fully. In your description of a 'working hypothesis' and 'an artifice of the brain's system of self regulating circuits, do you see consciousness as having any reflective capacity and connection to anything beyond the physical as a category or dimension in any kind of independent way?
stevie wrote: July 7th, 2022, 3:13 am Well, "consciousness" is - as per working hypothesis - at best a useful conceptual illusion to talk about mental/cognitive phenomena considering that there is a long tradition of speaking this way.
JackDaydream wrote: July 7th, 2022, 1:28 pmThe problem with this idea is that it may throw out the understanding of the observer in the process of perception, rather than seeing the perceiver as having an active role in processes of interpreting and developing and understanding 'reality'. The concept of reality itself is a product of thought and in this way related to the existence of consciousness as an idea or 'reality', just like the language of scientific theory is idea based.
What would beyond the physical refer to in your opinion?

I recently came to think about the nature of reality in a topic about the idea that life is a subjective biochemical fire, an idea that seems to be dogmatically ingrained in society with the unquestioned idea of humans travelling through space being an example result of that idea.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18060

Isn't it strange that humans are convinced that they can travel through space as an independent biochemical process?

In the topic it is suggested that the root of life and physical reality is sensing. That idea makes sense in my opinion. Consciousness or 'observing' cannot be the root of sensing, it is the other way around!

What is referred to as 'observer' would be a manifestation - a creation - of sensing. The observer as it is seen by humans - with eye sight as most primary example - isn't a nature to be considered when it concerns the fundamental nature of reality.

Sensing at the root of reality would imply that sensibility would be the intrinsic meaning of what determines physical reality.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

Post by Sy Borg »

It seems to me that you can't have physicality without form and you cannot have form without physicality.

That is, physical things necessarily have a form, informational aspects. Even an amorphous form can be described informationally. In fact, randomised things are more complex because they cannot be reduced to patterns.

Likewise, without physical things, there are no forms, only potentials. Where do the potentials come from? From a physical substrate that researchers have not yet detected. Ground zero is complete randomisation, as per the virtual particles of energy that have bubble through a vacuum. By chance, patterns emerge from chaos, and some patterns persist longer than others.
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

Post by Tegularius »

The most real reality is that which underlies the material world we behold. What we are witness to, including us obviously, is the assembly of that reality.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
value
Premium Member
Posts: 750
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

Post by value »

Sy Borg wrote: July 8th, 2022, 12:47 am It seems to me that you can't have physicality without form and you cannot have form without physicality.

That is, physical things necessarily have a form, informational aspects. Even an amorphous form can be described informationally. In fact, randomised things are more complex because they cannot be reduced to patterns.

Likewise, without physical things, there are no forms, only potentials. Where do the potentials come from? From a physical substrate that researchers have not yet detected. Ground zero is complete randomisation, as per the virtual particles of energy that have bubble through a vacuum. By chance, patterns emerge from chaos, and some patterns persist longer than others.
How could complete randomization be possible in your opinion? Wouldn't complete randomization equal 'devoid of meaning'? The idea of a virtual particle does not seem to correspond with the idea of complete randomization.

"Randomness cannot exist, with as an example result that computer encryption is always able to be broken with sufficient computing power. ... This is evidence that a factor is involved that prevents actual randomness to be possible, which is meaning. This is evidence that meaning is fundamental to reality.

Researchers identified a problem that holds the key to whether all encryption can be broken -- as well as a surprising connection to a mathematical concept that aims to define and measure randomness."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 194721.htm

When it is evident that all of reality involves meaning, can it be maintained that patterns emerge by chance from chaos?
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

Post by JackDaydream »

Tegularius wrote: July 8th, 2022, 2:41 am The most real reality is that which underlies the material world we behold. What we are witness to, including us obviously, is the assembly of that reality.
The question may be about structures underlying the material world..They are dynamic and transient, so they may exist but not in a fixed way. The structures of reality may have a clear connection to the physical but many may be more fluid than solid as aspects of the quantum world.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

Post by JackDaydream »

Sy Borg wrote: July 8th, 2022, 12:47 am It seems to me that you can't have physicality without form and you cannot have form without physicality.

