Not Everything Is Physical

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by RCSaunders » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:53 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:01 pm
I am conscious of being conscious.
You can only be conscious of what is seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted by means of the perceptual attributes color and intensity, sounds, texture and temperature, odors, and flavors for example. Unless your consciousness has a color, rings or hoots, is rough or smooth, has a particular temperature, has a distinct smell and flavor you cannot be conscious of your consciousness.
Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:01 pm
Self-awareness is the essence of consciousness.
Conscious perception of existence is the essence of awareness.

It is not possible that you came to the beliefs you hold by your own reason. What you believe is faith in the teaching of some teacher or authority. Do you mind saying who or what that authority is. Perhaps it is the crackpot philosophers you read or some religious guru.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by Skepdick » Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:00 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:53 pm
you cannot be conscious of your consciousness.
That's just silly.

If I were to ask you to determine whether I am conscious can you or can't you determine the answer?
If I were to ask you this question: "Are you conscious that you are conscious?" how would you answer it?

If you recognise consciousness in others you can recognise it in yourself. By inference.
RCSaunders wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:53 pm
Conscious perception of existence is the essence of awareness.
Gobedy gook blah. Distinction without a difference between consciousness and awareness.
RCSaunders wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:53 pm
It is not possible that you came to the beliefs you hold by your own reason. What you believe is faith in the teaching of some teacher or authority. Do you mind saying who or what that authority is. Perhaps it is the crackpot philosophers you read or some religious guru.
The same crackpot religious guru all physicists bow down to. Falsification.

Understanding comes before language ;) But you can never work your way up to my position until you learn to think without language.
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Belinda
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by Belinda » Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:05 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:41 pm
Belinda wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:24 pm
Scientists know that mind-brain can maintain conscious states other than waking awareness.
All sorts of claims are made by people who call themselves scientists. I do not believe anything on the basis of what any so-called authority or expert says in any field. You do. That's OK with me, but I choose to think for myself.
Then you are going to be a long time figuring out how to grow you own food or make aspirin from willow bark.
You can only be conscious of what is seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted by means of the perceptual attributes color and intensity, sounds, texture and temperature, odors, and flavors for example. Unless your consciousness has a color, rings or hoots, is rough or smooth, has a particular temperature, has a distinct smell and flavor you cannot be conscious of your consciousness.
Information source may be either memory or the outer environment.

You are "conscious of your consciousness" when your mind-brain is in a state of waking awareness. Very rarely a sleeper in a state of dreaming consciousness is aware that he is conscious.
Last edited by Belinda on Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by Skepdick » Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:07 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:41 pm
All sorts of claims are made by people who call themselves scientists. I do not believe anything on the basis of what any so-called authority or expert says in any field. You do. That's OK with me, but I choose to think for myself.
RCSaunders wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:53 pm
It is not possible that you came to the beliefs you hold by your own reason.
You could but I couldn't? Heh. So one of us is special and the other is thpethial.

Who is who? ;)
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by RCSaunders » Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:07 pm

bahman wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:09 pm
No. Mind is the only thing which is not an illusion. I already provided an argument for that which you didn't respond to it so I repeat it again: Consider a change in a physical system, A to B. A and B cannot coexist which means that A has to vanishes before B is caused. There is however nothing when A vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause B. Therefore there should exist a mind that experiences A and causes B. This means that mind is the only thing which persists any change. This also means that what mind experiences and causes, namely physical, is an illusion.
You do know that the view you hold has a name. It is called solipsism. Look it up.

If your A and B in your hypothetical physical system are different states (the light is on, the light is off), nothing vanishes, only the behavior changes. A thing may have different states so long as it's intrinsic attributes remain the same. It's still the same entity. I'll give you a better example. When a cow is slaughtered and is turned in roasts and steaks, did the cow "vanish" and the roasts and steaks simply appear? Or were the roasts and steaks a product of a process called butchering?

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by Skepdick » Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:12 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:07 pm
You do know that the view you hold has a name. It is called solipsism. Look it up.
And you do know that solipsism can't be falsified? It's consistent with the body of human knowledge.

If consistency you are after, you ought to consider it. But it's suuuuch a boring philosophical position...

