Not Everything Is Physical

[Belinda]

Perception is one faculty of the brain-mind. Other faculties are memory, emotion,and orientation. 'Perception' has several meanings according to whether the brain-mind state is dreaming, in a reverie, awake and alert to what's happening in the immediate environment, in a state of panic , in a state of ecstasy, or psychotic, or artificially tranquillised.

[RCSaunders]

Perception is one faculty of the brain-mind. Other faculties are memory, emotion,and orientation. 'Perception' has several meanings according to whether the brain-mind state is dreaming, in a reverie, awake and alert to what's happening in the immediate environment, in a state of panic , in a state of ecstasy, or psychotic, or artificially tranquillised.

I know this is your view. It is a very popular one today, and I'm not interested in changing it.

I cannot accept it, because I cannot buy the view that the brain produces consciousness, or that the brain itself is conscious. I cannot accept anything for which there is not evidence and I do not regard the fact that some physical events sometimes observed relates to the testimony of conscious individuals of what they were thinking or doing. I also cannot accept the absurd notion of consciousness as some kind of, "emergent," attribute, such as "Consciousness just emerges from the complexity of neural behavior," which is just a fancy way of saying, "the brain produces consciousness somehow." Somehow is not an explanation of anything.

I won't belabor the fact that consciousness is only consciousness of the physical; there is nothing else to be conscious of. I will point out that memory, emotion, and orientation are not separate, "faculties," they are things that are perceived: from memory, itself a physical function, the perception of the same kind of perceptual qualities as those from the external neurological system that have been stored and recalled, emotions are perception of physiological states of the body due to the physiology's response to one's thoughts, beliefs, values, such as fear, desire, panic, and ecstasy, as are biological feelings such as nausea, hunger, dizziness, and vertigo. The emotions and feelings are perception of physiological states.

I also think you have somewhat confused what consciousness and mind are. Almost everything you have described are conscious phenomena, not mental phenomena. Perhaps you, as many do, think there is not difference between mind and consciousness. While all the higher animals are apparently conscious, they are not volitional, do not have intellects, and do not reason, which are attributes of the mind. They are attributes of human consciousness, which is what makes human consciousness unique.

[Skepdick]

I also cannot accept the absurd notion of consciousness as some kind of, "emergent," attribute, such as "Consciousness just emerges from the complexity of neural behavior," which is just a fancy way of saying, "the brain produces consciousness somehow." Somehow is not an explanation of anything.

This puzzles me.

Given the concept of 'locality' - the position of something in ontological space in relation to something else.
Where would you place the locality of consciousness? Would it be in the brain, or would it be elsewhere?

Where, if elsewhere?

[Sculptor]

You can invent many fantastic things, those that might exist and many that could never exist. But to demonstrate those things you need the physical. And, it has to be said, you could not invent them without the physical - a brain.

[RCSaunders]

This puzzles me.

Stay calm. You'll get over it.

You forget I regard life, consciousness, and mind as ontological, but not physical. They cannot and do not exist independently of the physical organisms they are the attributes of but are not physical attributes.

Only the physical has physical attributes, like size, mass, location. An organism is an entity with the attribute life. Life does not have physical attributes, it is an attribute of a specific kind of physical entity. Life is not something someplace in an organism, it is what makes an otherwise mere dead entity living. Consciousness is not something someplace in an organism that is conscious, it is an attribute of the entire organism. A mind is not something someplace in an organism, it is an attribute of the entire conscious organism.

I can give you an answer that is correct, but I do not think it will satisfy you. Life, consciousness, and mind are wherever the living, conscious, organism with a mind is because that is what a human being is.

[RCSaunders]

You can invent many fantastic things, those that might exist and many that could never exist. But to demonstrate those things you need the physical. And, it has to be said, you could not invent them without the physical - a brain.

Or without a physical body, either, since you could not have a brain without a physical body.

But you can have a brain without consciousness, a living brain, like those in a permanent coma. The consciousness of the higher animals and human beings is conscious by means of the neurological system, which includes the brain, just as brains exist by means of the physical body, but brains do not invent anything. It is the conscious mind that is capable of choice, intellectual knowledge, and reason by which all creation and invention are achieved.

[Skepdick]

You forget I regard life, consciousness, and mind as ontological, but not physical.

Lolwhat? Ontological pluralism. That's new levels of sophistry.

Do I need to remind you that 'categories' exist nowhere else but in human minds?
That we, humans, categorize reality in order to understand it is merely a divide-and-conquer strategy due to the limited abilities of our minds.

The answer to the ontological question "What exists?" is simple and trivial. Everything. Colloquially we call it 'The Universe'. Or as you call it - Ultimate Reality!

If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it! --Richard Feynman

[surreptitious57]

The map is our attempt to explain the territory so we can understand it better but is not the territory as such
For reality itself has zero division within it but simply exists as a single ever changing infinite / eternal entity

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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.

So says the moron who claims that humans are the only animals with a mind. Right. They are all just blobs of protoplasm with fur and feathers.....

[RCSaunders]

So says the moron who claims that humans are the only animals with a mind.

Not even all humans have minds. Minds only remain so long as they are used. Most people cease using them because they find thinking too difficult. It's easier to just believe whatever is popular, whatever one is taught, whatever they see on TV or whatever irrational sentiments and emotions they substitute for thinking.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So says the moron who claims that humans are the only animals with a mind.

Not even all humans have minds. Minds only remain so long as they are used. Most people cease using them because they find thinking too difficult. It's easier to just believe whatever is popular, whatever one is taught, whatever they see on TV or whatever irrational sentiments and emotions they substitute for thinking.

That doesn't mean they don't have a mind.

[Skepdick]

Not even all humans have minds. Minds only remain so long as they are used. Most people cease using them because they find thinking too difficult. It's easier to just believe whatever is popular, whatever one is taught, whatever they see on TV or whatever irrational sentiments and emotions they substitute for thinking.

Then, I have sufficient evidence for the claim that you don't have a mind either.

You are using the popular terms "physical", "material", "ontology" and "metaphysics" rather than designing our own taxonomy.
You are using the same ideas Philosophers have been regurgitating for 30000 years and you are calling them your own.

I guess it's easier than thinking for yourself...

[I Like Sushu]

You forget I regard life, consciousness, and mind as ontological, but not physical.

Lolwhat? Ontological pluralism. That's new levels of sophistry.

Do I need to remind you that 'categories' exist nowhere else but in human minds?
That we, humans, categorize reality in order to understand it is merely a divide-and-conquer strategy due to the limited abilities of our minds.

The answer to the ontological question "What exists?" is simple and trivial. Everything. Colloquially we call it 'The Universe'. Or as you call it - Ultimate Reality!

If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it! --Richard Feynman

How do you feel about ‘psychologism’?

[Skepdick]

How do you feel about ‘psychologism’?

It's really difficult to nail down any of the "isms" since they are usually a different lens for re-interpreting the same basic phenomenological facts.
It leads down a path where we end up disagreeing about nomenclature and vocabulary, rather than anything of consequence e.g testable.

For example 'psychologism' seem to produce rather similar consequences as the claims of 'model-dependent realism'.

And so the very first thing I would say is "Psychologism and model-dependent realism seem to be saying the same thing using different words. The similarities are overwhelming. Can you point out any differences?

Or lets take "logical psychologism" and "mathematical constructivism"
"Logical psychologism is a position in logic (or the philosophy of logic) according to which logical laws and mathematical laws are grounded in, derived from, explained or exhausted by psychological facts or laws."

"Constructivism is based on the idea that mathematics is a creation of the mind. "

It sure seems to me they are saying the same thing? I imagine the preference in vocabulary would simply indicate one's own background.

[I Like Sushu]

How do you feel about ‘psychologism’?

It's really difficult to nail down any of the "isms" since they are usually a different lens for re-interpreting the same basic phenomenological facts.
It leads down a path where we end up disagreeing about nomenclature and vocabulary, rather than anything of consequence e.g testable.

For example 'psychologism' seem to produce rather similar consequences as the claims of 'model-dependent realism'.

And so the very first thing I would say is "Psychologism and model-dependent realism seem to be saying the same thing using different words. How are they different?"

Of course. The definition of ‘psychologism’, or any -ism, was part and parcel of the whole debate around the 1900’s. In crude terms ‘psychologism’ suggests Logic is purely a human creation. Frankly I find this view as an absurdity if taken on dogmatically; as I would with all ‘views’ likely. I find it to be an interesting subject though that has since ‘developed’ (or rather shattered) into different perspectives.

Mill’s sparked the debate I believe and flip-flopped back and forth leading to other to take on the task of presenting better definitions of Logic absent of psychological perspective. I’m looking at this area atm because for some reason I find it to be ‘fun’.