That is, physical things necessarily have a form, informational aspects. Even an amorphous form can be described informationally. In fact, randomised things are more complex because they cannot be reduced to patterns.

Likewise, without physical things, there are no forms, only potentials. Where do the potentials come from? From a physical substrate that researchers have not yet detected. Ground zero is complete randomisation, as per the virtual particles of energy that have bubble through a vacuum. By chance, patterns emerge from chaos, and some patterns persist longer than others.
It can be asked to what extent is information physical? In particular it is linked to the physical but not identical with it.For example, information is sent via Wifi but it is transmitted onto physical devices but it is not necessarily physical in all cases. However, I am not entirely sure about this, because emails or ebooks are physical in the sense they can be viewed. But the ebooks are on a different plane to paper ones, and are not 3D. I remember my first Kindle, a few years ago having surgery to change its battery and it lost its memory, so the information went missing. However, the man in the computer shop managed to resurrect all my books onto a new device, which was fantastic, so it shows that information can be dormant and be retrieved.

I wonder how consciousness corresponds with this? The brain loses everyday consciousness, apart from REM dream sleep, when a person is asleep. However, it surfaces the next morning on waking. Mostly, when I first awake the events of the day before are the first which enter my mind, like an ongoing organisation of information. The brain is needed as a receiver but the information is not strictly physical even though aspects such of the nervous system are involved.

Even though I am not certain of reincarnation, it does seem possible that rudimentary aspects of the core self of traits as information, though not individual memories usually, could fizzle with the death of the brain and physical body, and resurface in future lifeforms. That was one of the ways which I have heard it described in some Buddhist metaphysical descriptions. Certainly, I find that idea more feasible than that of consciousness being transferred onto machines, as artificial intelligence.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

Post by SteveKlinko »

JackDaydream wrote: July 6th, 2022, 4:37 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: July 6th, 2022, 1:43 pm
JackDaydream wrote: July 6th, 2022, 8:59 am This has always been for me one of the biggest philosophy questions. It is at the core of the debate between materialism and idealism. The way in which consiousness is seen is dependent on it, with Dennett's idea of consciousness being an illusion being bound up with a physicalist approach. B F Skinner's model of psychology, which was central to the behaviourist approach to psychology was based on the philosophy of materialism.

Assumptions about whether the material reality is the most 'real' reality are at the basis of the various psychological models. The cognitive school of psychology seems to embrace both, through incorporating the objective findings of neuroscience with the meanings of human beings, in the way in which the beliefs and interpretative meanings of a person are central to psychological awareness and to human behaviour. Social psychology and other social sciences, especially sociology and anthropology also focus upon the meanings and values of individuals and cultures.

Some of the ideas of biological essentialism, including seeing gender as being simply about the physical categorisation of the body into the sexes rest upon physicalist assumptions. To what extent is a person equatable with the body alone? What about the inner world of consciousness as an important aspect of reality. My own metaphysical viewpoint is that mind and matter are both essential and it is not possible to say that one is more real than the other. The philosophy of realism focuses on the outer world as the 'real'. However, it is a difficult area to think about and it does involve what was asked in postmodernism: what is the difference between the real and the imaginary? This also relates to the nature of symbolic structures, as well as reason and ideas itself. So, what is the most 'real' reality?
The Inter Mind sections on Volition, Knowledge, Understanding, Creativity, Humor, and Emotions have shown that these aspects of the Human Mind are firmly based in the Conscious Mind (CM). I believe it can be said that these are some of the main activities of Thinking. But the Physical Mind (PM) has no Volition, Knowledge, Understanding, Creativity, Humor, or Emotions. In other words, the Physical Mind is unable to Think. Thinking involves a CM as the place where these things happen. Also, we have previously realized that all Sensory Experience happens in the CM. Consider Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, the Smell of Bleach, and the Touch of a Rough Surface.

