Neutral Monism: A Saner Solution to the Mind/Body Problem

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Neutral Monism: A Saner Solution to the Mind/Body Problem

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:10 pm

A simple approach might be taken under the form of the synthesis, where the mind/body synthesis to produce "spirit". It would allow for a modern approach to the nature of "spirit" while simultaneously maintaining a median with the "ancients" whose foundations we have built upon (as moderns).

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: Neutral Monism: A Saner Solution to the Mind/Body Problem

Post by PauloL » Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:48 pm

If you so say.

But you don't solve mind/body problem in first instance and create another in the meantime, "spirit".

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Neutral Monism: A Saner Solution to the Mind/Body Problem

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:38 pm

PauloL wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:48 pm
If you so say.

But you don't solve mind/body problem in first instance and create another in the meantime, "spirit".

Actually, most problems are derive in some form of instability. All dualism's result in an inherent polarity, with this polarity resulting in the nature of the "problem" themselves. This "duality" of points, geometrically speaking, results in the necessity of a "linear" only logic whose form and function results in an inherent branching structure that most philosopher's seek to avoid.

A third point by default create a stable structure, as evident through three points forming a triangle, that minimizes the nature of polarity between axioms.

Think of it this way, an axiom is strictly a "point" of observation, the relation of axioms form further axioms which manifest as the "perspectives" from which we perceive the world.

Another point to observe, and this is an important one, is the nature of "problem" itself. When one observes a "problem" what they are really stating is "I am observing something that is not symmetrical to the axioms I have formed". In this respects, the mind/body "problem" is not a "problem" in itself but rather a reflection of the "axioms" of the men and women who believe it is a problem. These axioms they have may in fact be "the real problem" whose cure may be found in further reflection.


This nature of mind/body/spirit, I would argue is symmetrical in both form and function to the "Geometric Dimensionalism" post I made (which is why I found this subject interesting) where mind is symmetrical to reflection, spirit to relation/relativity, and body to synthesis.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Neutral Monism: A Saner Solution to the Mind/Body Problem

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:51 pm

PauloL wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:42 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:32 pm
You're right, but I think you should keep reading the thread, as it's more advanced now.

Conscious light results from brain activity triggered by Physical light. Conscious light in dreams results from spontaneous activation of those same brain areas involved in vision. Nothing perplexing here.

1) If you think Conscious light is independent of Physical light, how do you explain people born blind can't create Conscious light? [I'm only considering blindness by eye or optic nerve defect, not by brain networking defect]

2) How can you explain that people who become blind after birth lose Conscious light (in dreams and memories) some years later?
Those questions are good questions that will probably be answered when we understand the Conscious experience of Light. I'm interested in the Conscious Light itself. It may go away with injuries or never have existed in people blind from birth but what is it in a fully functioning situation? That question remains. We can explore degenerate situations later.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Neutral Monism: A Saner Solution to the Mind/Body Problem

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:19 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:51 pm
PauloL wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:42 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:32 pm
You're right, but I think you should keep reading the thread, as it's more advanced now.

Conscious light results from brain activity triggered by Physical light. Conscious light in dreams results from spontaneous activation of those same brain areas involved in vision. Nothing perplexing here.

1) If you think Conscious light is independent of Physical light, how do you explain people born blind can't create Conscious light? [I'm only considering blindness by eye or optic nerve defect, not by brain networking defect]

2) How can you explain that people who become blind after birth lose Conscious light (in dreams and memories) some years later?
Those questions are good questions that will probably be answered when we understand the Conscious experience of Light. I'm interested in the Conscious Light itself. It may go away with injuries or never have existed in people blind from birth but what is it in a fully functioning situation? That question remains. We can explore degenerate situations later.

All senses are merely the consciousness observing the environment. The nature of "light" as a visible element does not eliminate the nature of the sense's being "illumined" through the nature of other perceptions for what the sense's taste, touch, hear, etc. are determined through the nature of light (flowers growing, rocks crystalizing, etc.) That and we can observe that their are spectrums of lights which are not optically observable, through the nature of reason and the application of the other senses.

