The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7716
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by henry quirk » Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:53 am

bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:25 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:16 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:29 pm

HAHA.
If that is the case then what the hell are you blathering about?
All you are saying is that the mind is a concept only. It cannot be see, demonstrated or established as a thing.
The brain and what it does can be demonstrated, however.
The mind is information.

Mind states aren't brain states.

A man isn't just matter; he's equally information.

He's a composite of two very different things (information and matter), each useless without the other.
No, information exists in physical that you/mind perceive/experience.
I don't know what that means.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:27 am

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:53 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:25 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:16 pm


The mind is information.

Mind states aren't brain states.

A man isn't just matter; he's equally information.

He's a composite of two very different things (information and matter), each useless without the other.
No, information exists in physical that you/mind perceive/experience.
I don't know what that means.
There is mind and physical. Physical is the stuff that mind experience. It has different forms so it can inform mind.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7716
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by henry quirk » Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:58 am

bahman wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:27 am
henry quirk wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:53 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:25 pm

No, information exists in physical that you/mind perceive/experience.
I don't know what that means.
There is mind and physical. Physical is the stuff that mind experience. It has different forms so it can inform mind.
I'm still not gettin' it.

Let's try this: I'll tell you my idea, and you tell me how I'm wrong.

As I say: A man isn't just matter; he's equally information.

He's a composite of two very different things (information and matter), each useless without the other.


The analogy might be: body/brain is hardware, mind is software.

Without software the hardware is useless; without hardware the software is useless.

So: brain states aren't mind states. Mind runs on brain, but is not synonymous with brain.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Mon Feb 17, 2020 2:14 am

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:58 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:27 am
henry quirk wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:53 am


I don't know what that means.
There is mind and physical. Physical is the stuff that mind experience. It has different forms so it can inform mind.
I'm still not gettin' it.

Let's try this: I'll tell you my idea, and you tell me how I'm wrong.

As I say: A man isn't just matter; he's equally information.
Information is the formation of matter. Matter can get different forms. A ball, for example, is spherical. A dice is cubic.
Matter gets different forms and through these forms, we are informed about a subject matter, a form of an object, a piece of music, etc. So the information is not something separate from matter. Man is more than matter. The information is related to the form of matter. There is still mind that experiences matter and gets informed depending on the formation of matter (how matter is structured), so-called information.
henry quirk wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:58 am
He's a composite of two very different things (information and matter), each useless without the other.[/b]

The analogy might be: body/brain is hardware, mind is software.

Without software the hardware is useless; without hardware the software is useless.

So: brain states aren't mind states. Mind runs on brain, but is not synonymous with brain.
You cannot have information without matter. You can, however, have matter without formation, uniform matter.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7716
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by henry quirk » Mon Feb 17, 2020 2:50 am

Information can be carried in a radio wave. This Ipad I'm pokin' at, it receives and transmits a radio signal. The signal is conducted by a little box, the wifi hub sittin' on a desk about three feet away. The hub transceives signal, information zippin' around in a non-material form.

The Ipad is chockablock with information, in its matter, and in the configuration of the matter; the wifi hub too is chockablock with information in the same way the Ipad is. And both Ipad and hub are conductors of information. Me, I'm chockablock with information too, in the matter that comprises me, the configuration of that matter, and -- this part is unique to me -- the mind running on the matter.

As a deist, I say man is spirit and flesh. In context of the thread, I say man is information and matter.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:52 am

bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am

I mentioned my approach is top-down and reducible to an emergent, not a thing-in-itself.

What is observable and verifiable are the empirical persons and all their actions.
What is observable and verifiable is the physical person's brain, body and his actions.
From the above empirical evidences we can infer all the above are traceable to a co-ordinated system X, and this X we label 'mind'.

Because what is 'mind' as labeled in this case cannot be verified like the person's brain, body, his actions, it is considered an emergent.
We just don't have the direct empirical evidence to identify that emergent as an entity or thing with its own properties.

To jump to conclusion that 'mind' is an entity or thing-in-itself is reifying an illusion out of nothing.
  • For example a 'wheel' is an emergent in a way.
    What is really a 'wheel' are merely parts of the spokes attached to the rim and axle.
    What is identified as a wheel is when all the parts together are put in the human context of the workings of a wheel in a carriage or the relevant vehicle.
    Non-humans will only see bits of the parts but not a wheel-in-itself.

    Even the rim of the 'wheel' is a sort of emergent.
    It is made of various parts and element combined together in a ring shape we identify as a rim of a wheel.

    We can reduce further, and there is no way we can end up with anything of substance that is identified as a thing-in-itself.
Another example is that of a song from a symphony orchestra;
  • There is no such thing as an 'symphony orchestra' in itself that produce the song.
    The symphony orchestra and the song are simply emergents from a bunch of musicians led by a conductor.
    That is no individual entity to be identified as THE symphony orchestra.
Similarly, the mind is an emergent out of the parts of the human person, his brain, body, other persons, the external environment all interlinked and working together that enable the person's mind to emerge and trigger human actions.

We human beings are too limited and not that great to identify an independent 'mind' within our empirical self.
The most we human beings can do is to rely on empirical verification with philosophical elements to understand whatever is inferred as 'mind' is merely an emergent.
What you are addressing is soft emergence when the emergent property is a function of properties of parts.
What we are dealing with here is a strong emergence. It is strong since the properties of the mind cannot be explained in terms of the properties of the brain parts.
For example, we empirically know that any human person can decide. The decision, however, is not a deterministic thing whereas the brain is. So mind, whatever it is, it is an irreducible entity since the decision is not reducible to anything else, brain activity for example.
This is said we are back to my objections. I repeat them for the sake of clarity:
1) Does the mind emerge (strong emergence) as a result of the brain activity?,
2) Is it a thing (it must be because it has ability to decide which brain does not have),
3) If the mind is an emergent thing and there is the body also then we are dealing with dualism again, and
4) Emergence is not possible (I provided an argument for that you need to refute).
1)I don't view the whole point as 'soft' or 'strong' emergent. There is only 'emergent.'
I have already provided a definition of what is 'mind'.
What is mind to me is inferred from all human activities to some sort of collective system based on collective consensus which is an emergent and such is not a thing-in-itself [Ding An Sich].
The emergent is not a result of primarily brain activity, but rather "it" emerges from the whole interdependent interactions of the whole universe, the environment, the whole person's [body, brain, etc.] and whatever. Without all these, there will be no human mind to speak of.