Taking this one step further, it is Logical to Speculate that everything we are, everything we thought we were, and Everything Else, is some kind of Conscious Experience. We might actually only Exist as CMs in Conscious Space, and are merely Connected to our PMs in Physical Space. There might be no Conscious or Thinking aspect in the PM that is part of what we are. The PM would be an Unconscious, Electrochemical, Mechanistic, Tool that the CM uses. In terms of a Ghost in the Machine concept, I think we can say that the CM is not a Ghost in the Machine, but rather a Ghost Connected to the Machine. The Human Body/Brain Machine is the Phantom that does not Consciously Exist and eventually dies and goes away. The CM Ghost is the only Real thing that we Are and have Known.

When the PM goes away, the CM will probably just say: ... Hmmm ... What was that? ... and then go about the business it was doing for eons prior to that Physical Life Connection. Or maybe it will Think and Remember, and Realize it has learned from the Experience.
Thanks for your detailed reply. The most interesting statement which I find in your post is about the conscious mind is not 'a Ghost in the Machine, but rather a Ghost connected to a Machine.'. The idea of the ghost in the machine was too problematic as involving a potential separation between mind and body, almost as a mind within a body as a container. The notion of a Ghost connected to a machine is more intricate as seeing the brain as the basis of wiring between brain and body.

It may well be that consciousness fizzles with the end of the brain's existence as the idea of disembodied consciousness. The nature of consciousness does seem to be imminent rather than separate, although my one query would be the possibility that the brain is a filtering down of consciousness. This was the view of Henri Bergson of and Aldous Huxley, with the idea of there being 'mind at large'. This concept would also relate to Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, which would be about a source for the existence of consciousness itself. But, the nature of this source is a little unclear because it does depend whether the unconscious is completely unconscious, or whether anything remains of a person's consciousness beyond the death of the brain. Is consciousness once it exists simply a product of the physical or does it develop into any independent form of existence which transcends matter?
I start with the assumption that Conscious Minds are a separate Phenomenon from Bodies/Brains and all the whole Physical Universe. Conscious Minds exist in a separate Conscious Space. Our Bodies are Incubators for the Conscious Mind that must eventually become the pure Consciousness that it always was. When the Body/Mind dies, the attached Conscious Mind continues and is born into a completely new form of existence as a pure Conscious Mind. We cannot imagine what this pure Conscious Existence will be like.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

Post by JackDaydream »

SteveKlinko wrote: July 8th, 2022, 10:28 am
JackDaydream wrote: July 6th, 2022, 4:37 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: July 6th, 2022, 1:43 pm
JackDaydream wrote: July 6th, 2022, 8:59 am This has always been for me one of the biggest philosophy questions. It is at the core of the debate between materialism and idealism. The way in which consiousness is seen is dependent on it, with Dennett's idea of consciousness being an illusion being bound up with a physicalist approach. B F Skinner's model of psychology, which was central to the behaviourist approach to psychology was based on the philosophy of materialism.

Assumptions about whether the material reality is the most 'real' reality are at the basis of the various psychological models. The cognitive school of psychology seems to embrace both, through incorporating the objective findings of neuroscience with the meanings of human beings, in the way in which the beliefs and interpretative meanings of a person are central to psychological awareness and to human behaviour. Social psychology and other social sciences, especially sociology and anthropology also focus upon the meanings and values of individuals and cultures.

Some of the ideas of biological essentialism, including seeing gender as being simply about the physical categorisation of the body into the sexes rest upon physicalist assumptions. To what extent is a person equatable with the body alone? What about the inner world of consciousness as an important aspect of reality. My own metaphysical viewpoint is that mind and matter are both essential and it is not possible to say that one is more real than the other. The philosophy of realism focuses on the outer world as the 'real'. However, it is a difficult area to think about and it does involve what was asked in postmodernism: what is the difference between the real and the imaginary? This also relates to the nature of symbolic structures, as well as reason and ideas itself. So, what is the most 'real' reality?
The Inter Mind sections on Volition, Knowledge, Understanding, Creativity, Humor, and Emotions have shown that these aspects of the Human Mind are firmly based in the Conscious Mind (CM). I believe it can be said that these are some of the main activities of Thinking. But the Physical Mind (PM) has no Volition, Knowledge, Understanding, Creativity, Humor, or Emotions. In other words, the Physical Mind is unable to Think. Thinking involves a CM as the place where these things happen. Also, we have previously realized that all Sensory Experience happens in the CM. Consider Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, the Smell of Bleach, and the Touch of a Rough Surface.