In these respects what we understand of light is strictly the observation of symmetry between structures with these structures not only being observed through the nature of the senses but the reflection of the senses themselves through the intellect. It is in these respect that, while although physical, light is fundamentally the nature of "abstraction" itself as a form of stable reflection.
In a seperate note, all consciousness is rooted in space, for all reality is composed of space. This nature of space can be observe under a dualism of "light" and "dark" with light being equivalent to the more stable element of reality and darkness being conducive to flux.

We understand "being" through light and "non-being" through darkness as a deficiency of "light". It is because consciousness is rooted in this nature of "light" and "darkness" as fundamentally "space" it is reduced to a form of "geometry" where consciousness is the Reflection, Relation, and Synthesis of Space.

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Neutral Monism: A Saner Solution to the Mind/Body Problem

Post by Viveka » Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:06 pm

I think this neutral monism is somewhat silent on what exactly constitutes the 'neutral' part.
To become the most wise about the Mind/Body problem, to me, is the following:
Instead I would rather use the common Three Sense Spheres of 'Subject' 'Object' and "Intermediate'. In this way there is consciousness, the object of consciousness, and the sensory requirements for both Consciousness and the Object of Consciousness to be cognized. For instance, Sight itself is a mixture of Color, Light, and Eyes.


The Three Sense-Spheres of Epistemology are:
Subject - This could be Subjective Sphere: Qualia
Object - This could be the Objective Sphere: Bearer of the Qualia: Light for Eyesight, Medium for Sound, Mental Fabrication for Mind et cetera.
Intermediate - The Sensory Sphere: Nose, Ear, Tongue, Eye, Tactile, Mind

These three are interdependent. Thus to call anything a 'color' requires all three of Color, Light, and Eyes. To see in more or less colors depends as much on the color and light as the eyes perceiving them. In this sense that all three are boot-strapped, they are 'empty.'

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Neutral Monism: A Saner Solution to the Mind/Body Problem

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:47 pm

Viveka wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:06 pm
I think this neutral monism is somewhat silent on what exactly constitutes the 'neutral' part.
To become the most wise about the Mind/Body problem, to me, is the following:
Instead I would rather use the common Three Sense Spheres of 'Subject' 'Object' and "Intermediate'. In this way there is consciousness, the object of consciousness, and the sensory requirements for both Consciousness and the Object of Consciousness to be cognized. For instance, Sight itself is a mixture of Color, Light, and Eyes.


The Three Sense-Spheres of Epistemology are:
Subject - This could be Subjective Sphere: Qualia
Object - This could be the Objective Sphere: Bearer of the Qualia: Light for Eyesight, Medium for Sound, Mental Fabrication for Mind et cetera.
Intermediate - The Sensory Sphere: Nose, Ear, Tongue, Eye, Tactile, Mind

These three are interdependent. Thus to call anything a 'color' requires all three of Color, Light, and Eyes. To see in more or less colors depends as much on the color and light as the eyes perceiving them. In this sense that all three are boot-strapped, they are 'empty.'
I agree with you. I like the direction you are going and if I may expand further upon it:

The nature of the subjective and objective and intermediate also maintain a symmetrical dual of "quantity" to the "quality" you speak of. This nature of quantity maintains itself through each "point" you observed: Subjective/Objective/intermediate (I would argue the intermediate being the "axiom", or rotational point of "being".) with the reflection of these points enabling the solidification of this ideal through a trifold structure that may be observed as 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 (or subjective, objective, intermediate/axiom as both 1 and 3).

What reality fundamentally breaks down to is the observation of all space (therefore being) as having trifold and unified properties.


Quantity, is a symmetrical dual to quality, in the respect that a quantity is unified as a stable structure through the reflection of points (1 point reflecting 1 point reflects 2 points, or 1 reflecting 1 reflects 2) or in simpler terms: "Unity reflecting upon itself".

