Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

[bahman]

That is the reason why you must not jump ahead to insist there is a "mind" of your definition.

I would not predict the hard problem of consciousness will be resolved with certainty in the future, but it is promising and we are progressing steadily to understand much about how the components of our brain-hardware are workings in relations to its output.
Btw, are you familiar with the Human Connectome Project?

http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
The objective here is to map the path and connectivity of every neurons in the human brain. If our present 'infancy' knowledge of how the neurons are connected to their output is say X, then if when we increase that to 5X, 10x or more in the future that would definitely give humanity a greater understanding of human consciousness and its hard problem.

I don't think that mapping the human brain resolves the issue of the hard problem of consciousness. It cannot be resolve since there is no strong emergence.

"Since there is no strong emergence"??
You have no basis for this argument especially when you have such a low understanding of what is going on inside your brain.

The question of strong emergence will also be resolved reasonably when the human brain is fully [or mostly] mapped.

Is a mouse conscious? Is a mouse brain different from the human brain? The brain of a mouse is different from the brain of a human yet both conscious. So you cannot find consciousness in the connectivity of the human brain.

Moreover, I have an argument against strong emergence here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What you are ignorant of is the psychological factors within you that is driving you to reify the illusory thing-in-itself as a real thing. Suggest you research into this paradigm why it is so.

How about telling me the psychological factors within you that are driving you to reify the illusory "other people with an FSK" as a real thing?

One is the inherent drive for consonance to deal with the inherent cognitive dissonance which general terrible subliminal pains.
All humans are 'programmed' with the instinct for the principles of cause and effect, i.e. every effect must have a cause, that something cannot come from nothing, and the likes.
Thus whatever is 'appearance' must have something-that-is-appearing. Whatever is phenomenon must have a real corresponding noumenon.

As such, any sense/thought that there is appearance without a corresponding something-that-is-appearing generate an internal very painful [subliminal] cognitive dissonance [CD].
To relieve the pains of CD the brain/mind jumped hastily to reify the corresponding that-something-beyond-appearance as real, which give immediate relief to the pulsating pains.

There is an empirical something, but the reality is there is no ultimate real thing, i.e. the thing-in-itself beyond appearance - presumably that is what you claimed as the objective reality of the thing that appear.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't think that mapping the human brain resolves the issue of the hard problem of consciousness. It cannot be resolve since there is no strong emergence.

"Since there is no strong emergence"??
You have no basis for this argument especially when you have such a low understanding of what is going on inside your brain.

The question of strong emergence will also be resolved reasonably when the human brain is fully [or mostly] mapped.

Is a mouse conscious? Is a mouse brain different from the human brain? The brain of a mouse is different from the brain of a human yet both conscious. So you cannot find consciousness in the connectivity of the human brain.

Moreover, I have an argument against strong emergence here.

You cannot conflate mouse-consciousness with human-consciousness and then assume they are the same.

Someday, humanity will be able to create robots that can act exactly [based on empirical verification] and react like humans in every ways, emotional, psychological, intelligent, creative, etc. Would you say then those robots and humans are both conscious?

The point is what is consciousness must be corresponded to whatever is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
You arguments re mind and consciousness do not meet the above required criteria, thus is not credible nor realistic.

[VVilliam]

"Since there is no strong emergence"??
You have no basis for this argument especially when you have such a low understanding of what is going on inside your brain.

The question of strong emergence will also be resolved reasonably when the human brain is fully [or mostly] mapped.

Is a mouse conscious? Is a mouse brain different from the human brain? The brain of a mouse is different from the brain of a human yet both conscious. So you cannot find consciousness in the connectivity of the human brain.

Moreover, I have an argument against strong emergence here.

You cannot conflate mouse-consciousness with human-consciousness and then assume they are the same.

Someday, humanity will be able to create robots that can act exactly [based on empirical verification] and react like humans in every ways, emotional, psychological, intelligent, creative, etc. Would you say then those robots and humans are both conscious?

The point is what is consciousness must be corresponded to whatever is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
You arguments re mind and consciousness do not meet the above required criteria, thus is not credible nor realistic.

All consciousness is from the same source consciousness. The difference is in the form the consciousness inhabits. If one were to understand this, one could see that the human form is ideal for the eventual creation of AI by that aspect of source consciousness working through said human form.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is a mouse conscious? Is a mouse brain different from the human brain? The brain of a mouse is different from the brain of a human yet both conscious. So you cannot find consciousness in the connectivity of the human brain.

Moreover, I have an argument against strong emergence here.

You cannot conflate mouse-consciousness with human-consciousness and then assume they are the same.

Someday, humanity will be able to create robots that can act exactly [based on empirical verification] and react like humans in every ways, emotional, psychological, intelligent, creative, etc. Would you say then those robots and humans are both conscious?

The point is what is consciousness must be corresponded to whatever is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
You arguments re mind and consciousness do not meet the above required criteria, thus is not credible nor realistic.

All consciousness is from the same source consciousness. The difference is in the form the consciousness inhabits. If one were to understand this, one could see that the human form is ideal for the eventual creation of AI by that aspect of source consciousness working through said human form.

Same source??
Where is it springing from?

Prove the source by tracking from what is empirical [top down] like I done earlier.

I have countered Bahman that one cannot simply assume there is an pre-existing consciousness before proving it really exists.

[Terrapin Station]

What you are ignorant of is the psychological factors within you that is driving you to reify the illusory thing-in-itself as a real thing. Suggest you research into this paradigm why it is so.

How about telling me the psychological factors within you that are driving you to reify the illusory "other people with an FSK" as a real thing?

One is the inherent drive for consonance to deal with the inherent cognitive dissonance which general terrible subliminal pains.
All humans are 'programmed' with the instinct for the principles of cause and effect, i.e. every effect must have a cause, that something cannot come from nothing, and the likes.
Thus whatever is 'appearance' must have something-that-is-appearing. Whatever is phenomenon must have a real corresponding noumenon.

As such, any sense/thought that there is appearance without a corresponding something-that-is-appearing generate an internal very painful [subliminal] cognitive dissonance [CD].
To relieve the pains of CD the brain/mind jumped hastily to reify the corresponding that-something-beyond-appearance as real, which give immediate relief to the pulsating pains.

There is an empirical something, but the reality is there is no ultimate real thing, i.e. the thing-in-itself beyond appearance - presumably that is what you claimed as the objective reality of the thing that appear.

Wow, this is actually very interesting to me. So you "reify" other people that appear mentally to you because it causes you literal pain if you don't do that?

[bahman]

"Since there is no strong emergence"??
You have no basis for this argument especially when you have such a low understanding of what is going on inside your brain.

The question of strong emergence will also be resolved reasonably when the human brain is fully [or mostly] mapped.

Is a mouse conscious? Is a mouse brain different from the human brain? The brain of a mouse is different from the brain of a human yet both conscious. So you cannot find consciousness in the connectivity of the human brain.

Moreover, I have an argument against strong emergence here.

You cannot conflate mouse-consciousness with human-consciousness and then assume they are the same.

Someday, humanity will be able to create robots that can act exactly [based on empirical verification] and react like humans in every ways, emotional, psychological, intelligent, creative, etc. Would you say then those robots and humans are both conscious?

The point is what is consciousness must be corresponded to whatever is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
You arguments re mind and consciousness do not meet the above required criteria, thus is not credible nor realistic.

A mouse is as conscious as a human. They are just conscious of different things. For what regards my arguments, it stands.

[VVilliam]

You cannot conflate mouse-consciousness with human-consciousness and then assume they are the same.

Someday, humanity will be able to create robots that can act exactly [based on empirical verification] and react like humans in every ways, emotional, psychological, intelligent, creative, etc. Would you say then those robots and humans are both conscious?

The point is what is consciousness must be corresponded to whatever is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
You arguments re mind and consciousness do not meet the above required criteria, thus is not credible nor realistic.

All consciousness is from the same source consciousness. The difference is in the form the consciousness inhabits. If one were to understand this, one could see that the human form is ideal for the eventual creation of AI by that aspect of source consciousness working through said human form.

Same source??
Where is it springing from?

Prove the source by tracking from what is empirical [top down] like I done earlier.

I have countered Bahman that one cannot simply assume there is an pre-existing consciousness before proving it really exists.

One can indeed assume such without first having proof.

[Impenitent]

Can illusion affect you? How could it affect you if it didn't exist, namely nothing?

Definitely an illusion can affect a person.
A person seeing a snake in the shade will likely react to the illusion [a piece of rope perceived as a snake].

However in this case, I am referring to transcendental illusion, i.e. insisting a thing exists as a thing-in-itself as really real and independent of all human conditions.
For example, to insist the table you see out there is really real and independent of any human conditions [minds, etc.] is an illusion.

Note Russell raised the following question, which is true from the Kantian perspective;

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.
Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems.

Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.
Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

The above allude to the point there is no table-in-itself.
Kant had a credible argument to support the conclusion, there is no table-in-itself.

Perhaps it is all a Demon playing with my mind!

How dare you suggest Rene has anything to do with this...

-Imp

[Advocate]

Things are a set a attributes and boundary conditions and can only exist in a mind, regardless of whether it has an external correlate and regardless of whether those boundaries are agreed upon.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How about telling me the psychological factors within you that are driving you to reify the illusory "other people with an FSK" as a real thing?

One is the inherent drive for consonance to deal with the inherent cognitive dissonance which general terrible subliminal pains.
All humans are 'programmed' with the instinct for the principles of cause and effect, i.e. every effect must have a cause, that something cannot come from nothing, and the likes.
Thus whatever is 'appearance' must have something-that-is-appearing. Whatever is phenomenon must have a real corresponding noumenon.

As such, any sense/thought that there is appearance without a corresponding something-that-is-appearing generate an internal very painful [subliminal] cognitive dissonance [CD].
To relieve the pains of CD the brain/mind jumped hastily to reify the corresponding that-something-beyond-appearance as real, which give immediate relief to the pulsating pains.

There is an empirical something, but the reality is there is no ultimate real thing, i.e. the thing-in-itself beyond appearance - presumably that is what you claimed as the objective reality of the thing that appear.

Wow, this is actually very interesting to me. So you "reify" other people that appear mentally to you because it causes you literal pain if you don't do that?

Where did I say that??

Note this just in case you are not familiar with it [Bundle Theory], which is relevant to support the theory there is no thing-in-itself;

• Bundle theory, originated by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the ontological theory about objecthood in which an object consists only of a collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.
  
  According to bundle theory, an object consists of its properties and nothing more;
  thus, there cannot be an object without properties and one cannot conceive of such an object.
  For example, when we think of an apple, we think of its properties: redness, roundness, being a type of fruit, etc. There is nothing above and beyond these properties; the apple is nothing more than the collection of its properties. In particular, there is no substance in which the properties are inherent.
  -wiki

The above is applied to the self, the personhood, the self as essence;

• This theory owes its name to Hume, who described the self or person (which he assumed to be the mind) as ’nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement’ (A Treatise of Human Nature I, IV, §VI).

There is no denial the empirical-self exists as real, but there is no real self-in-itself.
But due to cognitive dissonance the majority of people reify this self-in-itself as really real, i.e. as a soul that will live eternally in Heaven or Hell.

It is the same with you reifying the thing-in-itself e.g. apple or table-in-itself as really real in the ultimate sense when what is ultimately the table is merely a bundle of activities as per Hume, Russell and others of the likes.

This is the same with theists reifying the illusory-God as really real that God will listens and answers their prayers and giving them a passport to heaven.

It is also the same with the schizophrenic who reify hallucinations as really real because of some mental/brain defect.

Therefore when you insist the thing-in-itself [not the empirical thing-by-evidence] is really real by reifying it, in a sense you are delusional.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All consciousness is from the same source consciousness. The difference is in the form the consciousness inhabits. If one were to understand this, one could see that the human form is ideal for the eventual creation of AI by that aspect of source consciousness working through said human form.

Same source??
Where is it springing from?

Prove the source by tracking from what is empirical [top down] like I done earlier.

I have countered Bahman that one cannot simply assume there is an pre-existing consciousness before proving it really exists.

One can indeed assume such without first having proof.

Yes you can assume, but then your conclusion is limited to the assumption that you have made.
An assumption is not proven, thus your conclusion is unrealiable. This is why Bahman is having difficulties convincing his conclusion rationally.

[Eodnhoj7]

The phenomenon is an emergence thus real when verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

For the ignorant, the thing-in-itself, i.e. the noumenon is the basis of the phenomenon but that is not true.

No, it is real as observed through its emergence.

What is observed is merely the phenomenon and nothing else.

There no 'its' as in your "through its emergence."
An emergence is what is given, there is no ultimate source for any emergence.

Your craving for an 'its' is purely psychological due to cognitive dissonance, i.e. you cannot live with anything that do not have a cause.
Note Hume's counter on that.

Your sort of craving from a cause is where it give rise to theism, i.e. God exists, and leading theists to killing non-theists based on an illusion.

And a "thing in itself" is a phenomenon. As a phenomenon it emerges from nothing and/or another phenomenon. It thus represents a chain of being with this chain of being being a phenomenon in itself that exists as a thing in itself.

The ultimate source is being as a thing in itself.

[Eodnhoj7]

Your view are off target.

No a thing in itself is that which repeats as a point of change to some other phenomenon.

Your above are merely words and statements.
Prove your thing-in-itself exists as real?

A simple point is a thing in itself.

[Eodnhoj7]

The repetition of patterns necessitates forms as things in themselves. The branching of a tree, veins, rivers, or lighting necessitates the repetition of a branching form which mirrors itself through further states thus are a thing in themselves. The nature of repetition necessitates one thing existing through many, with the one through the many as a thing in itself.