Why Physicalism is Wrong

[seeds]

...The physical world is all that we can be directly conscious of.

Hi RCSaunders (and welcome to the forum).

We are directly conscious of our mental holography (the image of an apple, for example, that just appeared before your mind’s eye at the mere mention of the word “apple”).

Do you also include that as being an aspect of the “physical” world?
_______

[RCSaunders]

Do you also include that as being an aspect of the “physical” world?

No. The perceived image is not an aspect of the physical world. All perceived images are images of something, either of that which is perceived by the visual neurological system, or that which is re-imaged from perceptual "data" stored in memory.

The source of both kinds of images are physical, however. For directly perceived images, which we refer to as seeing, the physical source is the external world. For indirectly perceived images (imagination, dreams, etc.) the physical source is the brain. Memory is a function of the physical brain.

Note that the word, "apple," will not elicit an image of an apple for one who has never seen one because there will be no visual data of an apple stored in memory.

Randy

[Impenitent]

the Noumena of Steve Jobs' computer is unknowable...

-Imp

[seeds]

Do you also include that as being an aspect of the “physical” world?

No. The perceived image is not an aspect of the physical world. All perceived images are images of something, either of that which is perceived by the visual neurological system, or that which is re-imaged from perceptual "data" stored in memory.

The source of both kinds of images are physical, however. For directly perceived images, which we refer to as seeing, the physical source is the external world. For indirectly perceived images (imagination, dreams, etc.) the physical source is the brain. Memory is a function of the physical brain.

Note that the word, "apple," will not elicit an image of an apple for one who has never seen one because there will be no visual data of an apple stored in memory.

I’m afraid I am going to have to nitpick a little here because you clearly stated that...

The physical world is all that we can be directly conscious of.

To which I pointed out that we can also be “directly conscious” of our mental holography (regardless of the original source of the images).

Therefore, in your response to my question, you seem to have sidestepped your original assertion.

Furthermore, in regards to this...

The source of both kinds of images are physical, however. For directly perceived images, which we refer to as seeing, the physical source is the external world. For indirectly perceived images (imagination, dreams, etc.) the physical source is the brain. Memory is a function of the physical brain.

...I would go so far as to suggest that what you refer to as being “...indirectly perceived images (imagination, dreams, etc.)...” are actually the phenomena that we are most directly aware of.

In other words, within the context of the mind, the perception (i.e., the seeing, feeling, hearing, tasting, and smelling) of our thoughts and dreams is completely “direct” because there are absolutely no intermediate structures...

(such as physical eyes, skin, ears, tongue, nose, along with the slightly inhibited speed at which the information pertaining to the outer objective realm is conveyed to our inner subjective realm)

...standing between the perceiver (the mind’s eye) and of that which is being inwardly perceived (again, the aforementioned apple).
_______

[RCSaunders]

I’m afraid I am going to have to nitpick a little here because you clearly stated that...

The physical world is all that we can be directly conscious of.

To which I pointed out that we can also be “directly conscious” of our mental holography (regardless of the original source of the images).

Therefore, in your response to my question, you seem to have sidestepped your original assertion.

I'm sorry if I seemed to have evaded your assertion. I simply do not agree with it. I have no idea what you mean by, "mental holography," if you do not mean a consciousness image. If that is what you mean, saying, "directly conscious” of
a conscious image is redundant. No matter what conscious experience I am having I am aware of it, of course, but it is the conscious experience itself that is that awareness.

If I see a tree my seeing the tree is my perception. I do not know I see a tree by seeing (perceiving) my seeing. I know I see a tree because I am seeing it. If I have a dream I do not perceive my dream, my dream is the perceptual experience. If I imagine an apple, that perceptual apple image is my consciousness experience.

...I would go so far as to suggest that what you refer to as being “...indirectly perceived images (imagination, dreams, etc.)...” are actually the phenomena that we are most directly aware of.

In other words, within the context of the mind, the perception (i.e., the seeing, feeling, hearing, tasting, and smelling) of our thoughts and dreams is completely “direct” because there are absolutely no intermediate structures...

(such as physical eyes, skin, ears, tongue, nose, along with the slightly inhibited speed at which the information pertaining to the outer objective realm is conveyed to our inner subjective realm)

...standing between the perceiver (the mind’s eye) and of that which is being inwardly perceived (again, the aforementioned apple).

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, so please correct me if I have. It strikes me that your description implies you believe any conscious experience you cannot attribute to the external neurological system (seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting) has some non-physical origin or that such conscious experiences are not perceptions of the physical. If this is true, it is a form of mysticism, which I'm not criticizing, only identifying.