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by bahman » Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:17 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:07 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:09 pm
No. Mind is the only thing which is not an illusion. I already provided an argument for that which you didn't respond to it so I repeat it again: Consider a change in a physical system, A to B. A and B cannot coexist which means that A has to vanishes before B is caused. There is however nothing when A vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause B. Therefore there should exist a mind that experiences A and causes B. This means that mind is the only thing which persists any change. This also means that what mind experiences and causes, namely physical, is an illusion.
You do know that the view you hold has a name. It is called solipsism. Look it up.

If your A and B in your hypothetical physical system are different states (the light is on, the light is off), nothing vanishes, only the behavior changes. A thing may have different states so long as it's intrinsic attributes remain the same. It's still the same entity. I'll give you a better example. When a cow is slaughtered and is turned in roasts and steaks, did the cow "vanish" and the roasts and steaks simply appear? Or were the roasts and steaks a product of a process called butchering?
A has to vanish if you want a change to B as cow vanishes and turns into meat.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by RCSaunders » Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:29 pm

I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:14 am
The point being here is that language/ideas necessarily require perception. You simply cannot have the idea of ‘shapes’ or ‘democracy’ without something to apply it to. Not to mention the kind of ‘ideas’ you are referring to seem to be ‘words’ which are concepts derived from sound and sign - physical.
I've never implied any different. You arguing against an epistemological viewpoint that is not mine. My article "Knowledge" is an introduction to my epistemology which you will see is nothing like you suppose.
I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:14 am
In short your definitions are too ambiguous here. Your definition of ‘physical’ as ‘chemical’ is strange to say the least. Is light ‘chemical’ and/or ‘physical’ in your eyes? I cannot ‘eat yellow’ so it isn’t ‘physical’ yet I can perceive yellow so it isn’t ‘physical’. I think you need to refine/rethink.
Sorry, but everything accept the sub-atomic is chemical. What you are talking about are attributes of the physical, like color, temperature, and flavor. The attributes are physical attribute but they do not exist independently of the entities they are the attributes of. You will not see light unless something is producing it, transmitting it, or reflecting it. You will not see yellow unless there is something yellow. The chemicals are able to transmit and reflect every color there is. If you see a color it is the color of something, and that something will be chemical.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by RCSaunders » Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:30 pm

Sorry I missed this post earlier.
I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:14 am
The point being here is that language/ideas necessarily require perception. You simply cannot have the idea of ‘shapes’ or ‘democracy’ without something to apply it to. Not to mention the kind of ‘ideas’ you are referring to seem to be ‘words’ which are concepts derived from sound and sign - physical.
I've never implied anything different. You are arguing against an epistemological viewpoint that is not mine. My article "Knowledge" is an introduction to my epistemology which you will see is nothing like you imply.
I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:14 am
In short your definitions are too ambiguous here. Your definition of ‘physical’ as ‘chemical’ is strange to say the least. Is light ‘chemical’ and/or ‘physical’ in your eyes? I cannot ‘eat yellow’ so it isn’t ‘physical’ yet I can perceive yellow so it isn’t ‘physical’. I think you need to refine/rethink.
Sorry, but everything accept the sub-atomic is chemical. What you are talking about are attributes of the physical, like color, temperature, and flavor. The attributes are physical attribute but they do not exist independently of the entities they are the attributes of. You will not see light unless something is producing it, transmitting it, or reflecting it. You will not see yellow unless there is something yellow. The chemicals are able to transmit and reflect every color there is. If you see a color it is the color of something, and that something will be chemical.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by I Like Sushu » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:24 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:30 pm
Sorry I missed this post earlier.
I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:14 am
The point being here is that language/ideas necessarily require perception. You simply cannot have the idea of ‘shapes’ or ‘democracy’ without something to apply it to. Not to mention the kind of ‘ideas’ you are referring to seem to be ‘words’ which are concepts derived from sound and sign - physical.
I've never implied anything different. You are arguing against an epistemological viewpoint that is not mine. My article "Knowledge" is an introduction to my epistemology which you will see is nothing like you imply.
I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:14 am
In short your definitions are too ambiguous here. Your definition of ‘physical’ as ‘chemical’ is strange to say the least. Is light ‘chemical’ and/or ‘physical’ in your eyes? I cannot ‘eat yellow’ so it isn’t ‘physical’ yet I can perceive yellow so it isn’t ‘physical’. I think you need to refine/rethink.
Sorry, but everything accept the sub-atomic is chemical. What you are talking about are attributes of the physical, like color, temperature, and flavor. The attributes are physical attribute but they do not exist independently of the entities they are the attributes of. You will not see light unless something is producing it, transmitting it, or reflecting it. You will not see yellow unless there is something yellow. The chemicals are able to transmit and reflect every color there is. If you see a color it is the color of something, and that something will be chemical.
But didn’t you say that ‘ideas’ are non-physical? Yet you’re also saying that flavour and colour don’t exist independently but fail, as far as I can see, to express why ideas do.

That is why I quoted Kant. There is no thought without content (the ‘content’ is physical experience). I’m just trying to figure out where and how you delineate between ‘physical’ and ‘non-physical’ and what use it is to do so. It seems something fairly similar to the kind of thinking that leads others to state that everything is an illusion (not that I am saying you are stating this, but there looks to be some common thought process going on).

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by RCSaunders » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Belinda wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:05 pm
Then you are going to be a long time figuring out how to grow you own food or make aspirin from willow bark.
One of the great advantages of civilized society is the availability of knowledge which no individual could discover all by himself. Most of what we learn we learn from others, but learning is not credulity. Learning is being able to understand what is taught and why it is true using one's own mind. Most people today confuse learning with gullibility. Instead of using their own minds to understand what they are being taught and their own judgement to determine how what they are taught is true, if it is, they evade the necessity of thought and judgement and simply accept what they are taught because it's plausible, popular, or based on some teacher's "authority."
Belinda wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:05 pm
Information source may be either memory or the outer environment.
What information? Do you think consciousness is consciousness of, "information?"
Belinda wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:05 pm
You are "conscious of your consciousness" when your mind-brain is in a state of waking awareness. Very rarely a sleeper in a state of dreaming consciousness is aware that he is conscious.
I am a lucid dreamer. I know when I am dreaming and can manipulate my dreams and sometimes choose what to dream. Apparently there are not many lucid dreamers, but I'm not unique. Even so, I am not conscious of my consciousness, just as I am not conscious of my seeing, or hearing. I know I see and hear, not by being conscious of them but by doing them. I cannot see, hear, feel, smell, or taste my seeing or hearing, I know I can see and hear because I do.

Do you believe there is some kind of consciousness separate from or in addition to perception, that is, seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting?

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by RCSaunders » Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:18 pm

I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:24 pm
But didn’t you say that ‘ideas’ are non-physical? Yet you’re also saying that flavour and colour don’t exist independently but fail, as far as I can see, to express why ideas do.
Flavors, colors, weight, shape, size are all physical attributes that really exist physically, but they only exist as attributes of physical entities and do not exist except as attributes of physical entities. There are no wild flavors, colors, weights, shapes, or sizes out the running around as independent existents.

Ideas and concepts only exist as the products of conscious human minds. Ideas really exist as psychological (epistemological) facts. They do not exist physically and they do not exist independently of human mental consciousness.
I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:24 pm
That is why I quoted Kant.
If you want to be certain I will disregard a point in any discussion, appeal to Kant. I regard Kant to be the worst philosopher in history after Hume. Together they nearly destroyed philosophy.
I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:24 pm
There is no thought without content (the ‘content’ is physical experience).
Thought can be about the physical but the majority of our thoughts are about other ideas, abstract concepts, our desires, beliefs, and plans. Certainly you don't claim that the Calculus, our values, or fictional events and characters are physical or that we never think about them.
I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:24 pm
I’m just trying to figure out where and how you delineate between ‘physical’ and ‘non-physical’ and what use it is to do so. It seems something fairly similar to the kind of thinking that leads others to state that everything is an illusion (not that I am saying you are stating this, but there looks to be some common thought process going on).
Simple. The physical is all that exists independently of our consciousness or knowledge, but is all that we can and do consciously perceive and know and is the objective of the physical sciences. Everything else is the product of the human mind and could not exist without the human mind, including language, logic, mathematics, the sciences, philosophy, history, and literature. If there were no human beings all the physical would exist exactly as it is, but there would be no language, logic, mathematics, science, philosophy, history, literature, or love, and nothing would matter. Of course that is why the difference between the physical and non-physical matters.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by I Like Sushu » Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:06 am

RC -
I regard Kant to be the worst philosopher in history after Hume. Together they nearly destroyed philosophy.
Really? Why? That is quite a bold statement. Why such distain for these two?
If there were no human beings all the physical would exist exactly as it is, but there would be no language, logic, mathematics, science, philosophy, history, literature, or love, and nothing would matter. Of course that is why the difference between the physical and non-physical matters.
This is just an opinion about the whole ‘tree falling in a forest’ - the point is the interpretation of what is meant by ‘sound’. Certainly the air will shift, but without an ear there is no ‘sound’. Without an eye there is no ‘colour’ and without touch there is no ‘form’.

If you’re simply making the distinction between physical and abstract concepts then I can only ask why you didn’t say so to begin with? Certain universal terms are not physical in this sense because of their universality (they are the same item being referred to not something changing in space or time - happiness can not be held in the hand, the term ‘and’ cannot be painted as a physical representation, etc.,. I would not tend yo fully agree with ‘emotions’ in this category completely though as they’re bodily felt unlike items such as ‘numbers’.

Nevertheless what is abstracted is abstracted FROM something. You don’t have to be a fan of Kant to appreciate this point. An intelligent species of blind, eyeless creatures will experience light (as electromagnetic radiation) but they’ll never experience ’colour’.

Belinda
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by Belinda » Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:48 am

RCSaunders wrote:
What information? Do you think consciousness is consciousness of, "information?"
Information is not a sate of consciousness. A state of consciousness may include information. Much information is stuff you remember and don't directly perceive.I am not sure how long it takes for a perception to be processed into short term memory.

Do you believe there is some kind of consciousness separate from or in addition to perception, that is, seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting?
Perception is not a state of consciousness. Perception characterises dreaming consciousness and waking consciousness. During dreams perceptions are heightened compared with waking perceptions. Congratulations on being a lucid dreamer!

In addition to the standard five senses of perception one perceives one's own emotions of pleasure or pain and people who have undergone psychoanalysis can understand how they turn their basic emotional responses into cognate and usually rational feelings.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by RCSaunders » Tue Jul 02, 2019 7:57 pm

Belinda wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:48 am
RCSaunders wrote:
What information? Do you think consciousness is consciousness of, "information?"
Information is not a sate of consciousness. A state of consciousness may include information. Much information is stuff you remember and don't directly perceive.I am not sure how long it takes for a perception to be processed into short term memory.
My question is based on your statement, "Information source may be either memory or the outer environment." By the way, if you mean what one is conscious of comes either from the neurological system's direct source of what we call the external and internal (interoception) sources or from memory, which happens to by part of the neurological system, i.e., the brain, I agree with you. I just would not call it information.
Belinda wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:48 am
Do you believe there is some kind of consciousness separate from or in addition to perception, that is, seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting?
Perception is not a state of consciousness. Perception characterises dreaming consciousness and waking consciousness. During dreams perceptions are heightened compared with waking perceptions.

In addition to the standard five senses of perception one perceives one's own emotions of pleasure or pain and people who have undergone psychoanalysis can understand how they turn their basic emotional responses into cognate and usually rational feelings.
Perception is consciousness. It is the only consciousness there is. It is the direct perceptual awareness of what is seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled. If you didn't see, or hear, or feel (including interoception) or taste or smell you would not be conscious, not even from memory since memory can only store what was originally directly perceived.

[I'm not trying to convince you. It is what I know, but I could be convinced if there was evidence of any other kind of consciousness. I have read just about every argument for such things, but none can actually be demonstrated to my satisfaction.]

I am quite familiar with interoception, the sensory, limbic, vegas, and autonomic nervous systems. I include interoception in the sense of feeling (it is obviously not seeing, hearing, smelling or tasting), since it is the direct perception of the internal states of the body, including physiological states like, nausea, vertigo, hunger, physical pain and pleasure, as well as the emotions or "feelings."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests