I think about the house I lived in sixty years ago and I remember it vividly. I know from the Google map and from friends the house is still there. Its exterior and its garden have changed.The house was in process of change even whilst I and my family lived there. My sons remember things about the house that I have forgotten or never knew. I conclude there was and is no enduring house. So my question to Popeye is What do you mean by "the physical world" ?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 10:32 am The mind is the function of the brain and only half of it is encased within the cranium, the other half is the physical world, for the mind is subject and object together. Perhaps an obvious statement but I would wager that it is not obvious to all.
Philosophy of Mind
Re: Philosophy of Mind
-
- Posts: 2167
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Philosophy of Mind
Hi Belinda,Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 11:37 amI think about the house I lived in sixty years ago and I remember it vividly. I know from the Google map and from friends the house is still there. Its exterior and its garden have changed.The house was in process of change even whilst I and my family lived there. My sons remember things about the house that I have forgotten or never knew. I conclude there was and is no enduring house. So my question to Popeye is What do you mean by "the physical world" ?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 10:32 am The mind is the function of the brain and only half of it is encased within the cranium, the other half is the physical world, for the mind is subject and object together. Perhaps an obvious statement but I would wager that it is not obvious to all.
The physical world is the fuel of the mind or in other words, without it as object, there is no mind, no consciousness.
Re: Philosophy of Mind
Thanks, I see. I think what you are calling "the physical world" is the same as what I call "the other". There can't be a subject of experience without there also being an object of experience.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 11:56 amHi Belinda,Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 11:37 amI think about the house I lived in sixty years ago and I remember it vividly. I know from the Google map and from friends the house is still there. Its exterior and its garden have changed.The house was in process of change even whilst I and my family lived there. My sons remember things about the house that I have forgotten or never knew. I conclude there was and is no enduring house. So my question to Popeye is What do you mean by "the physical world" ?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 10:32 am The mind is the function of the brain and only half of it is encased within the cranium, the other half is the physical world, for the mind is subject and object together. Perhaps an obvious statement but I would wager that it is not obvious to all.
The physical world is the fuel of the mind or in other words, without it as object, there is no mind, no consciousness.
The object of experience is very mysterious as it appears to individuals how it's perceived by individuals. The physicists' double slit experiment is a good illustration of how information is relation between transmitter and receiver and vice versa. I like to think of what you are calling "the physical world" as 'possibility'.
-
- Posts: 2167
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Philosophy of Mind
Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 12:41 pmThanks, I see. I think what you are calling "the physical world" is the same as what I call "the other". There can't be a subject of experience without there also being an object of experience.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 11:56 amHi Belinda,Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 11:37 am
I think about the house I lived in sixty years ago and I remember it vividly. I know from Google map and from friends the house is still there. Its exterior and its garden have changed. The house was in process of change even whilst I and my family lived there. My sons remember things about the house that I have forgotten or never knew. I conclude there was and is no enduring house. So my question to Popeye is What do you mean by "the physical world" ?
The physical world is the fuel of the mind or in other words, without it as object, there is no mind, no consciousness.
The object of experience is very mysterious as it appears to individuals how it's perceived by individuals. The physicists' double slit experiment is a good illustration of how information is related between transmitter and receiver and vice versa. I like to think of what you are calling "the physical world" as 'possibility'.
Yes, I think that would work, the possibilities of apparent reality however are dependent upon biology if we are talking about energy manifested as object/s. There is much energy that does not manifest as objects for us, but perhaps a re-engineered biology might manifest more energy into objects than is presently the case. Free speculation or wild metaphysics these days take the place of unproductive common sense, ever on a frontier.
Sounds like you and I are about the same age, my old homestead is still there too much changed.
Re: Philosophy of Mind
I am absolutely idealist ( immaterialist). That means biology is yet one more appearance of reality. I know a little of biology and respect it a lot. However I must be sceptical and tend to believe that biology too (alongside God) is a human creation.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 1:14 pmBelinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 12:41 pmThanks, I see. I think what you are calling "the physical world" is the same as what I call "the other". There can't be a subject of experience without there also being an object of experience.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 11:56 am
Hi Belinda,
The physical world is the fuel of the mind or in other words, without it as object, there is no mind, no consciousness.
The object of experience is very mysterious as it appears to individuals how it's perceived by individuals. The physicists' double slit experiment is a good illustration of how information is related between transmitter and receiver and vice versa. I like to think of what you are calling "the physical world" as 'possibility'.
Yes, I think that would work, the possibilities of apparent reality however are dependent upon biology if we are talking about energy manifested as object/s. There is much energy that does not manifest as objects for us, but perhaps a re-engineered biology might manifest more energy into objects than is presently the case. Free speculation or wild metaphysics these days take the place of unproductive common sense, ever on a frontier.
Sounds like you and I are about the same age, my old homestead is still there too much changed.
-
- Posts: 2167
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Philosophy of Mind
Does there not need to be biology in order for there to be biological creations? I do get it, as our own bodies are objects in our apparent reality, the puzzle then might be what then is creating this apparent world of objects we obverse?Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 3:14 pmI am absolutely idealist (immaterialist). That means biology is yet one more appearance of reality. I know a little of biology and respect it a lot. However, I must be skeptical and tend to believe that biology too (alongside God) is a human creation.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 1:14 pmBelinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 12:41 pm
Thanks, I see. I think what you are calling "the physical world" is the same as what I call "the other". There can't be a subject of experience without there also being an object of experience.
The object of experience is very mysterious as it appears to individuals how it's perceived by individuals. The physicists' double slit experiment is a good illustration of how information is related between transmitter and receiver and vice versa. I like to think of what you are calling "the physical world" as 'possibility'.
Yes, I think that would work, the possibilities of apparent reality however are dependent upon biology if we are talking about energy manifested as object/s. There is much energy that does not manifest as objects for us, but perhaps a re-engineered biology might manifest more energy into objects than is presently the case. Free speculation or wild metaphysics these days take the place of unproductive common sense, ever on a frontier.
Sounds like you and I are about the same age, my old homestead is still there too much changed.
Re: Philosophy of Mind
I vote that the buck stops at experience. It's experience that creates because experience is future-oriented. Future is a huge plenum of possibilities. Experience creates/actualises future.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 6:40 pmDoes there not need to be biology in order for there to be biological creations? I do get it, as our own bodies are objects in our apparent reality, the puzzle then might be what then is creating this apparent world of objects we obverse?Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 3:14 pmI am absolutely idealist (immaterialist). That means biology is yet one more appearance of reality. I know a little of biology and respect it a lot. However, I must be skeptical and tend to believe that biology too (alongside God) is a human creation.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 1:14 pm
Yes, I think that would work, the possibilities of apparent reality however are dependent upon biology if we are talking about energy manifested as object/s. There is much energy that does not manifest as objects for us, but perhaps a re-engineered biology might manifest more energy into objects than is presently the case. Free speculation or wild metaphysics these days take the place of unproductive common sense, ever on a frontier.
Sounds like you and I are about the same age, my old homestead is still there too much changed.
-
- Posts: 2167
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Philosophy of Mind
What is doing the experiencing and what makes you think experience is future-oriented? Experience creates the future, how so?Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 1:51 amI vote that the buck stops at experience. It's experience that creates because experience is future-oriented. The future is a huge plenum of possibilities. Experience creates/actualizes the future.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 6:40 pmDoes there not need to be biology in order for there to be biological creations? I do get it, as our own bodies are objects in our apparent reality, the puzzle then might be what then is creating this apparent world of objects we obverse?
Re: Philosophy of Mind
What is doing the experiencing is a bundle of experiences that are specific to an individual, i.e. Dasein. When I said " experience is future-oriented " it was as if to say that individuals differ in their levels of experience capability. Robert Burns said it better than I can:popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 3:42 amWhat is doing the experiencing and what makes you think experience is future-oriented? Experience creates the future, how so?Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 1:51 amI vote that the buck stops at experience. It's experience that creates because experience is future-oriented. The future is a huge plenum of possibilities. Experience creates/actualizes the future.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 6:40 pm
Does there not need to be biology in order for there to be biological creations? I do get it, as our own bodies are objects in our apparent reality, the puzzle then might be what then is creating this apparent world of objects we obverse?