This nature of unity reflecting upon itself as quantity in turn reflects the nature of "gradation" as an approximate structure. This nature of gradation is fundamentally a relation between parts, for when we speak of quality we speak of "degrees". Take for example "red" is a quality of "white", as a part/fractal. It as an actual "fractal" in turn relates to another actual "fractal" color, such as "green" and in turn both are defined by their potential relation as "brown". "Brown" in turn is a "degree" of "white" and is in turn defined through its relations to other grades of "white".

Quality therefore may be argued as the observation of relational flux, Quantity as reflective stability, with these duals of quantity and quantity in turn synthesis under an intermediary space or "axiom".

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Neutral Monism: A Saner Solution to the Mind/Body Problem

Post by Viveka » Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:50 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:47 pm
Viveka wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:06 pm
I think this neutral monism is somewhat silent on what exactly constitutes the 'neutral' part.
To become the most wise about the Mind/Body problem, to me, is the following:
Instead I would rather use the common Three Sense Spheres of 'Subject' 'Object' and "Intermediate'. In this way there is consciousness, the object of consciousness, and the sensory requirements for both Consciousness and the Object of Consciousness to be cognized. For instance, Sight itself is a mixture of Color, Light, and Eyes.


The Three Sense-Spheres of Epistemology are:
Subject - This could be Subjective Sphere: Qualia
Object - This could be the Objective Sphere: Bearer of the Qualia: Light for Eyesight, Medium for Sound, Mental Fabrication for Mind et cetera.
Intermediate - The Sensory Sphere: Nose, Ear, Tongue, Eye, Tactile, Mind

These three are interdependent. Thus to call anything a 'color' requires all three of Color, Light, and Eyes. To see in more or less colors depends as much on the color and light as the eyes perceiving them. In this sense that all three are boot-strapped, they are 'empty.'
I agree with you. I like the direction you are going and if I may expand further upon it:

The nature of the subjective and objective and intermediate also maintain a symmetrical dual of "quantity" to the "quality" you speak of. This nature of quantity maintains itself through each "point" you observed: Subjective/Objective/intermediate (I would argue the intermediate being the "axiom", or rotational point of "being".) with the reflection of these points enabling the solidification of this ideal through a trifold structure that may be observed as 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 (or subjective, objective, intermediate/axiom as both 1 and 3).

What reality fundamentally breaks down to is the observation of all space (therefore being) as having trifold and unified properties.


Quantity, is a symmetrical dual to quality, in the respect that a quantity is unified as a stable structure through the reflection of points (1 point reflecting 1 point reflects 2 points, or 1 reflecting 1 reflects 2) or in simpler terms: "Unity reflecting upon itself".

This nature of unity reflecting upon itself as quantity in turn reflects the nature of "gradation" as an approximate structure. This nature of gradation is fundamentally a relation between parts, for when we speak of quality we speak of "degrees". Take for example "red" is a quality of "white", as a part/fractal. It as an actual "fractal" in turn relates to another actual "fractal" color, such as "green" and in turn both are defined by their potential relation as "brown". "Brown" in turn is a "degree" of "white" and is in turn defined through its relations to other grades of "white".

Quality therefore may be argued as the observation of relational flux, Quantity as reflective stability, with these duals of quantity and quantity in turn synthesis under an intermediary space or "axiom".
I agree with everything except the bolded. :)

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Neutral Monism: A Saner Solution to the Mind/Body Problem

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:41 pm

Viveka wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:50 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:47 pm
Viveka wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:06 pm
I think this neutral monism is somewhat silent on what exactly constitutes the 'neutral' part.
To become the most wise about the Mind/Body problem, to me, is the following:
Instead I would rather use the common Three Sense Spheres of 'Subject' 'Object' and "Intermediate'. In this way there is consciousness, the object of consciousness, and the sensory requirements for both Consciousness and the Object of Consciousness to be cognized. For instance, Sight itself is a mixture of Color, Light, and Eyes.


The Three Sense-Spheres of Epistemology are:
Subject - This could be Subjective Sphere: Qualia
Object - This could be the Objective Sphere: Bearer of the Qualia: Light for Eyesight, Medium for Sound, Mental Fabrication for Mind et cetera.
Intermediate - The Sensory Sphere: Nose, Ear, Tongue, Eye, Tactile, Mind

These three are interdependent. Thus to call anything a 'color' requires all three of Color, Light, and Eyes. To see in more or less colors depends as much on the color and light as the eyes perceiving them. In this sense that all three are boot-strapped, they are 'empty.'
I agree with you. I like the direction you are going and if I may expand further upon it:

The nature of the subjective and objective and intermediate also maintain a symmetrical dual of "quantity" to the "quality" you speak of. This nature of quantity maintains itself through each "point" you observed: Subjective/Objective/intermediate (I would argue the intermediate being the "axiom", or rotational point of "being".) with the reflection of these points enabling the solidification of this ideal through a trifold structure that may be observed as 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 (or subjective, objective, intermediate/axiom as both 1 and 3).

What reality fundamentally breaks down to is the observation of all space (therefore being) as having trifold and unified properties.


Quantity, is a symmetrical dual to quality, in the respect that a quantity is unified as a stable structure through the reflection of points (1 point reflecting 1 point reflects 2 points, or 1 reflecting 1 reflects 2) or in simpler terms: "Unity reflecting upon itself".

This nature of unity reflecting upon itself as quantity in turn reflects the nature of "gradation" as an approximate structure. This nature of gradation is fundamentally a relation between parts, for when we speak of quality we speak of "degrees". Take for example "red" is a quality of "white", as a part/fractal. It as an actual "fractal" in turn relates to another actual "fractal" color, such as "green" and in turn both are defined by their potential relation as "brown". "Brown" in turn is a "degree" of "white" and is in turn defined through its relations to other grades of "white".

Quality therefore may be argued as the observation of relational flux, Quantity as reflective stability, with these duals of quantity and quantity in turn synthesis under an intermediary space or "axiom".
I agree with everything except the bolded. :)
Haha, okay... well, look at it this way from the nature of "consciousness". The "height" of all consciousness is embodied within an experience of "light". Whether this is from a secular or religious perspective is irrelevant as the nature of full "being" is embodied under a "spatial dimension" of "light". Light is space as Being.

From a separate respect, the "lowness" of all consciousness is embodied within an experience of "darkness". Again, whether this is from a secular or religious perspective is irrelevant as the nature of negative "being" is embodied under a "spatial dimension" of "darkness". Darkness is space as non-being and as Non-being is not a "thing" in itself it is a gradation of being.

Everything we observe currently a synthesis of both.

We can also take it from a seperate perspective of the "points". The "height/lowness" of all consciousness is fundamentally unified under a nature of points. Take for example, in the practice of some Buddhist techniques (I believe it is in the book "The Golden Flower" or "The Golden Lotus") specifically are about the meditation of the heart and mind upon a synthesized "point".

From a practical perspective, studies have shown the people identified face through the observation 2 points and a line (the eyes and space between them) and certain facial recognition software observes these properties. This is an interesting thought considering the nature of the Circle is founded through Pi which is exactly the same thing as 2 points and a line.

From another perspective everything we understand of reality, through symmetry, is observed through the nature of curvature and angles. The "curves" and "angles" which form reality are merely just gradations of a Point/Circle/Sphere. The Point/Circle/Sphere in turn is strictly the unification of space and nothing more.

Pardon the pun, but these are "points to reflect upon". I would go on about the nature of number, but I would probably be reiterating what you already know.

In very simple terms space is both subjective and objective in nature, therefore a space as consciousness opens up the possibility of panpsychism. The reason for this is founded that space and consciousness are unified as micro and macro-cosms of each other with one being simple and the other being very complex.

daramantus
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Neutral Monism: A Saner Solution to the Mind/Body Problem

Post by daramantus » Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:15 am

Philosophy Now wrote:
Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:16 pm
Sam Coleman seeks a balance between two extreme views of consciousness.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Ne ... dy_Problem
there is no mind, body problem. there may be a hard problem of consciousness tho.
people are just exagerating to promote their monistic bs worldview.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 874
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Neutral Monism: A Saner Solution to the Mind/Body Problem

Post by bahman » Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:38 pm

There is no mind but conscious state. Conscious state is physical/body state. So the problem is solved.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests