Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:58 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 5:20 am
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 8:53 pm We have been through this several times. There is no strong emergence. What you observe in more complex beings, such as thinking, is soft emergence. So you could not have consciousness as a result of neural activity.
The problem with your view is you take 'consciousness' in the loosest sense with no specific meaning, i.e.
"Consciousness is inert therefore there is a mind."
which is fallacious with equivocation, i.e.
What is inert cannot lead to a mind which is active.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inert

The "consciousness" that I have described is empirically real which can be justified and verified.
There are no other type of real consciousness other than the empirical consciousness I have demonstrated above.
By inert, I mean that it cannot cause things on its own. How possibly could you cause if you are not conscious? So consciousness is important on its own. But, consciousness does not have the capacity to cause since by definition is the ability to experience. You need to have the ability to cause too.
If consciousness cannot cause anything on its own means then it must have caused things with SOMETHING else which must precede it.
So what [X] cause 'consciousness that is inert' and what is the cause that caused consciousness to exists as inert.

If you are a theist, then your answer would be GOD.
If you are not a theist, then what is that X?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:53 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:43 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:24 pm
So, presumably you do not believe, at least entirely, in the chronology of darwinian evolution OR you believe some things are conscious that are not (yet) considered conscious by scientific consensus. Or?
I don't think that the strong emergence is correct so you cannot have consciousness from something which is unconscious. You don't believe in magic. Do you? I have an argument against the strong emergence.
That's going general, I'm trying to get a sense of specifics. Darwinian evolution and, well, most cosmology, generally sees organic life (pardon the redundancy) as coming after inorganic forms of matter.
There is only one sort of matter. The scientific community is misled.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:53 pm So, the options I could see were 1) you think some things not considered conscious by consensus science are in fact conscious (and were, for example, conscious before animal life evolved) OR 2) you think there has been some form of conscious life going all the way back to the beginning of the universe or at least to the Big Bang. I may very well be missing some other options, so let me know. I suppose their could be something different about time.
Minds have been existing since the beginning of time. It is irreducible, so it cannot be created or destroyed. Moreover, there are all sorts of beings, whatever that you can imagine since the whole is endless.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:53 pm To put it simply: generally in the science community both life and consciousness are latecomers in the universe. That there was a lot of causation preceding organic life, with lots of cause and effects. So, your model must have significant differences from what most scientists believe now.
Again scientific community is misled. You cannot have any sort of motion without minds.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Dimebag wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 9:32 pm Inert

Lacking the ability or strength to move.

I think it all hinges on what you mean by consciousness.

The contents of consciousness sure move. And certain stimuli lead to a reaction in our body which is movement.

Consciousness does not work alone.

It works in conjunction with the body.

Consciousness is also a control mechanism for the body, as well as a display of states of the world around us.

Consciousness tracks the bodily position and state, and if those states or conditions are in need of adjustment, it can and will send signals to do so.

But you also believe there is something called the mind, separate from consciousness, something which embodies consciousness and is responsible for all causation from a human.

Yet, without consciousness, this mind can do nothing. It needs to know the states of the body and the world to make any meaningful change.

Therefore, it must not be separate from consciousness, or at least cannot be to be effective. It could also be not separate. The separation might be a perceptual filter you are applying, separating something whole which is no fact inseparable.
I think that there should be a better word than inert for describing what I have in my mind. I mean consciousness is the ability to experience so it cannot cause things on its own. Consciousness is one of the abilities of mind. Of course mind cannot do anything if it is not conscious.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:31 am
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:58 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 5:20 am
The problem with your view is you take 'consciousness' in the loosest sense with no specific meaning, i.e.
"Consciousness is inert therefore there is a mind."
which is fallacious with equivocation, i.e.
What is inert cannot lead to a mind which is active.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inert

The "consciousness" that I have described is empirically real which can be justified and verified.
There are no other type of real consciousness other than the empirical consciousness I have demonstrated above.
By inert, I mean that it cannot cause things on its own. How possibly could you cause if you are not conscious? So consciousness is important on its own. But, consciousness does not have the capacity to cause since by definition is the ability to experience. You need to have the ability to cause too.
If consciousness cannot cause anything on its own means then it must have caused things with SOMETHING else which must precede it.
Again, consciousness is the ability of mind, the ability to experience so there is nothing that precedes it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:31 am So what [X] cause 'consciousness that is inert' and what is the cause that caused consciousness to exists as inert.

If you are a theist, then your answer would be GOD.
If you are not a theist, then what is that X?
Again, nothing can cause consciousness since consciousness is the ability of mind. You are still in a materialist mindset.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 3:01 pm There is only one sort of matter. The scientific community is misled.
So, are you a pantheist?
Minds have been existing since the beginning of time. It is irreducible, so it cannot be created or destroyed. Moreover, there are all sorts of beings, whatever that you can imagine since the whole is endless.
Do you know this via deduction, empirical research or communication? Or to put that more openended: How do you know?
Again scientific community is misled. You cannot have any sort of motion without minds.
If they were misled, where should they be led to or look? What research proposal would you make and to what kind of scientist?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:06 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 3:01 pm There is only one sort of matter. The scientific community is misled.
So, are you a pantheist?
No, I am a dualist. I believe in Minds and Qualia where Qualia is a reducible substance and is the subject of experience and causation. I already defined Mind. What is matter? A collection of minds interacting with each other through Qualia. Therefore, there is just one sort of matter.

Moreover, considering the materialist position, matter is defined as a substance that moves according to the laws of nature. Matter is insentient in this framework. You cannot possibly have matter as a sentient thing in this framework. I already mentioned that I have an argument against strong emergence. Interested to hear my argument?
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:06 pm
Minds have been existing since the beginning of time. It is irreducible, so it cannot be created or destroyed. Moreover, there are all sorts of beings, whatever that you can imagine since the whole is endless.
Do you know this via deduction, empirical research or communication? Or to put that more openended: How do you know?
I have an argument for mind being an irreducible substance. I also have an argument for the whole being endless. Interested to hear my arguments?

I also have had spiritual experiences since 15 years ago. I experienced all sorts of things, such as Evil Beings (for example Satan and His followers), Good Beings (for example Jesus), Dragon, Vampire, etc. I see them, talk to them, they reply to me, etc. all the time.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:06 pm
Again scientific community is misled. You cannot have any sort of motion without minds.
If they were misled, where should they be led to or look? What research proposal would you make and to what kind of scientist?
Physicists believe on shut up and do calculation so what they are mainly interested in is a formalism that describes the behavior of matter. They are not interested in underlying reality. That is the duty of philosophy to understand and argue in favor of the true model of reality.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Dimebag »

bahman wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 3:04 pm
Dimebag wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 9:32 pm Inert

Lacking the ability or strength to move.

I think it all hinges on what you mean by consciousness.

The contents of consciousness sure move. And certain stimuli lead to a reaction in our body which is movement.

Consciousness does not work alone.

It works in conjunction with the body.

Consciousness is also a control mechanism for the body, as well as a display of states of the world around us.

Consciousness tracks the bodily position and state, and if those states or conditions are in need of adjustment, it can and will send signals to do so.

But you also believe there is something called the mind, separate from consciousness, something which embodies consciousness and is responsible for all causation from a human.

Yet, without consciousness, this mind can do nothing. It needs to know the states of the body and the world to make any meaningful change.

Therefore, it must not be separate from consciousness, or at least cannot be to be effective. It could also be not separate. The separation might be a perceptual filter you are applying, separating something whole which is no fact inseparable.
I think that there should be a better word than inert for describing what I have in my mind. I mean consciousness is the ability to experience so it cannot cause things on its own. Consciousness is one of the abilities of mind. Of course mind cannot do anything if it is not conscious.
I view consciousness more as a link in the chain of causation.

Ever heard of the OODA loop? It’s from the jet fighter school.

It means Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.

Imagine this process were continually being carried out in us, consciousness is the observe. We also have attention, which could be viewed as orient, decide is the process of elimination of all other possibilities for action. Actions present themselves to us automatically based on what appears in our consciousness. As I mentioned consciousness works in conjunction with the body. What we see in the world, for instance a cup, is more a tool than an object. A tool is an object with a built in purpose, it contains within its form, it’s function, it’s use or purpose.

I believe that is what consciousness provides for us, covertly. People call the result of it an intention. The will to act. We have in our consciousness, many possible intentions, and only one of which can ever be performed at once. The most appropriate intention is one which, through either habit if we have encountered a similar situation or identical, or through imagining a possible future, presents itself as the most appropriate for the situation.

When we are children, there is no filter on when to act. We act as soon as the impulse to act appears. We have no ability to stop action.

Slowly, our mind learns the ability to wait before it executes the action. Sometimes this waiting can also allow more possibilities to present themselves. Over time, this becomes a natural process, and we call this thinking. What it really is is a passive receptive collecting of different possible intentions for action, and through imagination, allowing the most appropriate action to emerge.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 3:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:31 am
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:58 pm
By inert, I mean that it cannot cause things on its own. How possibly could you cause if you are not conscious? So consciousness is important on its own. But, consciousness does not have the capacity to cause since by definition is the ability to experience. You need to have the ability to cause too.
If consciousness cannot cause anything on its own means then it must have caused things with SOMETHING else which must precede it.
Again, consciousness is the ability of mind, the ability to experience so there is nothing that precedes it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:31 am So what [X] cause 'consciousness that is inert' and what is the cause that caused consciousness to exists as inert.

If you are a theist, then your answer would be GOD.
If you are not a theist, then what is that X?
Again, nothing can cause consciousness since consciousness is the ability of mind. You are still in a materialist mindset.
Your points are confusing and circular;
1. Consciousness is inert therefore there is a mind.
2. Consciousness is the ability of mind.
In 1 mind is dependent on inert-consciousness, in 2 consciousness is dependent on mind's ability.

I am not a materialist in the sense of Materialism, i.e. consciousness arise from matter which is the fundamental substance of reality.

Rather I am an empirical realist, i.e. consciousness emerge from empirical elements; I don't agree that matter is the fundamental substance of reality.

If as you said, "consciousness is the ability of mind" then consciousness is like abilities of mind such as 'intelligence' 'wisdom' critical thinking, and the likes.
These abilities [so, consciousness] of the mind arise /emerge from evolution as human nature and are grounded to the corresponding neural correlates.

The above is so simple, objective, verifiable and justifiable.
Your views re consciousness are a mess of speculations of metaphysics, ontology, etc. and going no where for the well being of the individuals and humanity.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Dimebag wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:46 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 3:04 pm
Dimebag wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 9:32 pm Inert

Lacking the ability or strength to move.

I think it all hinges on what you mean by consciousness.

The contents of consciousness sure move. And certain stimuli lead to a reaction in our body which is movement.

Consciousness does not work alone.

It works in conjunction with the body.

Consciousness is also a control mechanism for the body, as well as a display of states of the world around us.

Consciousness tracks the bodily position and state, and if those states or conditions are in need of adjustment, it can and will send signals to do so.

But you also believe there is something called the mind, separate from consciousness, something which embodies consciousness and is responsible for all causation from a human.

Yet, without consciousness, this mind can do nothing. It needs to know the states of the body and the world to make any meaningful change.

Therefore, it must not be separate from consciousness, or at least cannot be to be effective. It could also be not separate. The separation might be a perceptual filter you are applying, separating something whole which is no fact inseparable.
I think that there should be a better word than inert for describing what I have in my mind. I mean consciousness is the ability to experience so it cannot cause things on its own. Consciousness is one of the abilities of mind. Of course mind cannot do anything if it is not conscious.
I view consciousness more as a link in the chain of causation.

Ever heard of the OODA loop? It’s from the jet fighter school.

It means Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.

Imagine this process were continually being carried out in us, consciousness is the observe. We also have attention, which could be viewed as orient, decide is the process of elimination of all other possibilities for action. Actions present themselves to us automatically based on what appears in our consciousness. As I mentioned consciousness works in conjunction with the body. What we see in the world, for instance a cup, is more a tool than an object. A tool is an object with a built in purpose, it contains within its form, it’s function, it’s use or purpose.

I believe that is what consciousness provides for us, covertly. People call the result of it an intention. The will to act. We have in our consciousness, many possible intentions, and only one of which can ever be performed at once. The most appropriate intention is one which, through either habit if we have encountered a similar situation or identical, or through imagining a possible future, presents itself as the most appropriate for the situation.

When we are children, there is no filter on when to act. We act as soon as the impulse to act appears. We have no ability to stop action.