Taking this one step further, it is Logical to Speculate that everything we are, everything we thought we were, and Everything Else, is some kind of Conscious Experience. We might actually only Exist as CMs in Conscious Space, and are merely Connected to our PMs in Physical Space. There might be no Conscious or Thinking aspect in the PM that is part of what we are. The PM would be an Unconscious, Electrochemical, Mechanistic, Tool that the CM uses. In terms of a Ghost in the Machine concept, I think we can say that the CM is not a Ghost in the Machine, but rather a Ghost Connected to the Machine. The Human Body/Brain Machine is the Phantom that does not Consciously Exist and eventually dies and goes away. The CM Ghost is the only Real thing that we Are and have Known.

When the PM goes away, the CM will probably just say: ... Hmmm ... What was that? ... and then go about the business it was doing for eons prior to that Physical Life Connection. Or maybe it will Think and Remember, and Realize it has learned from the Experience.
Thanks for your detailed reply. The most interesting statement which I find in your post is about the conscious mind is not 'a Ghost in the Machine, but rather a Ghost connected to a Machine.'. The idea of the ghost in the machine was too problematic as involving a potential separation between mind and body, almost as a mind within a body as a container. The notion of a Ghost connected to a machine is more intricate as seeing the brain as the basis of wiring between brain and body.

It may well be that consciousness fizzles with the end of the brain's existence as the idea of disembodied consciousness. The nature of consciousness does seem to be imminent rather than separate, although my one query would be the possibility that the brain is a filtering down of consciousness. This was the view of Henri Bergson of and Aldous Huxley, with the idea of there being 'mind at large'. This concept would also relate to Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, which would be about a source for the existence of consciousness itself. But, the nature of this source is a little unclear because it does depend whether the unconscious is completely unconscious, or whether anything remains of a person's consciousness beyond the death of the brain. Is consciousness once it exists simply a product of the physical or does it develop into any independent form of existence which transcends matter?
I start with the assumption that Conscious Minds are a separate Phenomenon from Bodies/Brains and all the whole Physical Universe. Conscious Minds exist in a separate Conscious Space. Our Bodies are Incubators for the Conscious Mind that must eventually become the pure Consciousness that it always was. When the Body/Mind dies, the attached Conscious Mind continues and is born into a completely new form of existence as a pure Conscious Mind. We cannot imagine what this pure Conscious Existence will be like.
That makes you a dualist to a large extent. Very few people are dualists and, generally, the idea of the separation of the mind from the body, as described by Descartes is seen as a false dichotomy between mind and body. In the criticism of Descartes' dualist split the main emphasis is upon embodied consciousness as an imminent reality.

However, I do have times when I do wonder about dualism. That has been mainly on the basis of experiences of experimentation with hallucinogenics, and a few borderline sleep experiences. I really did have the sensations of flying around my bedroom and seeing my body lying on the bed. On one occasion, I saw a silver coil attached to the centre of my forehead which seemed to be the connection between mind and body. Strangely, Descartes spoke of this connection, as the pineal gland in the centre of the forehead. My experience of seeing the silver coil was before I read the writings of Descartes.

I do find it hard to know what my experiences represented because such experiences may not be what they appear to be at face value. In particular, those using hallucinogenics are chemically induced. However, I do seriously wonder about dimensions beyond the physical, and I think that I have speculated on these in a couple of my own previous threads, as dimensions or levels beyond 3D reality, with time itself being at this juncture as the 4th dimension.
.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

JackDaydream wrote: July 8th, 2022, 10:46 am
SteveKlinko wrote: July 8th, 2022, 10:28 am
JackDaydream wrote: July 6th, 2022, 4:37 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: July 6th, 2022, 1:43 pm
The Inter Mind sections on Volition, Knowledge, Understanding, Creativity, Humor, and Emotions have shown that these aspects of the Human Mind are firmly based in the Conscious Mind (CM). I believe it can be said that these are some of the main activities of Thinking. But the Physical Mind (PM) has no Volition, Knowledge, Understanding, Creativity, Humor, or Emotions. In other words, the Physical Mind is unable to Think. Thinking involves a CM as the place where these things happen. Also, we have previously realized that all Sensory Experience happens in the CM. Consider Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, the Smell of Bleach, and the Touch of a Rough Surface.

Taking this one step further, it is Logical to Speculate that everything we are, everything we thought we were, and Everything Else, is some kind of Conscious Experience. We might actually only Exist as CMs in Conscious Space, and are merely Connected to our PMs in Physical Space. There might be no Conscious or Thinking aspect in the PM that is part of what we are. The PM would be an Unconscious, Electrochemical, Mechanistic, Tool that the CM uses. In terms of a Ghost in the Machine concept, I think we can say that the CM is not a Ghost in the Machine, but rather a Ghost Connected to the Machine. The Human Body/Brain Machine is the Phantom that does not Consciously Exist and eventually dies and goes away. The CM Ghost is the only Real thing that we Are and have Known.

When the PM goes away, the CM will probably just say: ... Hmmm ... What was that? ... and then go about the business it was doing for eons prior to that Physical Life Connection. Or maybe it will Think and Remember, and Realize it has learned from the Experience.
Thanks for your detailed reply. The most interesting statement which I find in your post is about the conscious mind is not 'a Ghost in the Machine, but rather a Ghost connected to a Machine.'. The idea of the ghost in the machine was too problematic as involving a potential separation between mind and body, almost as a mind within a body as a container. The notion of a Ghost connected to a machine is more intricate as seeing the brain as the basis of wiring between brain and body.

It may well be that consciousness fizzles with the end of the brain's existence as the idea of disembodied consciousness. The nature of consciousness does seem to be imminent rather than separate, although my one query would be the possibility that the brain is a filtering down of consciousness. This was the view of Henri Bergson of and Aldous Huxley, with the idea of there being 'mind at large'. This concept would also relate to Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, which would be about a source for the existence of consciousness itself. But, the nature of this source is a little unclear because it does depend whether the unconscious is completely unconscious, or whether anything remains of a person's consciousness beyond the death of the brain. Is consciousness once it exists simply a product of the physical or does it develop into any independent form of existence which transcends matter?
I start with the assumption that Conscious Minds are a separate Phenomenon from Bodies/Brains and all the whole Physical Universe. Conscious Minds exist in a separate Conscious Space. Our Bodies are Incubators for the Conscious Mind that must eventually become the pure Consciousness that it always was. When the Body/Mind dies, the attached Conscious Mind continues and is born into a completely new form of existence as a pure Conscious Mind. We cannot imagine what this pure Conscious Existence will be like.
That makes you a dualist to a large extent. Very few people are dualists and, generally, the idea of the separation of the mind from the body, as described by Descartes is seen as a false dichotomy between mind and body. In the criticism of Descartes' dualist split the main emphasis is upon embodied consciousness as an imminent reality.

However, I do have times when I do wonder about dualism. That has been mainly on the basis of experiences of experimentation with hallucinogenics, and a few borderline sleep experiences. I really did have the sensations of flying around my bedroom and seeing my body lying on the bed. On one occasion, I saw a silver coil attached to the centre of my forehead which seemed to be the connection between mind and body. Strangely, Descartes spoke of this connection, as the pineal gland in the centre of the forehead. My experience of seeing the silver coil was before I read the writings of Descartes.

I do find it hard to know what my experiences represented because such experiences may not be what they appear to be at face value. In particular, those using hallucinogenics are chemically induced. However, I do seriously wonder about dimensions beyond the physical, and I think that I have speculated on these in a couple of my own previous threads, as dimensions or levels beyond 3D reality, with time itself being at this juncture as the 4th dimension.
.
Jack, Jack, Jack! I love you buddy but resist the temptation of equivocation. Just like the 'qualifications' from the subject-object dynamic, Dualism on its face recognizes the relationships between mind and matter. From the hard problem of consciousness (the difficulty in physically describing things like the feeling of color, Love, the Will, time, music, and other ineffable, abstract or otherwise qualitative phenomena) to left-brain/right-brain cognition, feeling v logic, will v intellect, physical/metaphysical, and/or any axiom associated with the unity of opposites, dualist epistemology is existential. There is no escaping it. We can only integrate it.

As you may be aware, contradictions or opposite determinations follow necessarily from most cognition during the apperception of knowing. Or simply said, during everyday thinking. To this end, you may first want to ask yourself the questions: What do we know?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", "What makes justified beliefs justified?", and most importantly and germane to dualism: "How do we know that we know?"

To say "very few people are dualists" needs qualified, pun intended :D
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

Post by Sy Borg »

JackDaydream wrote: July 8th, 2022, 10:13 am
Sy Borg wrote: July 8th, 2022, 12:47 am It seems to me that you can't have physicality without form and you cannot have form without physicality.

That is, physical things necessarily have a form, informational aspects. Even an amorphous form can be described informationally. In fact, randomised things are more complex because they cannot be reduced to patterns.

Likewise, without physical things, there are no forms, only potentials. Where do the potentials come from? From a physical substrate that researchers have not yet detected. Ground zero is complete randomisation, as per the virtual particles of energy that have bubble through a vacuum. By chance, patterns emerge from chaos, and some patterns persist longer than others.
It can be asked to what extent is information physical? In particular it is linked to the physical but not identical with it.For example, information is sent via Wifi but it is transmitted onto physical devices but it is not necessarily physical in all cases. However, I am not entirely sure about this, because emails or ebooks are physical in the sense they can be viewed. But the ebooks are on a different plane to paper ones, and are not 3D. I remember my first Kindle, a few years ago having surgery to change its battery and it lost its memory, so the information went missing. However, the man in the computer shop managed to resurrect all my books onto a new device, which was fantastic, so it shows that information can be dormant and be retrieved.
Wi-fi is entirely physical - electromagnetic energy (photons at lower frequencies than visible light).

All of the things you mentioned are physical. Is fairy floss more or less physical than a cannonball? There is less "stuff" in fairy floss, but it is also more complex, being relatively chaotic. Is active RAM more or less physical than unused chips? The active RAM is more informationally dense. Are you more or less physical than a star? I would say a star is far more firmly entrenched in reality than we are, but it's not more physical as such. There's just more of it and it will last much longer.

Relevant concepts here would be mass, density, information density, degree of organisation and levels of homogeneity or heterogeneity.

JackDaydream wrote: July 8th, 2022, 10:13 amI wonder how consciousness corresponds with this? The brain loses everyday consciousness, apart from REM dream sleep, when a person is asleep. However, it surfaces the next morning on waking. Mostly, when I first awake the events of the day before are the first which enter my mind, like an ongoing organisation of information. The brain is needed as a receiver but the information is not strictly physical even though aspects such of the nervous system are involved.
I see the situation as somewhat akin to a stream. When the rain (input) stops the stream dries and enters a state of relative dormancy. When rain returns, the water follows the path carved into the Earth, like consciousness following conditioned neuronal pathways, which are effectively "the self".

JackDaydream wrote: July 8th, 2022, 10:13 am Even though I am not certain of reincarnation, it does seem possible that rudimentary aspects of the core self of traits as information, though not individual memories usually, could fizzle with the death of the brain and physical body, and resurface in future lifeforms. That was one of the ways which I have heard it described in some Buddhist metaphysical descriptions. Certainly, I find that idea more feasible than that of consciousness being transferred onto machines, as artificial intelligence.
I think it would require additional dimensions, which are not off the table due to string theory. However, the results of recent LHC experiments thus far have not supported string theory's concept of superposition.