2) The mind is an emergent as explained above, "it" [mind] is not a thing-in-itself or thing-by-itself that arise due to brain activities alone.
  • Analogically, the mind is like the emergent of a hurricane that travels and ravages whatever is on its path. A hurricane is not a thing-in-itself but conditioned by its immediate wind conditions, its location, the spinning of the Earth, the condition of the Earth, the Earth within the Solar System and within the whole Universe.
3) Nope as explained above there is no separate mind and body. The mind is a culminating 'emergent' representing the actions and activities of the person which emerges from the whole interdependent interactions of the whole universe, the environment, the whole person's [body, brain, etc.] and whatever. Without all these, there will be no human mind to speak of.

4) Emergent of a human mind is a reality. This is linked to all the mental actions of a person.
When a person decides to take the apple rather than the orange on the table, this is empirical evidence and we infer it is his mind [emergent] that make such a decision not his brain activities alone.
This mind emerges from the whole interdependent interactions of the whole universe, the environment, the whole person's [body, brain, etc.] and whatever. Without all these, there will be no human mind to speak of.

As you can see, your perspective re the emergent mind is too limited to the brain but not to the whole of reality, i.e. the whole interdependent interactions of the whole universe, the environment, the whole person's [body, brain, etc.] and whatever that is of reality.
If there is no universe, then there would no emergent mind to speak of.
As such there is no mind-by-itself or mainly from the activities of the brain but the mind is a "mind-with-the-Universe-&-reality."
Since the mind is conditioned to the whole person [the subject] the mind is also fundamentally intersubjective and not independently objective. [i.e. Philosophical Anti-Realism]

Those who view the mind as a thing-in-itself that is independent of brain activities, etc. are driven so by their internal psychology in dealing with an existential crisis.
This is why they end up with a soul that survives physical death and in a major way, cling the theism that has brought about terrible evil and violent acts on non-believers merely based on a belief in an illusory mind-entity as real.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
Note Hume argued 'causation' is not due to one element X causing an effect Y.
Hume contented the root of causation is due to human psychology via the emergent mind due to customs, habits and exposure to constant conjunctions.
Hume is then wrong. A reality without causation is static or chaotic. Our reality is dynamic and ordered.
Who has proven Hume was wrong? Show the evidence and links?

Kant acknowledge Hume was right on the psychological part but not sufficient, and Kant extended Hume's causation and reconciled it with reality.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:09 am

zinnat13 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:00 pm
With due respect to Hume and other philosophers, no other philosopher in the whole of human history has ever harmed mankind that much to what extent he did.

With love,
Sanjay
This is a very cheap call without evidence and justifications.

Hume in most polls is rated as one of the top 10-20 philosophers of all times.

Hume did not introduce any ideology like Marx, Hitler, Islam, and other ideoloques.

The philosophical theories which Hume introduced require one to think for oneself and not to follow anyone blindly via faith and the likes.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:52 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am

I mentioned my approach is top-down and reducible to an emergent, not a thing-in-itself.

What is observable and verifiable are the empirical persons and all their actions.
What is observable and verifiable is the physical person's brain, body and his actions.
From the above empirical evidences we can infer all the above are traceable to a co-ordinated system X, and this X we label 'mind'.

Because what is 'mind' as labeled in this case cannot be verified like the person's brain, body, his actions, it is considered an emergent.
We just don't have the direct empirical evidence to identify that emergent as an entity or thing with its own properties.

To jump to conclusion that 'mind' is an entity or thing-in-itself is reifying an illusion out of nothing.
  • For example a 'wheel' is an emergent in a way.
    What is really a 'wheel' are merely parts of the spokes attached to the rim and axle.
    What is identified as a wheel is when all the parts together are put in the human context of the workings of a wheel in a carriage or the relevant vehicle.
    Non-humans will only see bits of the parts but not a wheel-in-itself.

    Even the rim of the 'wheel' is a sort of emergent.
    It is made of various parts and element combined together in a ring shape we identify as a rim of a wheel.

    We can reduce further, and there is no way we can end up with anything of substance that is identified as a thing-in-itself.
Another example is that of a song from a symphony orchestra;
  • There is no such thing as an 'symphony orchestra' in itself that produce the song.
    The symphony orchestra and the song are simply emergents from a bunch of musicians led by a conductor.
    That is no individual entity to be identified as THE symphony orchestra.
Similarly, the mind is an emergent out of the parts of the human person, his brain, body, other persons, the external environment all interlinked and working together that enable the person's mind to emerge and trigger human actions.

