Science: Conjectures and Refutations

[Grey Cloud]

Altonhare asked:

How is it different from your brain exactly?

Read the Iliad. Or if you don't rate an ancient genius, try googling terms like 'philosophy of mind' or 'consciousness studies' for the opinions of modern experts. Check out the work of V.S. Ramachandran - he's a pukka-gen modern expert not an eastern mystic.

[TalonThorn]

Inductive reasoning is a way of seeing the answer without linear thinking.
Therefore the answers jump out at you.
The process of thinking is not involved, rather the act of knowing occurs.
You should try it some time. However I warn you half a brain will never pull that off.
It will require a whole brain state.
Maybe you could try some Hemi-Sync CD's and maybe read Mega-Brain.

Sounds like you are talking about intuition, not inductive reasoning.

And as for the other discussion, I understand the process of putting ideas in my brain and letting them stew for a while and it all falls together (sometimes). Is that what is meant by not using one's brain or not thinking? (I think that's related to intuition.)

[Plasmatic]

junglelord wrote:
Inductive reasoning is a way of seeing the answer without linear thinking.
Therefore the answers jump out at you.
The process of thinking is not involved, rather the act of knowing occurs.

This is complete nonsense.

Induction is the process of abstracting new concepts from percieved instances . As against deduction where one adds to known concept new instances of the same concept.

[altonhare]

Altonhare asked:

How is it different from your brain exactly?

Read the Iliad. Or if you don't rate an ancient genius, try googling terms like 'philosophy of mind' or 'consciousness studies' for the opinions of modern experts. Check out the work of V.S. Ramachandran - he's a pukka-gen modern expert not an eastern mystic.

Is this your argument:

Physical existence is that which consciousness is conscious of. That which consciousness is conscious of and the consciousness itself cannot be the same thing; if they were the same thing, that is if the consciousness itself were the physical, it would be conscious of itself, which leads either to extreme empiricism (essentially denying that consciousness exists) or idealism (essentially denying the physical exists, that is, solipsism). Existence and our consciousness of it cannot be the same thing, consciousness cannot be physical.

i.e. the brain is physical and the "mind" is nonphysical?

[junglelord]

Inductive reasoning is a way of seeing the answer without linear thinking.
Therefore the answers jump out at you.
The process of thinking is not involved, rather the act of knowing occurs.
You should try it some time. However I warn you half a brain will never pull that off.
It will require a whole brain state.
Maybe you could try some Hemi-Sync CD's and maybe read Mega-Brain.

Sounds like you are talking about intuition, not inductive reasoning.

And as for the other discussion, I understand the process of putting ideas in my brain and letting them stew for a while and it all falls together (sometimes). Is that what is meant by not using one's brain or not thinking? (I think that's related to intuition.)

Patatoe, potatoe....it works just like that. Knowing without having to learn or be taught. Its the connection between consciouness and universal truth.

[altonhare]

Inductive reasoning is a way of seeing the answer without linear thinking.
Therefore the answers jump out at you.
The process of thinking is not involved, rather the act of knowing occurs.
You should try it some time. However I warn you half a brain will never pull that off.
It will require a whole brain state.
Maybe you could try some Hemi-Sync CD's and maybe read Mega-Brain.

Sounds like you are talking about intuition, not inductive reasoning.

And as for the other discussion, I understand the process of putting ideas in my brain and letting them stew for a while and it all falls together (sometimes). Is that what is meant by not using one's brain or not thinking? (I think that's related to intuition.)

Patatoe, potatoe....it works just like that. Knowing without having to learn or be taught. Its the connection between consciouness and universal truth.

You're just incapable of admitting you're wrong.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Altonhare,
To take your comment first, yes, that is a rule of thumb which I use.
As for your quote, it seems to me to be modern and by someone who is mired in Cartesian dualism, i.e. that mind and body are two separate (as in discrete) things. I view them as two aspects, facets, etc of the same thing.
Remember my defintition of existence is that everything exists (thoughts, emotions etc) but not everything has being. That which has being has volume (it occupies 'space').

Here is the same quote but with 'consciousness' changed to 'mind' in order to make the thing a bit more readable. (Readability is another reason why I prefer the ancient writers).

Physical existence is that which mind is conscious of. That which mind is conscious of and the mind itself cannot be the same thing; if they were the same thing, that is if the mind itself were the physical, it would be conscious of itself, which leads either to extreme empiricism (essentially denying that mind exists) or idealism (essentially denying the physical exists, that is, solipsism). Existence and our consciousness of it cannot be the same thing, consciousness cannot be physical.

Okay, so let's take a sentence at a time.

Physical existence is that which mind is conscious of.

If by this your author means that the physical (being) comes from or is the product of mind or consciousness, then yes I agree.

That which mind is conscious of and the mind itself cannot be the same thing; if they were the same thing, that is if the mind itself were the physical, it would be conscious of itself, which leads either to extreme empiricism (essentially denying that mind exists) or idealism (essentially denying the physical exists, that is, solipsism).

Here the author ties himself and his readers in knots. This is more akin to a legal document than philosophy. The first, part up to the semi-colon, is true if taken literally in that the mind and the physical object are not equal, or, it is not a case of A = B full stop. His statement does not stop mind and physical object being of, or part of, the same thing.
After this he goes from bad to worse largely due to the dualism. It is mind which creates the physical. Either directly by saying the 'word' or producing the things vibration (as per mythology/religion); or indirectly by thinking it up and physically building it (as per an
inventor for example). A plant is physical and it is conscious of itself.
No thinker worthy of the name has ever said that the physical does not exist. What they do say is that the physical is real but not Real. The table leg is real; the illusion (maya) is that it is solid. The closer you inspect the leg - visual, molecular, atomic, quantum - the less 'solid' or 'real' it becomes. This line of thinking takes you to the notion that there is some underlying strata(?) below the physical from which the physical originates or emerges and upon which the physical sits. This is the metaphysical realm.

The final sentence.

Existence and our consciousness of it cannot be the same thing, consciousness cannot be physical.

The problem here again is that the author see the physical as distinct from consciousness or mind. Ancient metaphysics begins with either existence becoming conscious of 'itself' or consciousness becoming aware of its own existence. The Vedas spring to mind here.

BTW, I don't read the modern philosophy of the mind and consciousness studies stuff. It is either just a re-hashing of the ancient in technicalese or it gets itself bogged down in irrelevance, i.e. things the ancients managed without.
Here's an alternative view from William Blake (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell).

The Voice of the Devil.
All Bibles or sacred codes have been the causes of the following Errors:--
1. That Man has two real existing principles, viz. a Body and a Soul.
2. That Energy, call'd Evil, is alone from the Body; and that Reason, call'd Good, is alone from the Soul.
3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.
But the following Contraries to these are True:--
1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul; for that call'd Body is a portion of Soul discern'd by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age.
2. Energy is the only life, and is from the Body; and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.
3. Energy is Eternal Delight.
Those who restrain Desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained; and the restrainer or Reason Usurps its place and governs the unwilling. And being restrained, it by degrees becomes passive, till it is only the shadow of Desire.

I disagree with the middle part of 'contraries' #2. If Reason is the circumference then the (physical) body is the centre point of the sphere. (Think chicken egg).

[altonhare]

GC,

First of all thanks for taking the time to reply/discuss. I agree that the author did not express himself well but I was hoping it would be a "launching pad" at least. Cartesian dualism is indeed a dead end.

I view them as two aspects, facets, etc of the same thing.
Remember my defintition of existence is that everything exists (thoughts, emotions etc) but not everything has being. That which has being has volume (it occupies 'space').

-GC

At this point in the discussion we may, perhaps, reach a dead end ourselves. I don't know if you will care to make your terms clear enough for me to understand exactly what you mean, not what I would mean if I were using your words. For one I need to know exactly what you mean by an aspect or facet.

For the second sentence, I agree completely. Of course everything exists, I agree with this whole-heartedly. This sentence is predicated on the word "thing" though, and I don't know if you are communicating the same as I would when using the word "thing". To me "thing" is a synonym for entity (shape+location) so this statement would be more complete (in my wording) put this way:

"Everything and the relationships among them all exist"

More concisely:

"All existents exist"

Glad we can agree on something. Furthermore, you state that something with "being" occupies volume but not all existents occupy volume. Indeed, love, time, thoughts etc. do not occupy volume, they do not have "being". I call these Class III existents. Other existents (things) do occupy volume, the class I and II existents.

The table leg is real; the illusion (maya) is that it is solid. The closer you inspect the leg - visual, molecular, atomic, quantum - the less 'solid' or 'real' it becomes. This line of thinking takes you to the notion that there is some underlying strata(?) below the physical from which the physical originates or emerges and upon which the physical sits. This is the metaphysical realm.

-GC

Right, it appears solid because of the way we observe it. In different contexts we receive different information. If Atom Man stood inside the table he would see some kind of rope or chain like structure connecting everything with a great deal of space all around them. It's all still real, however. It all still has shape, it all occupies volume. On the smallest scale everything is made of solid, continuous, three dimensional structures. Don't be fooled by the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, these mathematical structures are just elaborate correlations. They look at experimental results and just think of ways to match them, there is no understanding. They are incapable of providing an interpretation that is not self-contradictory. You don't have to take my word for it, just ask any modern physicist what light IS, and they will be baffled! They'll just write equations. They cannot tell you what light or the electron IS. However, if I ask you,"What IS a ball?" will you show me this:

x2+y2+z2=R2 ?

Or will you show me a ball and measure it all around, illustrating its uniform dimensions? After all, the equation is just a useful conceptualization, but the ball comes first, it's "the real deal". Why show an abstraction when you can just produce the real thing and save a lot of effort? We first had to know what a ball IS before we could write an equation to describe it! Just because I can write equations that match experiment, does not mean I understand a blasted thing about existence! Objects come first, all of mathematics must be derived from objects, else they are just meaningless disconnected symbols that we memorize rules for manipulating.

The physical is just there, it doesn't need to "sit" on anything. It does not need to "originate" from something else. Quantum mechanics is an ad-hoc game of "match the experiment". I should know, I employ it almost daily .

If not on quantum mechanics, what do you base your claim that things "look less real" the smaller we go?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Altonhare,
I am afraid that you will have to wait for a reply as the machine which I have typed it on has just died on me. Luckily I typed it in Notepad so it's not completely lost. However, I've just spent a character building couple of hours re-jigging my network and jury-rigging another machine to the Internet so I'm not in the best of moods. Dash and bother as I said to myself.

[altonhare]

Hi Altonhare,
I am afraid that you will have to wait for a reply as the machine which I have typed it on has just died on me. Luckily I typed it in Notepad so it's not completely lost. However, I've just spent a character building couple of hours re-jigging my network and jury-rigging another machine to the Internet so I'm not in the best of moods. Dash and bother as I said to myself.

Darned gentlemanly of you to let me know, especially in light of how infuriating it is to lose writing.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Inductive reasoning is a way of seeing the answer without linear thinking.
Therefore the answers jump out at you.
The process of thinking is not involved, rather the act of knowing occurs.
You should try it some time. However I warn you half a brain will never pull that off.
It will require a whole brain state.
Maybe you could try some Hemi-Sync CD's and maybe read Mega-Brain.

Imho, what junglelord had described in above as quoted is an enlightenment process. The enlightenment process in an analogy is likened to while one who is stumbling in the dark and wandering in a focused attempt to get out of the jungle, then in unexpected lightning strikes those enigmatic scenarios on what the one was trying to figure out in the darkness are suddenly illuminated, in flashes these render visual clarity for the scenarios in comtemplation; these hard to figure out enigmatic scenarios in darkness are vividly popped out visually at him in a sudden overall illumination momentarily that renders a holistic view for the enigmatic scenarios with pristine clarity. This manner for acquiring an essential knowledge that is required for breaking through is not deduced directly from engagement in a meticulous thinking process, it is induced by enlightenment.



May I ask junglelord is the above analogy appropriate to your descriptions?

[junglelord]

Yes thats right. Very well spoken. Thanks Vincent.
Cheers.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Altonhare,

For one I need to know exactly what you mean by an aspect or facet.

Simply put: part of something larger or greater. A subset. I have a mind and a body.

Don't be fooled by the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, these mathematical structures are just elaborate correlations.

I am never fooled by 'the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics' because I ignore it, as I do with anything which is complicated. [See my signature for further details]

x2+y2+z2=R2 ?

This could have been Sumerian cuneiform for all that it means to me. Rigid, formulaic thinking is anathema to me.

The physical is just there, it doesn't need to "sit" on anything.

Nothing, whether physical or mental is 'just there'. All is cause and effect. Even the Universe came from somewhere. The physical cannot precede the mental surely? Thought must precede action. Taking your defintion of the Universe to be the totality of 'existents', how can a
physical entity (or thing) produce consciousness? If your (or anyone elses) answer to this is that consciousness evolved, then this begs the question of where did the concept of 'evolve' originate?

If not on quantum mechanics, what do you base your claim that things "look less real" the smaller we go?

As far as I am aware, nobody has yet found the basic building block of matter, in the sense of a 'physical' particle or whatever label one wishes to give it. See also images of tics and parasites on insects etc. There are some wierd and wonderful looking creatures down at that
level. If one were shown an artist's drawing of one of these creatures and was asked do you think such a creature lives on Earth, one would answer no. I would wager that these creatures also have smaller creatures living in and on them. Then there is the nano-world (see the
amazing images Junglelord has posted today (on which thread I cannot remmber). And I am using the word 'real' in the sense of 'normal' or 'familiar'or 'according to everyday experience' etc.

[Plasmatic]

Taking your defintion of the Universe to be the totality of 'existents', how can a
physical entity (or thing) produce consciousness? If your (or anyone elses) answer to this is that consciousness evolved, then this begs the question of where did the concept of 'evolve' originate?

The universe cannot have a beginning. universe refers to ALL that exists. The ONLY alternative is non-existence. You cannot get something from nothing. This means that ALL effects and causes are a consequense of existents. Consciousness is an emergent property . When the requisite components are present you have consciousness. Its the same way we "produce" music with the requisite components the notes result.

Where the concept of "evolve" originated has nothing to do with emergent properties of existence.

[Grey Cloud]

The universe cannot have a beginning. universe refers to ALL that exists.

That statement has no logic. You have absolutely no proof that the Universe contains all that exists. You also have no proof that the only options are are exist and non-existence. It is entirely conceivable that there are other states of which we are at present unaware.

Consciousness is an emergent property

Emergent from what - existence? Do you have any proof of this? Can you show me something from which consciousness is emerging; has emerged; or will emerge?

Where the concept of "evolve" originated has nothing to do with emergent properties of existence

.
So where did the 'emergent properties of existence' come from.

"Take some more tea," the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.

"I've had nothing yet," Alice replied in an offended tone, "so I can't take more."

"You mean you can't take less," said the Hatter: "it's very easy to take more than nothing."

Ontology Cafe