As for machine sentience, one question is whether normal hardware can support consciousness or whether wetware is needed? The complexities of fluid dynamics can be superficially recreated but the details of the chaotic paths of molecules in churning fluid cannot be exactly predicted. Today's computation can convincingly mimic fluid dynamics but cannot achieve the real thing in detail.

Electricity moves like water in some respects, so maybe it can replace water as a messenger and agent?

Also, there is an element of faith in some circles that more and better processing will at some point create the emergent property of sentience. But what if its doesn't? What if it just, for instance, makes ever more imposing - but non-sentient - chess grandmasters, doctors, or whatever? Maybe there are particular algorithms, or types of connections that are essential to "turn on the lights"?

Note: I have more questions than answers here.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

Post by SteveKlinko »

JackDaydream wrote: July 8th, 2022, 10:46 am
SteveKlinko wrote: July 8th, 2022, 10:28 am
JackDaydream wrote: July 6th, 2022, 4:37 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: July 6th, 2022, 1:43 pm
The Inter Mind sections on Volition, Knowledge, Understanding, Creativity, Humor, and Emotions have shown that these aspects of the Human Mind are firmly based in the Conscious Mind (CM). I believe it can be said that these are some of the main activities of Thinking. But the Physical Mind (PM) has no Volition, Knowledge, Understanding, Creativity, Humor, or Emotions. In other words, the Physical Mind is unable to Think. Thinking involves a CM as the place where these things happen. Also, we have previously realized that all Sensory Experience happens in the CM. Consider Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, the Smell of Bleach, and the Touch of a Rough Surface.

Taking this one step further, it is Logical to Speculate that everything we are, everything we thought we were, and Everything Else, is some kind of Conscious Experience. We might actually only Exist as CMs in Conscious Space, and are merely Connected to our PMs in Physical Space. There might be no Conscious or Thinking aspect in the PM that is part of what we are. The PM would be an Unconscious, Electrochemical, Mechanistic, Tool that the CM uses. In terms of a Ghost in the Machine concept, I think we can say that the CM is not a Ghost in the Machine, but rather a Ghost Connected to the Machine. The Human Body/Brain Machine is the Phantom that does not Consciously Exist and eventually dies and goes away. The CM Ghost is the only Real thing that we Are and have Known.

When the PM goes away, the CM will probably just say: ... Hmmm ... What was that? ... and then go about the business it was doing for eons prior to that Physical Life Connection. Or maybe it will Think and Remember, and Realize it has learned from the Experience.
Thanks for your detailed reply. The most interesting statement which I find in your post is about the conscious mind is not 'a Ghost in the Machine, but rather a Ghost connected to a Machine.'. The idea of the ghost in the machine was too problematic as involving a potential separation between mind and body, almost as a mind within a body as a container. The notion of a Ghost connected to a machine is more intricate as seeing the brain as the basis of wiring between brain and body.

It may well be that consciousness fizzles with the end of the brain's existence as the idea of disembodied consciousness. The nature of consciousness does seem to be imminent rather than separate, although my one query would be the possibility that the brain is a filtering down of consciousness. This was the view of Henri Bergson of and Aldous Huxley, with the idea of there being 'mind at large'. This concept would also relate to Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, which would be about a source for the existence of consciousness itself. But, the nature of this source is a little unclear because it does depend whether the unconscious is completely unconscious, or whether anything remains of a person's consciousness beyond the death of the brain. Is consciousness once it exists simply a product of the physical or does it develop into any independent form of existence which transcends matter?
I start with the assumption that Conscious Minds are a separate Phenomenon from Bodies/Brains and all the whole Physical Universe. Conscious Minds exist in a separate Conscious Space. Our Bodies are Incubators for the Conscious Mind that must eventually become the pure Consciousness that it always was. When the Body/Mind dies, the attached Conscious Mind continues and is born into a completely new form of existence as a pure Conscious Mind. We cannot imagine what this pure Conscious Existence will be like.
That makes you a dualist to a large extent. Very few people are dualists and, generally, the idea of the separation of the mind from the body, as described by Descartes is seen as a false dichotomy between mind and body. In the criticism of Descartes' dualist split the main emphasis is upon embodied consciousness as an imminent reality.

However, I do have times when I do wonder about dualism. That has been mainly on the basis of experiences of experimentation with hallucinogenics, and a few borderline sleep experiences. I really did have the sensations of flying around my bedroom and seeing my body lying on the bed. On one occasion, I saw a silver coil attached to the centre of my forehead which seemed to be the connection between mind and body. Strangely, Descartes spoke of this connection, as the pineal gland in the centre of the forehead. My experience of seeing the silver coil was before I read the writings of Descartes.

I do find it hard to know what my experiences represented because such experiences may not be what they appear to be at face value. In particular, those using hallucinogenics are chemically induced. However, I do seriously wonder about dimensions beyond the physical, and I think that I have speculated on these in a couple of my own previous threads, as dimensions or levels beyond 3D reality, with time itself being at this juncture as the 4th dimension.
.
If you want to specify Decartes Dualism specifically then maybe you can find some holes. I can't remember all the ramifications of his Philosophies. But by what Logic do people think that simple conceptual Dualism is a False Dichotomy? Dualism seems so compellingly True to me when I consider the absolute disparate nature of what I know about the Physical World and my Conscious Experiences. How on Earth do people think that the Experience of Redness is Logically in the Neurons? Seems more Logical and Sensible that it is not in the Neurons. It is much easier to try to understand the Connection of a Conscious Mind to a Physical Mind (Connectism) than to understand how a Conscious Mind is in the Physical Mind (Physicalism). With Connectism you don't even need to understand the Conscious Mind before you understand how the Connection might work. But with Physicalism you must completely understand the Conscious Mind before you can understand how it is generated by the Neurons.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

SteveKlinko wrote: July 9th, 2022, 9:50 am Dualism seems so compellingly True to me when I consider the absolute disparate nature of what I know about the Physical World and my Conscious Experiences.
So, you have identified 2 'experiences' (call them what you wish; it doesn't matter), that you are able to distinguish between. And, seemingly for no better reason than that you can tell them apart, you decide there is a Duality (with capitalisation, no less)? How about an indivisible and undivided universe within which both a "Physical World" and "Conscious Experience" exist? Why does the very existence of these two things mean that the universe is somehow divided, in a dualistic fashion? I see no obvious reason to infer a division in an essentially indivisible thing...?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

Post by SteveKlinko »

Pattern-chaser wrote: July 9th, 2022, 10:25 am
SteveKlinko wrote: July 9th, 2022, 9:50 am Dualism seems so compellingly True to me when I consider the absolute disparate nature of what I know about the Physical World and my Conscious Experiences.
So, you have identified 2 'experiences' (call them what you wish; it doesn't matter), that you are able to distinguish between. And, seemingly for no better reason than that you can tell them apart, you decide there is a Duality (with capitalisation, no less)? How about an indivisible and undivided universe within which both a "Physical World" and "Conscious Experience" exist? Why does the very existence of these two things mean that the universe is somehow divided, in a dualistic fashion? I see no obvious reason to infer a division in an essentially indivisible thing...?
Sorry that you cannot see it. I can only Nudge people in the right direction. The actual understanding of the Division is obviously not directly communicated with words or you would have understood the Division from what I have been saying on these different forums. The only thing I can suggest is for you to contemplate the Physical World and then contemplate the World of Conscious Experiences. Through comparative contemplations like these you might realize something important about your own Being. But as usual I suspect this is going to be an Impasse.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

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

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

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

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

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

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

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

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

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

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

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

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

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

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

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

Free Will, Do You Have It?

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

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

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

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

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

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

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

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

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

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

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

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

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

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

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

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

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

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

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

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

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

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

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

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

The Preppers Medical Handbook

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

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

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

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021