I regard perception to be the only consciousness we humans or any other conscious organism have. By perception, I mean everything we can be conscious of by means of the external neurological system (mistakenly called the senses) as well as the entire internal neurological system (limbic and autonomic nervous systems), called interoception by which we are aware of our physical bodie's internal states, and those aspects of perception produced from perceptual data stored in the memory of the physical brain.

Just for clarification, consciousness itself is not physical and is not produced by the physical, such as the brain. The entire neurological system only makes what can be perceived available to consciousness, it cannot produce that consciousness.

All this is only meant to answer your fair nitpicking and questions, not to convince you of anything.

Randy

[Arising_uk]

No. The perceived image is not an aspect of the physical world. All perceived images are images of something, either of that which is perceived by the visual neurological system, or that which is re-imaged . ...

Wouldn't that depend if it's a simulation or an emulation?

[seeds]

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, so please correct me if I have. It strikes me that your description implies you believe any conscious experience you cannot attribute to the external neurological system (seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting) has some non-physical origin or that such conscious experiences are not perceptions of the physical. If this is true, it is a form of mysticism, which I'm not criticizing, only identifying.

I am not certain of what you mean by “external neurological system,” but to me it represents the body’s various physiological structures...

(eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and the ubiquitous network of nerves that correspond with our general awareness of our body and of our sense of touch)

...all of which (to me, anyway) are nothing more than “windows,” so to speak, that give our minds access to the external world (with the body itself being an aspect of the external world).

And to help clarify my position, when you fall asleep and enter into a vivid dream of a cityscape or that of a tropical island paradise as depicted in one of my earlier uploaded illustrations...



...it seems obvious that the seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting of the multifarious features of the dream is all taking place within the inner-dimension of our minds wherein the abovementioned “windows” are no longer being utilized.

In which case, doesn’t it seem logical to assume that our five senses are intrinsic to the mind (and its inner “agent”) and can function in complete independence of the corresponding physiological structures that we normally associate with each separate sense?

The ultimate point is that our experience of what we call “reality” seems to consist of two separate realms – with one being the outer objective context of the universe which, again, includes the body...

...and the other being the inner subjective context of our minds wherein (in the case of dreams) three-dimensional phenomena can appear to be almost as real as their objective counterparts.

Now I completely understand how all of this might be unacceptable to someone who may not be open to assigning such a distinct separation between mind and body. Nevertheless, I honestly do not see anything “mystical” in what appears to be obvious upon deeper reflection.
_______

[Greta]

A conspicuously missing "n"

[seeds]

A conspicuously missing "n"

Oh my, that does change the meaning somewhat.

Old age is not pretty.
_______

[RCSaunders]

Wouldn't that depend if it's a simulation or an emulation?

Since perception is consciousness of physical existence as it is, what is the "it" that you are referring to as either a simulation or emulation?

Randy

[RCSaunders]

I am not certain of what you mean by “external neurological system,” but to me it represents the body’s various physiological structures...

(eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and the ubiquitous network of nerves that correspond with our general awareness of our body and of our sense of touch)

...all of which (to me, anyway) are nothing more than “windows,” so to speak, that give our minds access to the external world (with the body itself being an aspect of the external world).

That is not a bad metaphorical description of what perception (consciousness) is. The entire neurological system (brain and nervous system) makes available to consciousness everything that one is experiencing externally and internally.

...it seems obvious that the seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting of the multifarious features of the dream is all taking place within the inner-dimension of our minds wherein the abovementioned “windows” are no longer being utilized.

In which case, doesn’t it seem logical to assume that our five senses are intrinsic to the mind (and its inner “agent”) and can function in complete independence of the corresponding physiological structures that we normally associate with each separate sense?

The ultimate point is that our experience of what we call “reality” seems to consist of two separate realms – with one being the outer objective context of the universe which, again, includes the body...

...and the other being the inner subjective context of our minds wherein (in the case of dreams) three-dimensional phenomena can appear to be almost as real as their objective counterparts.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what, "inner-dimension of our minds," or the mind's "inner 'agent'' mean. You seem to be equating consciousness and the human mind. The mind is certainly an attribute of human consciousness, but to understand the nature of the mind, the nature of consciousness itself must first be understood.

Now I completely understand how all of this might be unacceptable to someone who may not be open to assigning such a distinct separation between mind and body. Nevertheless, I honestly do not see anything “mystical” in what appears to be obvious upon deeper reflection.

If you mean by, "a distinct separation between mind and body," a kind of dualism, than you are right, that is not possible. The mind is not physical, it is an attribute of consciousness unique to human beings but it has no existence or meaning independent of the physical, living, conscious organism it is the mind of. If you think the mind is something that can create conscious perceptions out of whole cloth, that is mysticism.

I've presented my view as clearly as possible in a short space. It is quite obvious your own will never agree with mine, which just fine. If you are interested in learning more about my view, and perhaps why I cannot agree with yours you might look at the following two articles I wrote some time ago on consciousness and perception:

The Nature of Consciousness

Perception

Thanks for the pleasant conversation,

Randy

[Impenitent]

If you mean by, "a distinct separation between mind and body," a kind of dualism, than you are right, that is not possible. The mind is not physical, it is an attribute of consciousness unique to human beings but it has no existence or meaning independent of the physical, living, conscious organism it is the mind of. If you think the mind is something that can create conscious perceptions out of whole cloth, that is mysticism.

I've presented my view as clearly as possible in a short space. It is quite obvious your own will never agree with mine, which just fine. If you are interested in learning more about my view, and perhaps why I cannot agree with yours you might look at the following two articles I wrote some time ago on consciousness and perception:

The Nature of Consciousness

Perception

Thanks for the pleasant conversation,

Randy

I'll agree with your definition of a non physical mind; however, while you have no direct empirical contact with other minds, do you actually believe your relations' minds (in so much as they have independent existence albeit unknowable to you) have no meaning to themselves?

-Imp

[bahman]

I am not certain of what you mean by “external neurological system,” but to me it represents the body’s various physiological structures...

(eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and the ubiquitous network of nerves that correspond with our general awareness of our body and of our sense of touch)

...all of which (to me, anyway) are nothing more than “windows,” so to speak, that give our minds access to the external world (with the body itself being an aspect of the external world).

That is not a bad metaphorical description of what perception (consciousness) is. The entire neurological system (brain and nervous system) makes available to consciousness everything that one is experiencing externally and internally.

...it seems obvious that the seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting of the multifarious features of the dream is all taking place within the inner-dimension of our minds wherein the abovementioned “windows” are no longer being utilized.

In which case, doesn’t it seem logical to assume that our five senses are intrinsic to the mind (and its inner “agent”) and can function in complete independence of the corresponding physiological structures that we normally associate with each separate sense?

The ultimate point is that our experience of what we call “reality” seems to consist of two separate realms – with one being the outer objective context of the universe which, again, includes the body...

...and the other being the inner subjective context of our minds wherein (in the case of dreams) three-dimensional phenomena can appear to be almost as real as their objective counterparts.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what, "inner-dimension of our minds," or the mind's "inner 'agent'' mean. You seem to be equating consciousness and the human mind. The mind is certainly an attribute of human consciousness, but to understand the nature of the mind, the nature of consciousness itself must first be understood.

Now I completely understand how all of this might be unacceptable to someone who may not be open to assigning such a distinct separation between mind and body. Nevertheless, I honestly do not see anything “mystical” in what appears to be obvious upon deeper reflection.

If you mean by, "a distinct separation between mind and body," a kind of dualism, than you are right, that is not possible. The mind is not physical, it is an attribute of consciousness unique to human beings but it has no existence or meaning independent of the physical, living, conscious organism it is the mind of. If you think the mind is something that can create conscious perceptions out of whole cloth, that is mysticism.

I've presented my view as clearly as possible in a short space. It is quite obvious your own will never agree with mine, which just fine. If you are interested in learning more about my view, and perhaps why I cannot agree with yours you might look at the following two articles I wrote some time ago on consciousness and perception:

The Nature of Consciousness

Perception

Thanks for the pleasant conversation,

Randy

Consciousness is an attribute of mind given the definition of mind, essence of any being with ability to experience, decide and cause.

[Arising_uk]

Since perception is consciousness of physical existence as it is, what is the "it" that you are referring to as either a simulation or emulation?

Randy

I think I was puzzled by the 'reimaging' idea as if what happens in our bodies is a simulation of physical existence then it, to my thought, means it does not necessarily have to be what the 'it' is but if it's an emulation then it is what it is, if that makes sense?

I'm also puzzled how you have perception as consciouness by dint of this body but consciousness not physically explicable?

[RCSaunders]

I'll agree with your definition of a non physical mind; however, while you have no direct empirical contact with other minds, do you actually believe your relations' minds (in so much as they have independent existence albeit unknowable to you) have no meaning to themselves?

-Imp

Not at all. I believe all higher organisms are conscious, though there is, as you say, no empirical evidence for that consciousness, it must be deduced from their behavior. As for the consciousness of other human beings, the ability to communicate verbally and all recorded knowledge (science, history) and human creation (technology, art) are the evidence of human consciousness, especially that unique human consciousness we call the mind. Since others minds exist independently, they exist metaphysically, though not physically.

Randy