We human beings are too limited and not that great to identify an independent 'mind' within our empirical self.
The most we human beings can do is to rely on empirical verification with philosophical elements to understand whatever is inferred as 'mind' is merely an emergent.
What you are addressing is soft emergence when the emergent property is a function of properties of parts.
What we are dealing with here is a strong emergence. It is strong since the properties of the mind cannot be explained in terms of the properties of the brain parts.
For example, we empirically know that any human person can decide. The decision, however, is not a deterministic thing whereas the brain is. So mind, whatever it is, it is an irreducible entity since the decision is not reducible to anything else, brain activity for example.
This is said we are back to my objections. I repeat them for the sake of clarity:
1) Does the mind emerge (strong emergence) as a result of the brain activity?,
2) Is it a thing (it must be because it has ability to decide which brain does not have),
3) If the mind is an emergent thing and there is the body also then we are dealing with dualism again, and
4) Emergence is not possible (I provided an argument for that you need to refute).
1)I don't view the whole point as 'soft' or 'strong' emergent. There is only 'emergent.'
I have already provided a definition of what is 'mind'.
What is mind to me is inferred from all human activities to some sort of collective system based on collective consensus which is an emergent and such is not a thing-in-itself [Ding An Sich].
The emergent is not a result of primarily brain activity, but rather "it" emerges from the whole interdependent interactions of the whole universe, the environment, the whole person's [body, brain, etc.] and whatever. Without all these, there will be no human mind to speak of.
There are two sorts of emergence, so-called weak and strong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence). Weak emergence is when the emergent property of the system is a function of the properties of parts. In another hand, strong emergence is when the emergent property of the system is not a function of the properties of parts. You need to tell me that the mind is what sort of emergence.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
2) The mind is an emergent as explained above, "it" [mind] is not a thing-in-itself or thing-by-itself that arise due to brain activities alone.
  • Analogically, the mind is like the emergent of a hurricane that travels and ravages whatever is on its path. A hurricane is not a thing-in-itself but conditioned by its immediate wind conditions, its location, the spinning of the Earth, the condition of the Earth, the Earth within the Solar System and within the whole Universe.
I asked whether the mind is an emergent thing. Mind apparently, experiences, decides and causes. Do you agree with this definition?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
3) Nope as explained above there is no separate mind and body. The mind is a culminating 'emergent' representing the actions and activities of the person which emerges from the whole interdependent interactions of the whole universe, the environment, the whole person's [body, brain, etc.] and whatever. Without all these, there will be no human mind to speak of.
You could only have one emergent property if all processes in the universe are interdependent. Therefore, the assumption of interdependent interactions cannot possibly be true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
4) Emergent of a human mind is a reality. This is linked to all the mental actions of a person.
When a person decides to take the apple rather than the orange on the table, this is empirical evidence and we infer it is his mind [emergent] that make such a decision not his brain activities alone.
This mind emerges from the whole interdependent interactions of the whole universe, the environment, the whole person's [body, brain, etc.] and whatever. Without all these, there will be no human mind to speak of.
As I mentioned strong emergence is not possible. I provide an argument for that. So you need to decide to consider the emergence of the mind as strong or weak. Let me know.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
As you can see, your perspective re the emergent mind is too limited to the brain but not to the whole of reality, i.e. the whole interdependent interactions of the whole universe, the environment, the whole person's [body, brain, etc.] and whatever that is of reality.
If there is no universe, then there would no emergent mind to speak of.
As such there is no mind-by-itself or mainly from the activities of the brain but the mind is a "mind-with-the-Universe-&-reality."
Since the mind is conditioned to the whole person [the subject] the mind is also fundamentally intersubjective and not independently objective. [i.e. Philosophical Anti-Realism]

Those who view the mind as a thing-in-itself that is independent of brain activities, etc. are driven so by their internal psychology in dealing with an existential crisis.
This is why they end up with a soul that survives physical death and in a major way, cling the theism that has brought about terrible evil and violent acts on non-believers merely based on a belief in an illusory mind-entity as real.
The mind in my perspective is not the emergent but fundamental entity in reality. Brain to me, just collect sensory inputs, work on them and deliver them to the mind. There is no strong emergence in my perspective.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
Note Hume argued 'causation' is not due to one element X causing an effect Y.
Hume contented the root of causation is due to human psychology via the emergent mind due to customs, habits and exposure to constant conjunctions.
Hume is then wrong. A reality without causation is static or chaotic. Our reality is dynamic and ordered.
Who has proven Hume was wrong? Show the evidence and links?

Kant acknowledge Hume was right on the psychological part but not sufficient, and Kant extended Hume's causation and reconciled it with reality.
To the best of our knowledge, nature follows the laws of physics. This means that one state of affair uniquely causes another state of affair.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:29 am

bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:52 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:55 am

What you are addressing is soft emergence when the emergent property is a function of properties of parts.
What we are dealing with here is a strong emergence. It is strong since the properties of the mind cannot be explained in terms of the properties of the brain parts.
For example, we empirically know that any human person can decide. The decision, however, is not a deterministic thing whereas the brain is. So mind, whatever it is, it is an irreducible entity since the decision is not reducible to anything else, brain activity for example.
This is said we are back to my objections. I repeat them for the sake of clarity:
1) Does the mind emerge (strong emergence) as a result of the brain activity?,
2) Is it a thing (it must be because it has ability to decide which brain does not have),
3) If the mind is an emergent thing and there is the body also then we are dealing with dualism again, and
4) Emergence is not possible (I provided an argument for that you need to refute).
1)I don't view the whole point as 'soft' or 'strong' emergent. There is only 'emergent.'
I have already provided a definition of what is 'mind'.
What is mind to me is inferred from all human activities to some sort of collective system based on collective consensus which is an emergent and such is not a thing-in-itself [Ding An Sich].
The emergent is not a result of primarily brain activity, but rather "it" emerges from the whole interdependent interactions of the whole universe, the environment, the whole person's [body, brain, etc.] and whatever. Without all these, there will be no human mind to speak of.
There are two sorts of emergence, so-called weak and strong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence). Weak emergence is when the emergent property of the system is a function of the properties of parts. In another hand, strong emergence is when the emergent property of the system is not a function of the properties of parts. You need to tell me that the mind is what sort of emergence.
Note this sub-topic;
Rejecting the Distinction between Strong and Soft Emergence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence ... istinction

As I had argued my inference of the 'mind' and an emergent is based on empirical evidence of human actions.
Btw, I don't have to name this emergence as 'mind' [confusing] but it can be labelled 'X'.

Note I have already explained, analogically the emergence in this case is like the emergent of a hurricane system from the environment under certain conditions.