Slowly, our mind learns the ability to wait before it executes the action. Sometimes this waiting can also allow more possibilities to present themselves. Over time, this becomes a natural process, and we call this thinking. What it really is is a passive receptive collecting of different possible intentions for action, and through imagination, allowing the most appropriate action to emerge.
I am aware of that link, I call it EPDC, experience, process, decide, and cause. I have a question for you though: Assuming that experience is possible in a materialist framework, how does experience turn into a process? The same question can be asked for the process to a decision. Etc.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 3:32 am
bahman wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 3:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:31 am
If consciousness cannot cause anything on its own means then it must have caused things with SOMETHING else which must precede it.
Again, consciousness is the ability of mind, the ability to experience so there is nothing that precedes it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:31 am So what [X] cause 'consciousness that is inert' and what is the cause that caused consciousness to exists as inert.

If you are a theist, then your answer would be GOD.
If you are not a theist, then what is that X?
Again, nothing can cause consciousness since consciousness is the ability of mind. You are still in a materialist mindset.
Your points are confusing and circular;
1. Consciousness is inert therefore there is a mind.
2. Consciousness is the ability of mind.
In 1 mind is dependent on inert-consciousness, in 2 consciousness is dependent on mind's ability.

I am not a materialist in the sense of Materialism, i.e. consciousness arise from matter which is the fundamental substance of reality.

Rather I am an empirical realist, i.e. consciousness emerge from empirical elements; I don't agree that matter is the fundamental substance of reality.

If as you said, "consciousness is the ability of mind" then consciousness is like abilities of mind such as 'intelligence' 'wisdom' critical thinking, and the likes.
These abilities [so, consciousness] of the mind arise /emerge from evolution as human nature and are grounded to the corresponding neural correlates.

The above is so simple, objective, verifiable and justifiable.
Your views re consciousness are a mess of speculations of metaphysics, ontology, etc. and going no where for the well being of the individuals and humanity.
No, I am not confusing things. In (1) I am arguing against materialism. In (2) I am arguing in favor of dualism.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 9:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 3:32 am
bahman wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 3:09 pm
Again, consciousness is the ability of mind, the ability to experience so there is nothing that precedes it.


Again, nothing can cause consciousness since consciousness is the ability of mind. You are still in a materialist mindset.
Your points are confusing and circular;
1. Consciousness is inert therefore there is a mind.
2. Consciousness is the ability of mind.
In 1 mind is dependent on inert-consciousness, in 2 consciousness is dependent on mind's ability.

I am not a materialist in the sense of Materialism, i.e. consciousness arise from matter which is the fundamental substance of reality.

Rather I am an empirical realist, i.e. consciousness emerge from empirical elements; I don't agree that matter is the fundamental substance of reality.

If as you said, "consciousness is the ability of mind" then consciousness is like abilities of mind such as 'intelligence' 'wisdom' critical thinking, and the likes.
These abilities [so, consciousness] of the mind arise /emerge from evolution as human nature and are grounded to the corresponding neural correlates.

The above is so simple, objective, verifiable and justifiable.
Your views re consciousness are a mess of speculations of metaphysics, ontology, etc. and going no where for the well being of the individuals and humanity.
No, I am not confusing things. In (1) I am arguing against materialism. In (2) I am arguing in favor of dualism.
What sort of dualism, Mind-Body, property or cosmological?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism
Dualism is basically problematic at the ultimate level.

If you say 'consciousness is inert' it would like 'nitrogen' is inert.

In all such cases re the mind, consciousness, nitrogen and the likes, they can only be emergences out of cosmological and evolutionary forces. This is the justification by empirical evidences top-down mode.

If your view is not the above, then yours is the bottom-up God's eyes view.
Since is it impossible for a God to exists as real, your mind, consciousness, etc. that follow from God are illusory.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 9:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 3:32 am
Your points are confusing and circular;
1. Consciousness is inert therefore there is a mind.
2. Consciousness is the ability of mind.
In 1 mind is dependent on inert-consciousness, in 2 consciousness is dependent on mind's ability.

I am not a materialist in the sense of Materialism, i.e. consciousness arise from matter which is the fundamental substance of reality.

Rather I am an empirical realist, i.e. consciousness emerge from empirical elements; I don't agree that matter is the fundamental substance of reality.

If as you said, "consciousness is the ability of mind" then consciousness is like abilities of mind such as 'intelligence' 'wisdom' critical thinking, and the likes.
These abilities [so, consciousness] of the mind arise /emerge from evolution as human nature and are grounded to the corresponding neural correlates.

The above is so simple, objective, verifiable and justifiable.
Your views re consciousness are a mess of speculations of metaphysics, ontology, etc. and going no where for the well being of the individuals and humanity.
No, I am not confusing things. In (1) I am arguing against materialism. In (2) I am arguing in favor of dualism.
What sort of dualism, Mind-Body, property or cosmological?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism
I believe in a new version of dualism in which there are two substances, namely, Mind and Qualia. Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience ( experience Qualia), process the information within experience, decide, and finally cause (cause Qualia). Qualia is a reducible substance that is the subject of experience and causation. Matter is a set of minds that they interact with each other through Qualia.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am Dualism is basically problematic at the ultimate level.
My version of dualism is problem free.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am If you say 'consciousness is inert' it would like 'nitrogen' is inert.
By inert, I mean that it cannot move/cause other things. I am sure that there is a better word for this.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am In all such cases re the mind, consciousness, nitrogen and the likes, they can only be emergences out of cosmological and evolutionary forces. This is the justification by empirical evidences top-down mode.

If your view is not the above, then yours is the bottom-up God's eyes view.
Since is it impossible for a God to exists as real, your mind, consciousness, etc. that follow from God are illusory.
I believe in a top-down view in which mind sits on top and Qualia sit below, in another word Qualia is caused/created by mind.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:50 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 9:11 am
No, I am not confusing things. In (1) I am arguing against materialism. In (2) I am arguing in favor of dualism.
What sort of dualism, Mind-Body, property or cosmological?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism
I believe in a new version of dualism in which there are two substances, namely, Mind and Qualia. Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience ( experience Qualia), process the information within experience, decide, and finally cause (cause Qualia). Qualia is a reducible substance that is the subject of experience and causation. Matter is a set of minds that they interact with each other through Qualia.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am Dualism is basically problematic at the ultimate level.
My version of dualism is problem free.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am If you say 'consciousness is inert' it would like 'nitrogen' is inert.
By inert, I mean that it cannot move/cause other things. I am sure that there is a better word for this.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am In all such cases re the mind, consciousness, nitrogen and the likes, they can only be emergences out of cosmological and evolutionary forces. This is the justification by empirical evidences top-down mode.

If your view is not the above, then yours is the bottom-up God's eyes view.
Since is it impossible for a God to exists as real, your mind, consciousness, etc. that follow from God are illusory.
I believe in a top-down view in which mind sits on top and Qualia sit below, in another word Qualia is caused/created by mind.
I noted your views are as follows??

1. Qualia experienced by Mind via consciousness
2. Consciousness in inert
3. Consciousness in the ability of the mind
4. Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience ( experience Qualia)

Your approach in justifying reality is definitely not top-down but rather it is a bottom-up God's eyes' view.
You assumes and starts [as if there is an independent God] from the bottom that the 'mind' existed as an irreducible substance without any justification it is real, i.e. empirically real.
Then you link this unjustified mind [bottom] up to the empirically justifiable Qualia, thus bottom-up.

If you are using a top-down approach;
you should start with the empirically justifiable Qualia and work [reduce] your way downward.
This is like the scientific approach starting from observations and reducing inward [downward] to as far as the empirical justification can go.
In this case, what is the ground from Qualia?
The ground for Qualia is obviously reducible the justifiable mind; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
The ground for the Mind is reducible mental capacities re the brain and body, the whole human self.
Without the human brain and body there is no human mind.

There is no irreducible mind.

As such, your idea of an irreducible mind is a bottom-up, God's eyes' view approach which is similar to what theists [pantheists, deists, panentheists] are arguing for.

I recommend you Aquinas's FIVE Ways which is systematic and quite reasonable which methodology you can adopt; but ultimately failed to prove God exists as real.

Aquinas asserted that the ultimate Essence and Existence are the same thing; it is also an irreducible thing.
Thus whatever is expressed from the Essence, i.e. Qualia [existence] are in degrees of the ultimate 'existence', thus no dualism.
In your case you can substitute your 'irreducible mind' for Essence [also existence] which Aquinas label as God. If you don't call it God you can retain that as the 'irreducible mind'.

re Consciousness, there is the irreducible-Consciousness that facilitate consciousness in living beings in different degrees within a hierarchy of consciousness, streaming from God, to angels, humans, animals, plants, single cells living things, physical matter[?].
It is this "streaming" that Aquinas avoided the dualism problem.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:06 am
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:50 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
What sort of dualism, Mind-Body, property or cosmological?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism
I believe in a new version of dualism in which there are two substances, namely, Mind and Qualia. Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience ( experience Qualia), process the information within experience, decide, and finally cause (cause Qualia). Qualia is a reducible substance that is the subject of experience and causation. Matter is a set of minds that they interact with each other through Qualia.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am Dualism is basically problematic at the ultimate level.
My version of dualism is problem free.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am If you say 'consciousness is inert' it would like 'nitrogen' is inert.
By inert, I mean that it cannot move/cause other things. I am sure that there is a better word for this rather than inert.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am In all such cases re the mind, consciousness, nitrogen and the likes, they can only be emergences out of cosmological and evolutionary forces. This is the justification by empirical evidences top-down mode.

If your view is not the above, then yours is the bottom-up God's eyes view.
Since is it impossible for a God to exists as real, your mind, consciousness, etc. that follow from God are illusory.
I believe in a top-down view in which mind sits on top and Qualia sit below, in another word Qualia is caused/created by mind.
I noted your views are as follows??
1. Qualia experienced by Mind via consciousness
No. Consciousness is not a thing. Consciousness in my view is simply the ability of the mind.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
2. Consciousness in inert
Again, consciousness does not ability to move/cause things by itself. That is what I mean by inert whether in materialism (monism) or dualism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
3. Consciousness in the ability of the mind
Yes.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
4. Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience ( experience Qualia)
Yes, but mind has other abilities too.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
Your approach in justifying reality is definitely not top-down but rather it is a bottom-up God's eyes' view.
You assumes and starts [as if there is an independent God] from the bottom that the 'mind' existed as an irreducible substance without any justification it is real, i.e. empirically real.
I have an argument for the existence of mind. Interested to hear my argument?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
Then you link this unjustified mind [bottom] up to the empirically justifiable Qualia, thus bottom-up.
Whatever you want to call it, bottom-up or top-bottom, there cannot be any persistent Qualia without mind.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
If you are using a top-down approach;
you should start with the empirically justifiable Qualia and work [reduce] your way downward.
This is like the scientific approach starting from observations and reducing inward [downward] to as far as the empirical justification can go.
I am not interested in that approach. I have an argument against that which of course is in favor of another approach, the existence of mind as a primary thing.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
In this case, what is the ground from Qualia?
The ground for Qualia is obviously reducible the justifiable mind; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
The ground for the Mind is reducible mental capacities re the brain and body, the whole human self.
Without the human brain and body there is no human mind.
What is matter?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
There is no irreducible mind.
There is.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
As such, your idea of an irreducible mind is a bottom-up, God's eyes' view approach which is similar to what theists [pantheists, deists, panentheists] are arguing for.
My view is different from others.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
I recommend you Aquinas's FIVE Ways which is systematic and quite reasonable which methodology you can adopt; but ultimately failed to prove God exists as real.
I am aware of them. In fact all those arguments can be considered for the existence of mind rather than God who is the creator of everything from nothing by the definition.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
Aquinas asserted that the ultimate Essence and Existence are the same thing; it is also an irreducible thing.
I don't agree with him on this point.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
Thus whatever is expressed from the Essence, i.e. Qualia [existence] are in degrees of the ultimate 'existence', thus no dualism.
He got it wrong. You got it wrong.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
In your case you can substitute your 'irreducible mind' for Essence [also existence] which Aquinas label as God. If you don't call it God you can retain that as the 'irreducible mind'.
God is by definition the creator of everything from nothing. I already defined mind for you. These are different things.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:16 am
re Consciousness, there is the irreducible-Consciousness that facilitate consciousness in living beings in different degrees within a hierarchy of consciousness, streaming from God, to angels, humans, animals, plants, single cells living things, physical matter[?].
It is this "streaming" that Aquinas avoided the dualism problem.
My version of dualism does not have any problem.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by popeye1945 »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 1:31 am Consciousness is inert which means that it cannot cause things by itself. We, however, are able to experience and cause therefore we should have minds with the ability to experience and cause.
All creatures are reactive creatures to the physical world as cause, whose reactions are then cause to the physical world. If this were not so, evolutionary development to a changing world would not be possible. Consciousness is biological reaction to the energy forms of the physical world.
Post Reply