Each human has a brain too.
My mind emerges from the functioning of my brain.
That is not true. Mind is very essence of you and this cannot be byproduct of neural activity. Let's assume otherwise. Then mind is byproduct of neural activity, in another word it is a mental state. The taste of apple is also a mental state which this should be experience by mind. This is however not possible since mind itself is a mental state. In simple word, a mental state cannot experience another mental state, therefore mind is not byproduct of neural activity.
Cool.
Agree with this approach.
I disagree with this conclusion.
Why not? If two mental states occur in different parts of the brain they can interact with each other.
A mental state is just a specific neural activity. It is not a thing with ability to experience another mental state.
Hypotheses non fingo.
No. I am not claiming that brain cannot multitask. What I am claiming is that a specific neural activity is merely a physical state and cannot give rise to a thing, mind with ability to experience.Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:14 pmHypotheses non fingo.
What you are effectively claiming is that the brain cannot multitask. e.g it's impossible for multiple neural activities to occur concurrently/simultaneously in one brain; alternatively - it's impossible for concurrent brain activities to interact.
I think you'll find plenty of counter examples to both of the above.
For all "I" know, the thing I call "I" could well be 20 different parts of my brain working in sync. A modular "I" - like any other machine.
I find this a much more believable conception than a monolithic "mind".
Why not? Which law of physics does it violate?bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:04 pmNo. I am not claiming that brain cannot multitask. What I am claiming is that a specific neural activity is merely a physical state and cannot give rise to a thing, mind with ability to experience.Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:14 pmHypotheses non fingo.
What you are effectively claiming is that the brain cannot multitask. e.g it's impossible for multiple neural activities to occur concurrently/simultaneously in one brain; alternatively - it's impossible for concurrent brain activities to interact.
I think you'll find plenty of counter examples to both of the above.
For all "I" know, the thing I call "I" could well be 20 different parts of my brain working in sync. A modular "I" - like any other machine.
I find this a much more believable conception than a monolithic "mind".
You missed my point.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:35 pmThat is the power of mind in my opinion. We have ability to create certain things, thoughts for example.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:27 am As long as there are human beings, there is emergence in reality.
We just don't have such a thing in physics.Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:10 pmWhy not? Which law of physics does it violate?bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:04 pmNo. I am not claiming that brain cannot multitask. What I am claiming is that a specific neural activity is merely a physical state and cannot give rise to a thing, mind with ability to experience.Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:14 pm
Hypotheses non fingo.
What you are effectively claiming is that the brain cannot multitask. e.g it's impossible for multiple neural activities to occur concurrently/simultaneously in one brain; alternatively - it's impossible for concurrent brain activities to interact.
I think you'll find plenty of counter examples to both of the above.
For all "I" know, the thing I call "I" could well be 20 different parts of my brain working in sync. A modular "I" - like any other machine.
I find this a much more believable conception than a monolithic "mind".
You seem to be appealing to mysticism?
There is nothing supernatural about the mind.
We just don’t know how it works so it appears emergent.
I think that human can contribute in reality but human is not only being with mind.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:43 amYou missed my point.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:35 pmThat is the power of mind in my opinion. We have ability to create certain things, thoughts for example.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:27 am As long as there are human beings, there is emergence in reality.
What I am pointing out is humans are the co-creator of reality as it is.
Thus no humans = no reality-as-it-is.
There is no reality-in-itself independent of humans.
Human = whole human being not just mind.
Human beings are emergent with reality-as-it-is and reality-as-it-is is an emergent with human beings in a spiral [not circle].
There is no question of which comes first as per Wittgenstein, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Therefore reality-as-it-is <--Emergent--> human-beings.
...........
The other alternative is reality-as-it-is is created by a God [or whatever Absolute] thus everything are created therefore not emergent. I disagree with this. Note my argument;
God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
You don’t have emergence and complex interactions in physics?bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:17 pmWe just don't have such a thing in physics.
Physics is a field of study for formulating things in reality. Things to the best of our knowledge is made of irreducible parts. Therefore the main attempt in physics is to understand the behavior of parts, theory of everything. Quantum electrodynamics in this regards is a huge success, very precise. Please read the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED
If you agree human can contribute in reality, then emergence do manifests thus contra your OP.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:25 pmI think that human can contribute in reality but human is not only being with mind.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:43 amYou missed my point.
What I am pointing out is humans are the co-creator of reality as it is.
Thus no humans = no reality-as-it-is.
There is no reality-in-itself independent of humans.
Human = whole human being not just mind.
Human beings are emergent with reality-as-it-is and reality-as-it-is is an emergent with human beings in a spiral [not circle].
There is no question of which comes first as per Wittgenstein, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Therefore reality-as-it-is <--Emergent--> human-beings.
...........
The other alternative is reality-as-it-is is created by a God [or whatever Absolute] thus everything are created therefore not emergent. I disagree with this. Note my argument;
God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
OK and? How is this in conflict with anything I said?bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 6:04 pmPhysics is a field of study for formulating things in reality. Things to the best of our knowledge is made of irreducible parts. Therefore the main attempt in physics is to understand the behavior of parts, theory of everything. Quantum electrodynamics in this regards is a huge success, very precise. Please read the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED
Moreover, there is a reason why things behave in a specific way. Things are made of parts. Parts behave in specific way. Therefore this is so natural to think that behavior of a thing can be explained in term of behavior of parts. We simply don't have anything but parts which can contribute in behavior of a thing.
Then show me that how emergence is possible unless we are dealing with a magic. Where does magic exactly happen?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:09 amIf you agree human can contribute in reality, then emergence do manifests thus contra your OP.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:25 pmI think that human can contribute in reality but human is not only being with mind.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:43 am
You missed my point.
What I am pointing out is humans are the co-creator of reality as it is.
Thus no humans = no reality-as-it-is.
There is no reality-in-itself independent of humans.
Human = whole human being not just mind.
Human beings are emergent with reality-as-it-is and reality-as-it-is is an emergent with human beings in a spiral [not circle].
There is no question of which comes first as per Wittgenstein, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Therefore reality-as-it-is <--Emergent--> human-beings.
...........
The other alternative is reality-as-it-is is created by a God [or whatever Absolute] thus everything are created therefore not emergent. I disagree with this. Note my argument;
God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
Reality is reality-as-it-is which is an emergence conditioned upon the human conditions [body, mind, consciousness, etc].
I do agree certain entities like those in higher animals do have some sort of brain/mind but the point is the reality-as-it-is to a bat is not the same as reality-as-it-is to humans. In both cases, there is emergence.
Note there is no reality-as-it-is that is the same [universal, absolute and independent] to all living entities. There is no reality_as_it_is-in-itself. There is no reality_as_it_is created by a God [illusory and impossible].
Thus reality-as-it-is is an emergence conditioned upon whatever the entity that reality emerges simultaneously with.