To A Mouse.
On Turning Her Up in Her Nest with the Plough,
November, 1785
Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim’rous beastie,
O, what a panic’s in thy breastie!
Thou need na start awa sae hasty,
Wi’ bickering brattle!
I wad be laith to rin an’ chase thee,
Wi’ murdering pattle!
I’m truly sorry Man’s dominion
Has broken Nature’s social union,
An’ justifies that ill opinion
Which makes thee startle
At me, thy poor, earth-born companion
An’ fellow-mortal!
I doubt na, whyles, but thou may thieve;
What then? poor beastie, thou maun live!
A daimen-icker in a thrave
‘S a sma’ requet;
I’ll get a blessin wi’ the lave,
An’ never miss’t!
Thy wee-bit housie, too, in ruin!
Its silly wa’s the win’s are strewin!
An’ naething, now, to big a new ane,
O’ foggage green!
An’ bleak December’s win’s ensuing,
Baith snell an’ keen!
Thou saw the fields laid bare an’ waste,
An’ weary Winter comin fast,
An’ cozie here, beneath the blast,
Thou thought to dwell,
Till crash! the cruel coulter past
Out thro’ thy cell.
That wee bit heap o’ leaves and stibble,
Has cost thee monie a weary nibble!
Now thou’s turned out, for a’ thy trouble,
But house or hald,
To thole the Winter’s sleety dribble,
An’ cranreuch cauld!
But Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best-laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!
Still thou are blest, compared wi’ me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But Och! I backward cast my e’e,
On prospects drear!
An’ forward, tho’ I cannot see,
I guess an’ fear!
The last two stanzas address the difference between the experience level of a mouse and that of a man. In Eden man is as free of angst as is a mouse. Angst and future-consciousness go together, and Eve was breaking into a new sort of experiencing when she broke out of Eden, or was expelled.
-
- Posts: 2167
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Philosophy of Mind
That's one of my ancestors, but I still have difficulty reading the material. I would have to spend some time on understanding the Scottish of the time. It really doesn't make much sense to me that experience is doing the experiencing, that would make the subject the experience that is experiencing the object. That is somewhat like Hume's bundle of experiences as comprising the individual's identity.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 12:33 pmWhat is doing the experiencing is a bundle of experiences that are specific to an individual, i.e. Dasein. When I said " experience is future-oriented " it was as if to say that individuals differ in their levels of experience capability. Robert Burns said it better than I can:popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 3:42 amWhat is doing the experiencing and what makes you think experience is future-oriented? Experience creates the future, how so?
To A Mouse.
On Turning Her Up in Her Nest with the Plough,
November, 1785
Wee, sleeked, cowering, timorous beastie,
O, what panic in thy beastie!
Thou need a start awa sae hasty,
Wi’ bickering brattle!
I wad be laith to ran an’ chase thee,
Wi’ murdering prattle!
I’m truly sorry Man’s dominion
Has broken Nature’s social union,
An’ justifies that ill opinion
Which makes thee startle
At me, thy poor, earth-born companion
An’ fellow-mortal!
I doubt na, whiles, but thou may thieve;
What then? poor beastie, thou maun live!
A Daimen Icker in a thrave
‘S a small requet;
I’ll get a blessing wi’ the lave,
An’ never missed!
Thy wee-bit house, too, in ruin!
Its silly was the win’s are strewin!
An’ naething, now, to big a new ane,
O’ foggage green!
An’ bleak December’s win’s ensuing,
Baith Snell an’ keen!
Thou saw the fields laid bare an’ waste,
An’ weary Winter comin fast,
An’ cozie here, beneath the blast,
Thou thought to dwell,
Till crash! the cruel coulter past
Out thro’ thy cell.
That wee bit heap o’ leaves and stibble,
Has cost thee monie a weary nibble!
Now Thou's turned out, for a’ thy trouble,
But house or hald,
To thole the Winter’s sleety dribble,
An’ cranreuch cauld!
But Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best-laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ leave us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promised joy!
Still, thou are blest, compared we’ me!
The present only touched thee:
But Och! I backward cast my eye,
On prospects drear!
An’ forward, though I cannot see,
I guess an’ fear!
The last two stanzas address the difference between the experience level of a mouse and that of a man. In Eden man is as free of angst as is a mouse. Angst and future-consciousness go together, and Eve was breaking into a new sort of experiencing when she broke out of Eden, or was expelled.
-
- Posts: 2167
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Philosophy of Mind
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 5:25 pmThat's one of my ancestors, but I still have difficulty reading the material. I would have to spend some time on understanding the Scottish of the time. It really doesn't make much sense to me that experience is doing the experiencing, that would make the subject the experience that is experiencing the object. That is somewhat like Hume's bundle of experiences as comprising the individual's identity. That which experiences must proceed the experience a collect of experiences must have a home, a center.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 12:33 pmWhat is doing the experiencing is a bundle of experiences that are specific to an individual, i.e. Dasein. When I said " experience is future-oriented " it was as if to say that individuals differ in their levels of experience capability. Robert Burns said it better than I can:popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 3:42 am
What is doing the experiencing and what makes you think experience is future-oriented? Experience creates the future, how so?
To A Mouse.
On Turning Her Up in Her Nest with the Plough,
November, 1785
Wee, sleeked, cowering, timorous beastie,
O, what panic in thy beastie!
Thou need a start awa sae hasty,
Wi’ bickering brattle!
I wad be laith to ran an’ chase thee,
Wi’ murdering prattle!
I’m truly sorry Man’s dominion
Has broken Nature’s social union,
An’ justifies that ill opinion
Which makes thee startle
At me, thy poor, earth-born companion
An’ fellow-mortal!
I doubt na, whiles, but thou may thieve;
What then? poor beastie, thou maun live!
A Daimen Icker in a thrave
‘S a small requet;
I’ll get a blessing wi’ the lave,
An’ never missed!
Thy wee-bit house, too, in ruin!
Its silly was the win’s are strewin!
An’ naething, now, to big a new ane,
O’ foggage green!
An’ bleak December’s win’s ensuing,
Baith Snell an’ keen!
Thou saw the fields laid bare an’ waste,
An’ weary Winter comin fast,
An’ cozie here, beneath the blast,
Thou thought to dwell,
Till crash! the cruel coulter past
Out thro’ thy cell.
That wee bit heap o’ leaves and stibble,
Has cost thee monie a weary nibble!
Now Thou's turned out, for a’ thy trouble,
But house or hald,
To thole the Winter’s sleety dribble,
An’ cranreuch cauld!
But Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best-laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ leave us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promised joy!
Still, thou are blest, compared we’ me!
The present only touched thee:
But Och! I backward cast my eye,
On prospects drear!
An’ forward, though I cannot see,
I guess an’ fear!
The last two stanzas address the difference between the experience level of a mouse and that of a man. In Eden man is as free of angst as is a mouse. Angst and future-consciousness go together, and Eve was breaking into a new sort of experiencing when she broke out of Eden, or was expelled.
Re: Philosophy of Mind
Did you have consciousness before you were born?
- Attachments
-
- Consciousness-Brain.jpg (40.97 KiB) Viewed 4057 times
-
- Posts: 4413
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Philosophy of Mind
some are organs, some are pianos
the sheet music isn't programmed
-Imp
the sheet music isn't programmed
-Imp
-
- Posts: 2167
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Philosophy of Mind
Joseph Campbell: "The mind is a secondary organ in service to the body."
Re: Philosophy of Mind
Too bad he was wrong, consciousness is a function of the brain. Though that tends to upset folks because humans want magic in their lives.