Your mind as 'strong' emergent is purely a speculation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
2) The mind is an emergent as explained above, "it" [mind] is not a thing-in-itself or thing-by-itself that arise due to brain activities alone.
  • Analogically, the mind is like the emergent of a hurricane that travels and ravages whatever is on its path. A hurricane is not a thing-in-itself but conditioned by its immediate wind conditions, its location, the spinning of the Earth, the condition of the Earth, the Earth within the Solar System and within the whole Universe.
I asked whether the mind is an emergent thing. Mind apparently, experiences, decides and causes. Do you agree with this definition?
No I do not agree with your definition.
The mind is an emergent, it is not an emergent thing per se.
As I had stated, an emergent is not a thing-in-itself.
What is experienced, decided and cause is not by a mind per se, but activated by the empirical person.

I would say, Bahman as an empirical person experienced, decided and caused, not Bahman's mind [as an entity] did all those activities.
You would be surprised, beside the brain, what is in your visceral region, the MICROBIOME, the bacteria [trillions] has leverage in your decisions and other mental activities.
What I considered to be mind [emergent] would be a totality of these elements.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
3) Nope as explained above there is no separate mind and body. The mind is a culminating 'emergent' representing the actions and activities of the person which emerges from the whole interdependent interactions of the whole universe, the environment, the whole person's [body, brain, etc.] and whatever. Without all these, there will be no human mind to speak of.
You could only have one emergent property if all processes in the universe are interdependent. Therefore, the assumption of interdependent interactions cannot possibly be true.
Nope, all things in the universe are considered to be emergent[s] in one way based on the interdependency of all things in the universe.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
4) Emergent of a human mind is a reality. This is linked to all the mental actions of a person.
When a person decides to take the apple rather than the orange on the table, this is empirical evidence and we infer it is his mind [emergent] that make such a decision not his brain activities alone.
This mind emerges from the whole interdependent interactions of the whole universe, the environment, the whole person's [body, brain, etc.] and whatever. Without all these, there will be no human mind to speak of.
As I mentioned strong emergence is not possible. I provide an argument for that. So you need to decide to consider the emergence of the mind as strong or weak. Let me know.
I disagree that is a strong and weak emergence.

I stated, there is only emergent as inferred from empirical evidences.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
As you can see, your perspective re the emergent mind is too limited to the brain but not to the whole of reality, i.e. the whole interdependent interactions of the whole universe, the environment, the whole person's [body, brain, etc.] and whatever that is of reality.
If there is no universe, then there would no emergent mind to speak of.
As such there is no mind-by-itself or mainly from the activities of the brain but the mind is a "mind-with-the-Universe-&-reality."
Since the mind is conditioned to the whole person [the subject] the mind is also fundamentally intersubjective and not independently objective. [i.e. Philosophical Anti-Realism]

Those who view the mind as a thing-in-itself that is independent of brain activities, etc. are driven so by their internal psychology in dealing with an existential crisis.
This is why they end up with a soul that survives physical death and in a major way, cling the theism that has brought about terrible evil and violent acts on non-believers merely based on a belief in an illusory mind-entity as real.
The mind in my perspective is not the emergent but fundamental entity in reality. Brain to me, just collect sensory inputs, work on them and deliver them to the mind. There is no strong emergence in my perspective.
In this case, what is in focus and critical should be the empirical person, i.e. the physical person who is alive and acts.
There is no mind as a fundamental entity in reality within an empirical person.
What is term 'mind' in my case is merely a convenience in taking the mental actions of the whole person into account.
As far as the brain is concern there is no dispute to its physical existence as its activity.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am

Hume is then wrong. A reality without causation is static or chaotic. Our reality is dynamic and ordered.
Who has proven Hume was wrong? Show the evidence and links?

Kant acknowledge Hume was right on the psychological part but not sufficient, and Kant extended Hume's causation and reconciled it with reality.
To the best of our knowledge, nature follows the laws of physics. This means that one state of affair uniquely causes another state of affair.
What are the Laws of Physics other than they are at best 'polished conjectures' that works within a certain levels.
You cannot use 'polished conjectures' to leverage them as truth at the highest requirement of philosophy.
On the other hand, Hume relied on philosophy [meta-reason, wisdom, rationality] to override the knowledge of Science.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:02 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:29 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:52 am

1)I don't view the whole point as 'soft' or 'strong' emergent. There is only 'emergent.'
I have already provided a definition of what is 'mind'.
What is mind to me is inferred from all human activities to some sort of collective system based on collective consensus which is an emergent and such is not a thing-in-itself [Ding An Sich].
The emergent is not a result of primarily brain activity, but rather "it" emerges from the whole interdependent interactions of the whole universe, the environment, the whole person's [body, brain, etc.] and whatever. Without all these, there will be no human mind to speak of.
There are two sorts of emergence, so-called weak and strong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence). Weak emergence is when the emergent property of the system is a function of the properties of parts. In another hand, strong emergence is when the emergent property of the system is not a function of the properties of parts. You need to tell me that the mind is what sort of emergence.
Note this sub-topic;
Rejecting the Distinction between Strong and Soft Emergence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence ... istinction

As I had argued my inference of the 'mind' and an emergent is based on empirical evidence of human actions.
Btw, I don't have to name this emergence as 'mind' [confusing] but it can be labelled 'X'.

Note I have already explained, analogically the emergence in this case is like the emergent of a hurricane system from the environment under certain conditions.

Your mind as 'strong' emergent is purely a speculation.
If strong emergence is pure speculation then tell me how a deterministic process can lead to the decision-making process which is purely indeterministic.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
2) The mind is an emergent as explained above, "it" [mind] is not a thing-in-itself or thing-by-itself that arise due to brain activities alone.
  • Analogically, the mind is like the emergent of a hurricane that travels and ravages whatever is on its path. A hurricane is not a thing-in-itself but conditioned by its immediate wind conditions, its location, the spinning of the Earth, the condition of the Earth, the Earth within the Solar System and within the whole Universe.
I asked whether the mind is an emergent thing. Mind apparently, experiences, decides and causes. Do you agree with this definition?
No I do not agree with your definition.
The mind is an emergent, it is not an emergent thing per se.
As I had stated, an emergent is not a thing-in-itself.
What is experienced, decided and cause is not by a mind per se, but activated by the empirical person.

I would say, Bahman as an empirical person experienced, decided and caused, not Bahman's mind [as an entity] did all those activities.
You would be surprised, beside the brain, what is in your visceral region, the MICROBIOME, the bacteria [trillions] has leverage in your decisions and other mental activities.
What I considered to be mind [emergent] would be a totality of these elements.
If it is Bahman who experiences, decides and causes then what is the need for the mind. How do you know that there is an emergence at all? I would say that everything in universe experiences, decides and causes.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
3) Nope as explained above there is no separate mind and body. The mind is a culminating 'emergent' representing the actions and activities of the person which emerges from the whole interdependent interactions of the whole universe, the environment, the whole person's [body, brain, etc.] and whatever. Without all these, there will be no human mind to speak of.
You could only have one emergent property if all processes in the universe are interdependent. Therefore, the assumption of interdependent interactions cannot possibly be true.
Nope, all things in the universe are considered to be emergent[s] in one way based on the interdependency of all things in
the universe.
There is only one process if everything in the universe interdependently interacts with each other. Therefore, there should be one mind only. There are several minds. Therefore, everything in the universe does not interdependently interact.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
4) Emergent of a human mind is a reality. This is linked to all the mental actions of a person.
When a person decides to take the apple rather than the orange on the table, this is empirical evidence and we infer it is his mind [emergent] that make such a decision not his brain activities alone.
This mind emerges from the whole interdependent interactions of the whole universe, the environment, the whole person's [body, brain, etc.] and whatever. Without all these, there will be no human mind to speak of.
As I mentioned strong emergence is not possible. I provide an argument for that. So you need to decide to consider the emergence of the mind as strong or weak. Let me know.
I disagree that is a strong and weak emergence.

I stated, there is only emergent as inferred from empirical evidences.
I don't think that strong emergence can be true either. There is only weak emergence when the property of the system is a function of the properties of parts. You would, however, have difficulty to explain the emergence of consciousness and decision-making process from something such as matter which is blind and behaves deterministically.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
As you can see, your perspective re the emergent mind is too limited to the brain but not to the whole of reality, i.e. the whole interdependent interactions of the whole universe, the environment, the whole person's [body, brain, etc.] and whatever that is of reality.
If there is no universe, then there would no emergent mind to speak of.
As such there is no mind-by-itself or mainly from the activities of the brain but the mind is a "mind-with-the-Universe-&-reality."
Since the mind is conditioned to the whole person [the subject] the mind is also fundamentally intersubjective and not independently objective. [i.e. Philosophical Anti-Realism]

Those who view the mind as a thing-in-itself that is independent of brain activities, etc. are driven so by their internal psychology in dealing with an existential crisis.
This is why they end up with a soul that survives physical death and in a major way, cling the theism that has brought about terrible evil and violent acts on non-believers merely based on a belief in an illusory mind-entity as real.
The mind in my perspective is not the emergent but fundamental entity in reality. Brain to me, just collect sensory inputs, work on them and deliver them to the mind. There is no strong emergence in my perspective.
In this case, what is in focus and critical should be the empirical person, i.e. the physical person who is alive and acts.
There is no mind as a fundamental entity in reality within an empirical person.
What is term 'mind' in my case is merely a convenience in taking the mental actions of the whole person into account.
As far as the brain is concern there is no dispute to its physical existence as its activity.
There is a mind involved in any motion. I have an argument for that (viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28481). The physical process cannot possibly exist without the mind. You, of course, cannot have any emergent property without process too. So no mind no process no emergence (weak). QED.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 am

bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:29 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:22 am

There are two sorts of emergence, so-called weak and strong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence). Weak emergence is when the emergent property of the system is a function of the properties of parts. In another hand, strong emergence is when the emergent property of the system is not a function of the properties of parts. You need to tell me that the mind is what sort of emergence.
Note this sub-topic;
Rejecting the Distinction between Strong and Soft Emergence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence ... istinction

As I had argued my inference of the 'mind' and an emergent is based on empirical evidence of human actions.
Btw, I don't have to name this emergence as 'mind' [confusing] but it can be labelled 'X'.

Note I have already explained, analogically the emergence in this case is like the emergent of a hurricane system from the environment under certain conditions.

Your mind as 'strong' emergent is purely a speculation.
If strong emergence is pure speculation then tell me how a deterministic process can lead to the decision-making process which is purely indeterministic.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:29 am

I asked whether the mind is an emergent thing. Mind apparently, experiences, decides and causes. Do you agree with this definition?
No I do not agree with your definition.
The mind is an emergent, it is not an emergent thing per se.
As I had stated, an emergent is not a thing-in-itself.
What is experienced, decided and cause is not by a mind per se, but activated by the empirical person.

I would say, Bahman as an empirical person experienced, decided and caused, not Bahman's mind [as an entity] did all those activities.
You would be surprised, beside the brain, what is in your visceral region, the MICROBIOME, the bacteria [trillions] has leverage in your decisions and other mental activities.
What I considered to be mind [emergent] would be a totality of these elements.
If it is Bahman who experiences, decides and causes then what is the need for the mind. How do you know that there is an emergence at all? I would say that everything in universe experiences, decides and causes.
As I had explained, what is termed "mind" is merely a convenience and an effective approach to represent the mental actions of an empirical person.

The loose concept of 'mind' is very useful for psychology;
Psychology is the science of behavior and mind. Psychology includes the study of conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as feeling and thought. It is an academic discipline of immense scope. Psychologists seek an understanding of the emergent properties of brains, and all the variety of phenomena linked to those emergent properties, joining this way the broader neuroscientific group of researchers. As a social science it aims to understand individuals and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology
An empirical person suffers from various medical problems which would be more effective to break down into those that are physical and mental [mind].

As you can see, the concept of mind is very useful in whatever useful ways to differentiate between the physical and mental elements of an empirical persons.

There is no need to reduce the 'mind' to an entity.
There is only one process if everything in the universe interdependently interacts with each other. Therefore, there should be one mind only. There are several minds. Therefore, everything in the universe does not interdependently interact.
As I had stated 'what is mind' is inferred from real actions of an empirical person.
Because there are 7+ billion humans alive, therefore there are 7+ billion human minds.

I would not speculate there is only one mind, because the Universe is a non-human thing and do not have actions that are supposedly mental or psychological.
I don't think that strong emergence can be true either. There is only weak emergence when the property of the system is a function of the properties of parts. You would, however, have difficulty to explain the emergence of consciousness and decision-making process from something such as matter which is blind and behaves deterministically.
I start from what is given, i.e. that a person has consciousness is easily verified empirically. Such an obvious consciousness is inferred as an emergent.
I can easily explain the decision-making process and there is no need to reduce it to matter. Besides philosophical materialism is very contentious and my view is, materialism is not tenable - note Berkeley.
There is a mind involved in any motion. I have an argument for that (viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28481). The physical process cannot possibly exist without the mind. You, of course, cannot have any emergent property without process too. So no mind no process no emergence (weak). QED.
What we associate with 'mind' is only in reference to human beings.
At most we can refer to 'mind' in non-humans are those of the higher animals like, primates, etc.
The millions and trillions of non-humans living things [present and past] act physically via some auto-program and not mind.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:24 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:29 am

Note this sub-topic;
Rejecting the Distinction between Strong and Soft Emergence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence ... istinction

As I had argued my inference of the 'mind' and an emergent is based on empirical evidence of human actions.
Btw, I don't have to name this emergence as 'mind' [confusing] but it can be labelled 'X'.

Note I have already explained, analogically the emergence in this case is like the emergent of a hurricane system from the environment under certain conditions.

Your mind as 'strong' emergent is purely a speculation.
If strong emergence is pure speculation then tell me how a deterministic process can lead to the decision-making process which is purely indeterministic.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:29 am

No I do not agree with your definition.
The mind is an emergent, it is not an emergent thing per se.
As I had stated, an emergent is not a thing-in-itself.
What is experienced, decided and cause is not by a mind per se, but activated by the empirical person.

I would say, Bahman as an empirical person experienced, decided and caused, not Bahman's mind [as an entity] did all those activities.
You would be surprised, beside the brain, what is in your visceral region, the MICROBIOME, the bacteria [trillions] has leverage in your decisions and other mental activities.
What I considered to be mind [emergent] would be a totality of these elements.
If it is Bahman who experiences, decides and causes then what is the need for the mind. How do you know that there is an emergence at all? I would say that everything in universe experiences, decides and causes.
As I had explained, what is termed "mind" is merely a convenience and an effective approach to represent the mental actions of an empirical person.

The loose concept of 'mind' is very useful for psychology;
You didn't answer my question. How do you know that there is an emergence of consciousness for example? How do you know that things in universe don't experience?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:29 am
There is only one process if everything in the universe interdependently interacts with each other. Therefore, there should be one mind only. There are several minds. Therefore, everything in the universe does not interdependently interact.
As I had stated 'what is mind' is inferred from real actions of an empirical person.
Because there are 7+ billion humans alive, therefore there are 7+ billion human minds.

I would not speculate there is only one mind, because the Universe is a non-human thing and do not have actions that are supposedly mental or psychological.
You are not paying attention to my argument and just repeat yourself. I know that there are around 7 billion people around the world. This, however, is in conflict with the assumption of one interdependent process since there is only one person for each process.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:29 am
I don't think that strong emergence can be true either. There is only weak emergence when the property of the system is a function of the properties of parts. You would, however, have difficulty to explain the emergence of consciousness and decision-making process from something such as matter which is blind and behaves deterministically.
I start from what is given, i.e. that a person has consciousness is easily verified empirically. Such an obvious consciousness is inferred as an emergent.
I can easily explain the decision-making process and there is no need to reduce it to matter. Besides philosophical materialism is very contentious and my view is, materialism is not tenable - note Berkeley.
You need to prove/show two things: 1) Things in universe do not have consciousness and 2) how consciousness is possible.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:29 am
There is a mind involved in any motion. I have an argument for that (viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28481). The physical process cannot possibly exist without the mind. You, of course, cannot have any emergent property without process too. So no mind no process no emergence (weak). QED.
What we associate with 'mind' is only in reference to human beings.
At most we can refer to 'mind' in non-humans are those of the higher animals like, primates, etc.
The millions and trillions of non-humans living things [present and past] act physically via some auto-program and not mind.
You need to look at my proof first. If the mind is required for any process then you cannot have a process without mind. This, if there is no mind, means that you cannot have any emergence since there is no process.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:01 am

bahman wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:02 am

If strong emergence is pure speculation then tell me how a deterministic process can lead to the decision-making process which is purely indeterministic.


If it is Bahman who experiences, decides and causes then what is the need for the mind. How do you know that there is an emergence at all? I would say that everything in universe experiences, decides and causes.
As I had explained, what is termed "mind" is merely a convenience and an effective approach to represent the mental actions of an empirical person.

The loose concept of 'mind' is very useful for psychology;
You didn't answer my question. How do you know that there is an emergence of consciousness for example? How do you know that things in universe don't experience?
You missed my point totally.
I know there is an emergence of human consciousness from observing empirical humans having and displaying their consciousness, i.e. self-conscious and other types of consciousness.
This is so evident empirically.
It is so evident to the person and others that human has wakeful, dream, and other types of consciousness.
Note consciousness in the modern perspective is;
Wiki wrote:Today, with modern research into the brain it [consciousness] often includes any kind of experience, cognition, feeling or perception. It may be 'awareness', or 'awareness of awareness', or self-awareness.[6] There might be different levels or "orders" of consciousness,[7] or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features.
I don't have to be bothered with whether the Universes "experiences" or not.
The onus is for you to prove that the Universe experiences which in my view is an impossibility to start with.
You are not paying attention to my argument and just repeat yourself. I know that there are around 7 billion people around the world. This, however, is in conflict with the assumption of one interdependent process since there is only one person for each process.
I am trying hard to understand your point but I believe your communication and explanation in this case is not clear.

I am still guessing your intended point;
Say there is on interdependent process of the Water Cycle, and there is one process for each iceberg in the ocean, but they are all interdependent.
You need to prove/show two things: 1) Things in universe do not have consciousness and 2) how consciousness is possible.
Nope it is you who has to prove things [non living things] in the Universe has consciousness.
I don't have to prove how conscious is possible.
All I have to prove is humans are conscious and have various conscious states and act differently within these varying conscious states.
You yourself can confirm you are conscious and are subject to various states of consciousness and you can extrapolate that to all normal human beings.

We and all can raise the hypothesis, how consciousness is possible?, but we do not have to jump to conclusion like you do, i.e. there is an entity called mind that is responsible for consciousness.
Your jumping to conclusion or eagerness to get to a conclusion is heavily weighed by your psychology as explained by Hume.
I suggest you explore this psychological effect in detail, i.e. 'Know Thyself'.
You need to look at my proof first. If the mind is required for any process then you cannot have a process without mind. This, if there is no mind, means that you cannot have any emergence since there is no process.
You are merely making an assumption which is driven by desperate psychology as Hume had indicated. The details can be explained via evolutionary psychology. Check out Michael Shermer's 'Why People Believed in Weird Things'.

Instead of speculating there is an entity called "mind" [ontological], it is more reliable to base my point on empirical evidences of human mental actions in relation to the brain, the whole person, the the whole environment and whole universe.

At present, psychology has a good grasp of "what is mind" psychologically and many mental problems can be resolved with what we understand 'what is mind' with medicines, various treatments and preventive measures. There is no need for psychologists and psychiatrists to search of the entity called mind within the brain of the person.

Why the majority seek to establish what is exactly mind in substance and entity wise is due to some inefficient psychological drives emerging from an existential crisis.
If this existential crisis is managed and modulated the person would not be bother and driven to search for an illusory mind-in-substance and mind-as-entity.

Note Buddhism has successfully introduce a solution to manage and modulate the existential crisis. This is why Buddhism do not accept there is a mind as an independent entity.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:10 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:01 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 am

As I had explained, what is termed "mind" is merely a convenience and an effective approach to represent the mental actions of an empirical person.

The loose concept of 'mind' is very useful for psychology;
You didn't answer my question. How do you know that there is an emergence of consciousness for example? How do you know that things in universe don't experience?
You missed my point totally.
I know there is an emergence of human consciousness from observing empirical humans having and displaying their consciousness, i.e. self-conscious and other types of consciousness.
This is so evident empirically.
It is so evident to the person and others that human has wakeful, dream, and other types of consciousness.
Note consciousness in the modern perspective is;
All you have is an empirical fact that you are a conscious being. You don't have an empirical fact or proof that other humans are conscious since consciousness cannot be measured.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 am
Wiki wrote: Today, with modern research into the brain it [consciousness] often includes any kind of experience, cognition, feeling or perception. It may be 'awareness', or 'awareness of awareness', or self-awareness.[6] There might be different levels or "orders" of consciousness,[7] or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features.
I don't have to be bothered with whether the Universes "experiences" or not.
The onus is for you to prove that the Universe experiences which in my view is an impossibility to start with.
The onus is for you since you are claiming that consciousness is an emergent property. Regardless, I already provide my argument against strong emergence. Consciousness is a property that is not a function of properties of parts since parts are unconscious in your perspective. Therefore, the emergence of consciousness is impossible.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 am
You are not paying attention to my argument and just repeat yourself. I know that there are around 7 billion people around the world. This, however, is in conflict with the assumption of one interdependent process since there is only one person for each process.
I am trying hard to understand your point but I believe your communication and explanation in this case is not clear.

I am still guessing your intended point;
Say there is on interdependent process of the Water Cycle, and there is one process for each iceberg in the ocean, but they are all interdependent.
Can we agree that there is only one process if everything in universe is interdependent? All parts of the universe move with each other if they are interdependent. Therefore, there is only one process. Now, you are claiming that there are several persons who are conscious, have the ability to decide and cause. This means that the concept of person is a local thing, independent of other persons or things. That is true since you have the ability to decide independent of what is going around you. Moreover, you need to show how there could be several conscious persons. Consciousness to you is a local thing. You are conscious but not the chair that you are sitting on it. So we have two things, one is conscious and another is not. You and chair are however interdependent in your perspective. There is one thing, you and chair together, not two things. Therefore, this one thing is either conscious or not. That is true since you cannot separate the chair from yourself in your perspective.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 am
You need to prove/show two things: 1) Things in universe do not have consciousness and 2) how consciousness is possible.
Nope it is you who has to prove things [non living things] in the Universe has consciousness.
I don't have to prove how conscious is possible.
All I have to prove is humans are conscious and have various conscious states and act differently within these varying conscious states.
You yourself can confirm you are conscious and are subject to various states of consciousness and you can extrapolate that to all normal human beings.

We and all can raise the hypothesis, how consciousness is possible?, but we do not have to jump to conclusion like you do, i.e. there is an entity called mind that is responsible for consciousness.
Your jumping to conclusion or eagerness to get to a conclusion is heavily weighed by your psychology as explained by Hume.
I suggest you explore this psychological effect in detail, i.e. 'Know Thyself'.
Then prove that humans are conscious. Either empirically or logically.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 am
You need to look at my proof first. If the mind is required for any process then you cannot have a process without mind. This, if there is no mind, means that you cannot have any emergence since there is no process.
You are merely making an assumption which is driven by desperate psychology as Hume had indicated. The details can be explained via evolutionary psychology. Check out Michael Shermer's 'Why People Believed in Weird Things'.

Instead of speculating there is an entity called "mind" [ontological], it is more reliable to base my point on empirical evidences of human mental actions in relation to the brain, the whole person, the the whole environment and whole universe.

At present, psychology has a good grasp of "what is mind" psychologically and many mental problems can be resolved with what we understand 'what is mind' with medicines, various treatments and preventive measures. There is no need for psychologists and psychiatrists to search of the entity called mind within the brain of the person.

Why the majority seek to establish what is exactly mind in substance and entity wise is due to some inefficient psychological drives emerging from an existential crisis.
If this existential crisis is managed and modulated the person would not be bother and driven to search for an illusory mind-in-substance and mind-as-entity.

Note Buddhism has successfully introduce a solution to manage and modulate the existential crisis. This is why Buddhism do not accept there is a mind as an independent entity.
Did you read my argument?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 am

bahman wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:10 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:01 am
You missed my point totally.
I know there is an emergence of human consciousness from observing empirical humans having and displaying their consciousness, i.e. self-conscious and other types of consciousness.
This is so evident empirically.
It is so evident to the person and others that human has wakeful, dream, and other types of consciousness.
Note consciousness in the modern perspective is;
All you have is an empirical fact that you are a conscious being. You don't have an empirical fact or proof that other humans are conscious since consciousness cannot be measured.
Based on the above definition, it is so easy to prove other humans are conscious beings. This is so common an accepted by Science, psychology, psychiatry, neurosciences, etc.

What is problematic at present is the 'hard problem of consciousness' which is not relevant in this case to prove a person is a conscious being from empirical evidences.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 am
I don't have to be bothered with whether the Universes "experiences" or not.
The onus is for you to prove that the Universe experiences which in my view is an impossibility to start with.
The onus is for you since you are claiming that consciousness is an emergent property. Regardless, I already provide my argument against strong emergence. Consciousness is a property that is not a function of properties of parts since parts are unconscious in your perspective. Therefore, the emergence of consciousness is impossible.
I am claiming human consciousness and mind is an emergent as inferred from empirical evidences of human actions and thoughts.
What has the above to do with the Universe that can experience?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 am
I am trying hard to understand your point but I believe your communication and explanation in this case is not clear.

I am still guessing your intended point;
Say there is on interdependent process of the Water Cycle, and there is one process for each iceberg in the ocean, but they are all interdependent.
Can we agree that there is only one process if everything in universe is interdependent? All parts of the universe move with each other if they are interdependent. Therefore, there is only one process.

Now, you are claiming that there are several persons who are conscious, have the ability to decide and cause. This means that the concept of person is a local thing, independent of other persons or things. That is true since you have the ability to decide independent of what is going around you.

Moreover, you need to show how there could be several conscious persons. Consciousness to you is a local thing. You are conscious but not the chair that you are sitting on it. So we have two things, one is conscious and another is not. You and chair are however interdependent in your perspective. There is one thing, you and chair together, not two things. Therefore, this one thing is either conscious or not. That is true since you cannot separate the chair from yourself in your perspective.
Everything that is empirical evident are interdependent [interlinked] within the Universe.
Yes, it is deterministic and there is only one process with loads of interlinking sub-processes.

There are several humans which are on the surface appear to be independent of each other but ultimately they are interlinked [interdependent] with each other.
Over one's life, one could have inter-share and inter-exchange one's atoms with million or billion people around the world and also within Earth and Space. It is said, we are made of stardust.

As far as the interdependence of humans with the Universe note the stance of the Philosophical anti-Realist versus the Philosophical Realist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
If you understand this two dichotomies, you will understand what you and I are arguing for.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 am
You need to prove/show two things: 1) Things in universe do not have consciousness and 2) how consciousness is possible.
Nope it is you who has to prove things [non living things] in the Universe has consciousness.
I don't have to prove how conscious is possible.
All I have to prove is humans are conscious and have various conscious states and act differently within these varying conscious states.
You yourself can confirm you are conscious and are subject to various states of consciousness and you can extrapolate that to all normal human beings.

We and all can raise the hypothesis, how consciousness is possible?, but we do not have to jump to conclusion like you do, i.e. there is an entity called mind that is responsible for consciousness.
Your jumping to conclusion or eagerness to get to a conclusion is heavily weighed by your psychology as explained by Hume.
I suggest you explore this psychological effect in detail, i.e. 'Know Thyself'.
Then prove that humans are conscious. Either empirically or logically.
It is not difficult to prove you [or other human] are conscious [as defined above] based on empirical evidence.
One basic thing, if a human is conscious [as defined], then he is not dead [as defined] and vice versa.
Surely it is easy to prove you are in sleep consciousness, waking consciousness, dream consciousness, drunk consciousness or even in an altered state consciousness.
You dispute such simple proofs?

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 am
You need to look at my proof first. If the mind is required for any process then you cannot have a process without mind. This, if there is no mind, means that you cannot have any emergence since there is no process.
You are merely making an assumption which is driven by desperate psychology as Hume had indicated. The details can be explained via evolutionary psychology. Check out Michael Shermer's 'Why People Believed in Weird Things'.

Instead of speculating there is an entity called "mind" [ontological], it is more reliable to base my point on empirical evidences of human mental actions in relation to the brain, the whole person, the the whole environment and whole universe.

At present, psychology has a good grasp of "what is mind" psychologically and many mental problems can be resolved with what we understand 'what is mind' with medicines, various treatments and preventive measures. There is no need for psychologists and psychiatrists to search of the entity called mind within the brain of the person.

Why the majority seek to establish what is exactly mind in substance and entity wise is due to some inefficient psychological drives emerging from an existential crisis.
If this existential crisis is managed and modulated the person would not be bother and driven to search for an illusory mind-in-substance and mind-as-entity.

Note Buddhism has successfully introduce a solution to manage and modulate the existential crisis. This is why Buddhism do not accept there is a mind as an independent entity.
Did you read my argument?
Note sure what you meant?
I believe I have countered whatever you have raised.

I believe the crunch is you are not familiar with the serious contention between
the Philosophical Realists versus the Philosophical anti-Realists.
If so, can you explain what you understand of the above issue?
This I believe underlies and summarizes all the above issues.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests