Nothingness: Examining Existence Beyond the Mind

[Paul Martin]

Unfortunately, as you have seen, I do not agree

I don't see it as unfortunate. My purpose was to discover where you and I disagree, and it is fortunate that we have found one such place.

With respect, the purpose of the analogy (which you seem to have interpreted differently) was to show that sometimes we need to dispense with the reductionist approach of looking for an "essence" in order to achieve understanding.

You are correct; I did interpret your analogy differently in an attempt to suit my needs. I fell into the trap of reductionism by assuming that it was the accepted way of analyzing a proposition. I agree that the reductionist approach will not lead to an understanding of consciousness.

The intention of my original analogy of Oxford University was to show that sometimes an entity is more than the sum of its parts, and in some senses exists independently of the existence of ANY of its parts.

With or without your analogy, I agree with you completely on this point. Now, if what you just said applies to Oxford University, then we can conclude that there is something about the entity of Oxford University in addition to the sum of its parts. We would like to know what that "something" is. And, according to what you said, it might be possible that this "something" might exist independently of the existence of ANY of the parts of the University.

So, the next small step I would suggest, is to choose a term to identify that "something". I propose calling it the 'essence'.

In the context of trying to understand human consciousness, I think the very same reasoning should apply. We should consider the possibility that there is some 'essence' of a human being that exists independently of the existence of the physical body. And, I suggest that we consider the possibility that consciousness itself is just such an essence. Finally, I propose that the essence of a human being and the essence of Oxford University are one and the same thing, viz. consciousness.

Now, I don't expect these suggestions will be convincing on their own. But let's suppose that my proposal is true and let me take your comments and see how they fare in light of it.

There is no "essence" of University which causes the various parts to amalgamate into Oxford University.

Let's not be so hasty. Let's suppose that the essence of the University is consciousness and let's consider two different scenarios in which the various parts might amalgamate into Oxford University. The first would be the historical emergence of the institution. The second would be the hypothetical reconstruction you suggested after all the students and faculty died and the campus and documents were destroyed.

I maintain that in both cases, conscious thought, involving images of a future state of the University, strategies and plans for how various parts of that future state might be implemented, and conscious decisions to take actions to actually implement the plans, is the necessary ingredient to cause the successful amalgamation. I think it makes no sense to assume that the University could be instituted and constructed in the absence of consciousness. I think a strong argument could be made that conscious thought is a necessary ingredient for all human artifacts and institutions to come into being. There is less of an argument to be made for consciousness being involved in order for natural structures to come into being, even though I suspect it is true.

So I disagree with you here and say that there is an essence of University which causes it to come into being.

It is also not possible to use reductionist logic to break down the University into its parts without, at the same time, losing the essence of the University.

In my view, this simply boils down to the semantic question of whether you consider consciousness to be a part of the University. If you don't, then you have lost the essence immediately. If you do, then you will find the essence to be one of those parts.

The same, I believe, is true of consciousness (it is impossible to identify an essence of consciousness, and impossible to use reductionism to break down consciousness into its parts without losing the essence of consciousness.

I believe my view fixes this difficulty. If consciousness is the essence of everything else, then we certainly couldn't use reductionism to break down consciousness into its parts because it wouldn't have any parts. As for identifying the essence of consciousness, in my view they are synonyms, so consciousness is its own essence: it is essentially consciousness, in a manner of speaking.

In other words, Oxford University is an emergent property of its parts,

Yes, and a Rolls Royce is an emergent property of its parts (you put a complete set of Rolls Royce parts together and a Rolls Royce emerges). In both cases, consciousness is a necessary ingredient for the successful emergence.

just as imho consciousness is an emergent property of the mind.

Of course you are just as entitled to hold your opinions as I am to hold mine. But I don't understand what you mean by 'mind' and I suspect that I don't understand what you mean by 'consciousness' either. What do you mean by these terms? To me they are synonyms for the capability I have to experience.

Your version seems to suggest that you believe there is still an "essence" of the University, and an "essence" of consciousness?

Not quite. My version is that there is an essence of the University and that essence is consciousness. Consciousness does not have an essence; it IS essence.

Can you make any testable predictions from this hypothesis?

That's a difficult request for a non-scientist. On short notice, I would say that my hypothesis would predict the phenomenon of sleep for which science has yet to provide any explanation whatsoever.

It's fun talking with you, MF

Paul

 

[nameless]

In my view, thought, which I consider to be synonymous with consciousness, is real and exists "outside of" or "apart from" the 4D space-time continuum.

Paul, I'm having a very difficult time corresponding 'thought' with 'Consciousness', and here's why.
'Thought/mind' is ultimately linear (and thereby creates the universe that it 'studies' in it's own image); sequentially correlating concepts, memories, impressions, constructs, categorizing (insidious), processing, computing, analyzing... Basically a bio-computer for processing our 'sensory' data input.
'Consciousness' is the 'ground of the Matrix', (Thought IS the Matrix!) observes but doesn't record, categorize, etc... as that is the property of 'mind'. Consciousness/Awareness just 'is'. Timeless. Wholistic. Non-mechanistic, as mechanism is linear, and that would require temporality. DreaMatrix stuff.
I have tried to remove these 'objectionable qualities' of 'thought' so I could fit it into your hypothetical paradigm, but without all those temporo-physical aspects, there's nothing left of thought (besides a foul smell *__- ). What remains is Consciousness.

I thought, and I now regret thinking so, that the label "namless' world" might be a good identifier to use for the concept of some part of real existence that is "outside of" or "apart from" the familiar phenomenal 4D space-time continuum of physics.

By cracky, that IS my world outside of the 'DreaMatrix'. But 'there', there is no longer a 'me' as I am a part of the 'DreaMatrix'. 'There' is no 'differentiation' for a 'me' to exist independently from 'else'.
Calling 'Ultimate Reality' after me, 'nameless' (a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle thing..) would not only be error, but I don't know if I could stand to continue living with/in my ego! Can't let the 'Devil" lead the Dance! Hahahahah... but thanx.. this lone voice in the wilderness appreciates your recognition. *__-

I am very close to agreeing with what you have said here. One small change I would suggest is to replace the last two words, "our minds", with the singular word 'mind'. That would be consistent with your usage up to those last two words and it would avoid the introduction of the concept of plurality which adds unnecessary complexity at this point. Since I am of the opinion that there is only a single consciousness/mind with its thoughts, I can agree with you as long as mind stays singular.

As, for reasons stated above, I can't accept an 'equivalency of Consciousness and Mind. If you can help me out with your take on mind, perhaps I'll reevaluate my understanding... (Before responding, read below..)
There is no complexity problem if we just drop 'Mind' into the phenomenal category in which, IMHO, it belongs. My mind is my DreaMatrix, your's is your's, and there is 'correspondence' due to the Oneness of Consciousness within which are all 'Matrices'.

You say that "There is no-thing beyond [the 'mind/brain' duality]. No thing. Like matter or space/time." But isn't the brain composed of matter? And isn't the brain extended in space and time? And if you answer 'yes' to these questions, doesn't the rest of the body which supports the brain also exist as matter extended in space and time? And if so, wouldn't that be some matter in space/time which is beyond the 'mind/brain' duality? And if so, wouldn't also the rest of the phenomenal world also exist beyond that duality?

Thats a lot of 'and if so's', and 'taint necessarily so...
Yes, the brain is composed of 'matter', and is of the same 'dreaMatrix' stuff as all apparent 'matter', a 'fiction'.
Yes, the same applies to the body...
No. All matter is phenomenal dream stuff within mind. Mind/brain is not a one came first proposition, they are mutually arising aspects of the same phenomenal 'event'. The brain 'exists' within mind (as does everything else) which 'exists' within the brain. As in the mutually arising phenomena of the chicken and the egg... No 'which came first'...
Ya know, I'm sitting here trying out your one mind hypothesis for size, after all, what the hell do I know? I like the notion of one mind dreaming a bunch of brains and egos, etc... Ok, if we equate Consciousness with Mind, One Mind that functions in the role that I posited for Consciousness, then that Mind 'dreams' a brain that originates 'thought' (at least among some people.. *__- ) in which arrises 'self' and universe... The Dualistic world of phenomenon. Am I close here to your conceptualization? What I was doing was perhaps interbreeding mind and thought. Thought is a function of mind, so is brain, so... An I understanding your view of the elephant??

It seems to me that the obvious fix to this difficulty is to consider the brain to be nothing more than a physical device or instrument.

Necessary for 'thought' and 'creation'.

And, just as we use other instruments like telephones and radios to mediate thoughts among thinkers, we could consider the brain to be totally separate and distinct from the thinker (but of course not from the thoughts just as in the case of telephone or radio).

AAARRRGGGHHHH! Nooooooo! Thought is linear, as above. Perhaps Mind Is, but would be wholistic, non-temporal, as Consciousness, but 'thought' is sequential, as explained above. Otherwise, Mind/Consciousness/Thought would be as limited as the DreaMatrix. That is not my 'experience'. But I think we can 'synthesize' a bit here, no?

As I have said elsewhere, I think Roger Penrose has suggested a model which places all of these ideas in a sensible context. I'll summarize how I see that model:
The original ontological essence is consciousness which for the purposes of this model I will consider to be synonymous with 'mind'. We know such a thing exists, but we don't know what it is, how it exists, how it came to exist, where it is, how it works, etc. We only know what it is like. We have direct experience of it.

To one extent or another... ok so far.

The next step is that we know that consciousness or mind can cause, or produce, or have, thoughts.

How about that the Mind/Consciousness has/creates ego which conceptualizes Duality (a 'me' as distinguished from 'other') which allows a brain (vs not brain) which views this 'created Duality' through its cognitive grid as a 'material universe'? Meditation and other disciplinary practices take us in the reverse direction of realizing 'Oneness' and Consciousness/Mind?

Whether these thoughts are profound or are simply farts, is unimportant at this point. At least we know that there are such "things".

Yes, thoughts are things, Mind is not. So far so good... I think.. My brain is starting to hurt again, though..

Among the thoughts that we notice, are some which could be called Ideas. Others, or maybe they are the same ones as the Ideas, could be called Concepts.

For something to exist in our universe, for us, it must first be conceptualized..

So, at this point in the development of this model, we have consciousness and thoughts. Or equivalently, Mind and Ideas, to be consistent with Penrose's and Plato's terminology.

Thoughts and ideas. I still can't hang with a 'thinking' mind. Much too mundane. Thinking is thought from brain within ego within Mind?

Now, ordinary people would claim that the model so far is incomplete; it doesn't include the phenomenal world of galaxies and quarks. So to include that world, we have to ask what exactly is it? And to our great fortune, science has been working on telling us what it is for a long time now and has some pretty good answers. Science can tell us with great precision how the phenomenal world behaves. But they cannot yet tell us much about what really exists. Penrose is convinced, for example, that QM has no credible ontology ("The Road to Reality", page 860).

Quarks, leptons, antimatter and bananas are all dreaMatrix. QM says that Consciousness must touch the 'possibility waves' of Chaos to collapse them into one of an almost infinite array of potential 'realities' (futures). Consciousness is necessary to 'collapse' a 'possible/probable' information wave into a lepton, quark or banana. It has been said, in QM, that "Consciousness is the Ground of all Being".
There are those classicists who will bridle and exclaim loudly that this is untrue at the macro scale, but that is just the limited vision of the classic physics. Some of the QM greats agree with this interpertation. The rest of the science world is slowly comming into line with the new world view. It takes time. Even hard-line physicists are ruled by emotional needs and processes. So, like atoms, quarks, bananas and our head is in our head! *__- Perhaps the reason classical physicists recoil at this is because it comes to light that the 'ultimate physical reality' that they have dedicated their lives to, that they are emotionally attached to, is all a hologram. All 'fiction'. Smoke and mirrors within 'Mind. Consciousness has had no place in Physics. Now, it will be change or die. There will be lots of emotional, very unscientific, noises from the 'community'! As has always been when a 'light' shineth into the 'darkness', and the 'darkness' freaketh out! hehehe...

If you take the best guesses about the ontology of the Standard Model, or QM, or the various cosmological theories, they are all based on concepts alone. Those concepts fit right in place in my model which I base on Penrose's three "worlds". Those being the Mental world, OK, I CAN DEAL WITH THE MENTAL 'WORLD' the Ideal world WHAT IS THIS?, and the Physical world = DREAMATRIX 'FICTION'. Each causes, or explains, or constructs the next in sequence. And the loop seems to be closed, according to Penrose, by the Physical world causing or explaining the Mental world, i.e. brains cause thoughts. CAUSE AND EFFECT ARE POOR CONSTRUCTS TO USE, THEY ARE NO LONGER OF VALUE WITHIN THE NEW WORLD-VIEW. TWO 'THINGS' ARE MUTUALLY ARISING ASPECTS OF THE SAME 'EVENT'. THERE IS NO TIME.

I depart from Penrose here by breaking the loop at this point and forming a helix instead. That is, when the Physical causes mentality, it does so at a different level. It doesn't make sense to me that it could be at the same level. It doesn't make sense that the Physical world, which was caused by the original Mind could in turn cause the original Mind. NOT MIND, THOUGHTS! But just as we humans can build machines that we can drive, or operate, I think something similar goes on when the physical world leads to another level of mentality. I think the original Mind drives or operates physical structures thus imbuing the structure with the illusion that the structure itself has mental capabilities. LETS NOT EQUATE (CONFUSE) MIND (OMNIVERSAL) WITH 'THOUGHTS', ABSOLUTELY SUBJECTIVE.

I suspect that this helix has made a few turns, so if we are interested in the true ontology of our physical world, we might have to go down a few levels before we hit the ultimate bottom. This, of course, will make Occam shudder in his grave. But, I think no more so than Hubble or Einstein caused him to shudder.

I think that Occam would be very satisfied with our synthesis. All apparently diverse materiality in the omniverse is just a 'dream' of 'thought', 'Mind'... not 'Real', and not a 'problem' any more than our night-time dreams need to be 'considered', studied, weighed and measured and their apparently physical components hypothesized into neat little physics boxes... Uh oh, there go the grants? Hahahahaha...

In summary, according to this model "the whole omniverse, exists solely within [M]ind".

Amen brother.

Sorry for the diversion, but our discussion has brought all this to mind and I am interested in your views of it. I think it fits right in with your views if we get past a few semantic problems.

Such is the nature of synthesis. It has been exceeding rare for me to find another that I can actually hold discourse at this depth and understanding. How do you think that we are doing so far? I feel good, still, that we are describing the same elephant, but your description of your end actually makes sense to me and inspires thought and synthesis.

Originally Posted by nameless
Quaintly put, it is more the 'world of Consciousness', bearing no resemblance to any world of concepts or constructs within mind.

If we are talking about ultimate reality, I agree completely.

What other kind of 'reality' is worth our time and effort?

The only thing that really exists is that one consciousness. The concepts and ideas it conjures up in some temporal dimension are secondary and derivative and they don't resemble the Consciousness. And, any physicality that results from any of those concepts are tertiary at best and ultimately derivative from the single Mind/Consciousness.

You GO grrl! Hahahahahaa. *__-

Originally Posted by nameless
Actually, this 'continuum' (a poor descriptor as it is not 'continuing' nor even has inherent existence) takes no 'space' at all in 'Reality'.

I agree with this completely, although I am not in a position to take on science with their contrary view.

The larger the dinosaur, the harder he dies. But, when the time comes, eventually, die indeed they do! The old scholastic/monastic grant sucking, heavily invested dinosaurs of academe, lumbering along hallowed halls can hear the knell already, and can smell their own extinction if they don't 'grow'. It is human. But, the mud will settle once again, 'till next time when the 'control voice brings you from the inner mind to the Outer Limits'!
<Cue the music..>

I think there is nothing infinite in reality, and thus no continuum. I would love to argue the point, but we crackpots have a hard time engaging real scientists on such a sacred cow issue.

They'll get there. Remember that Sacred Cows still make the best burgers!

Originally Posted by nameless
You will receive no radio program on your radio without a 'corresponding sender'. All within 'Duality' partake of 'dual' nature; in/out, up/down, live/die, sender/receiver, self/other...

From this I suspect you might have missed the 'duality' I intended to illustrate with the radio analogy. The important distinction is not between the radio and the sender, which I admit IS an important distinction in describing the ontology. The important distinction I was trying to make is that between the radio and the program coming out of it. We can ponder that pair in isolation without having any knowledge that there even is a sending station. And if we do, as I suggested in my thought experiment, it would be easy to conclude that the program originates in the radio and that you could never find a program in the absence of a radio. The point I wanted to make is that there is the possibility of a vastly more (ontologically) complex part of the "reality" that is beyond or outside the brain just as there is in the case of the radio and its music.

Gotcha. Thanx for the correction. Works for me!

Nice meeting you, too, nameless. It's good talking with you.

Thank you. I have enjoyed our discussion greatly, thus far. I like the idea of a discussion where the components attempt to understand each other and 'synthesize' instead of an egoic 'debate/argument'. I think that you are the first that I have found on the net where this has happened so 'fluently' and egolessly! Most everyone else, ... been there, done that... nothing of value. I hope that you, too, find some value here.
This is how we all might be able to 'see' the elephant.
Good night..

 

[moving finger]

I don't see it as unfortunate. My purpose was to discover where you and I disagree, and it is fortunate that we have found one such place.

Agreed.

We should consider the possibility that there is some 'essence' of a human being that exists independently of the existence of the physical body. And, I suggest that we consider the possibility that consciousness itself is just such an essence. Finally, I propose that the essence of a human being and the essence of Oxford University are one and the same thing, viz. consciousness.

Interesting, but (you will not be surprised) I am not convinced.

Let's suppose that the essence of the University is consciousness and let's consider two different scenarios in which the various parts might amalgamate into Oxford University. The first would be the historical emergence of the institution. The second would be the hypothetical reconstruction you suggested after all the students and faculty died and the campus and documents were destroyed.
I maintain that in both cases, conscious thought, involving images of a future state of the University, strategies and plans for how various parts of that future state might be implemented, and conscious decisions to take actions to actually implement the plans, is the necessary ingredient to cause the successful amalgamation. I think it makes no sense to assume that the University could be instituted and constructed in the absence of consciousness.

Let's not be so hasty. Yes, we humans have a conscious appreciation of what we (anthropocentrically) believe Oxford University comprises, but I respectfully suggest that one could (in principle) envisage a machine-version of Oxford University (where the faculty and students are replaced by non-conscious machines). This machine-version would of course NOT be identical to the human version (I am not suggesting it would be), and to any human being it would clearly "not be" Oxford University as we (humans) know it.
I would suggest the entity "Oxford University" does not pre-exist as a necessarily and exclusively human artefact in some platonic sense. Rather, the entity "Oxford University" is context-dependent and in fact it is whatever we define it to be. In a non-conscious machine society there could be the equivalent of Oxford University for machines - but no consciousness is involved.

I think a strong argument could be made that conscious thought is a necessary ingredient for all human artifacts and institutions to come into being.

I would probably argue that the "consciousness" in this case is simply a subjective property projected by virtue of the anthropocentric perspective. By definition, any human artefact is associated with humans, humans are conscious, ergo any human artefact is associated with consciousness. I would argue that a machine-equivalent non-conscious version could be postulated in each case.

There is less of an argument to be made for consciousness being involved in order for natural structures to come into being,.

Agreed, for the same reasons as above.

So I disagree with you here and say that there is an essence of University which causes it to come into being.

Yes, to some extent I agree with you. There is in some sense an essence of university, which is not present in anyone of its parts, which is why the university is more than the sum of its parts.

In my view, this simply boils down to the semantic question of whether you consider consciousness to be a part of the University. If you don't, then you have lost the essence immediately. If you do, then you will find the essence to be one of those parts.

Whilst I do now agree that there is some essence of university, I do not agree that it is necessarily consciousness, for the reasons discussed above.

I believe my view fixes this difficulty. If consciousness is the essence of everything else, then we certainly couldn't use reductionism to break down consciousness into its parts because it wouldn't have any parts. As for identifying the essence of consciousness, in my view they are synonyms, so consciousness is its own essence: it is essentially consciousness, in a manner of speaking.

If consciousness is the essence of everything else, does this mean that any concept of an entity existing “without consciousness” is meaningless?

Yes, and a Rolls Royce is an emergent property of its parts (you put a complete set of Rolls Royce parts together and a Rolls Royce emerges). In both cases, consciousness is a necessary ingredient for the successful emergence.

I disagree. A non-conscious machine could in principle "understand" what constitutes a Rolls Royce, and could thereby construct one, without any consciousness being involved.

I don't understand what you mean by 'mind' and I suspect that I don't understand what you mean by 'consciousness' either. What do you mean by these terms? To me they are synonyms for the capability I have to experience.

Without giving too much thought to the definitions, I would say that "mind" is a self-consistent state of rational, coherent, and dynamic information processing that takes place either within a brain or on a brain-equivalent platform, and "consciousness" is the continued sense of identity brought about by the dynamic process of symbolic self-representation that can take place within a mind. Consciousness (to my mind) can therefore (but does not necessarily) take place entirely within a mind, without reference to anything external. “Experience” on the other hand I would define as a property of the conscious mind, it is an interaction of the conscious mind with the outside world, and experiences are the mental and conscious processing and interpretation of sensory data originating external to the mind, and seems to me to be an accidental and non-essential feature of some forms of consciousness.
In other words, consciousness could (in principle) exist without experience, but not experience without consciousness.

I would say that my hypothesis would predict the phenomenon of sleep for which science has yet to provide any explanation whatsoever.

That is interesting. Can you explain how you arrive at the conclusion that your hypothesis would predict the phenomenon of sleep?
With respect
MF

 

[Paul Martin]

I'm pressed for time right now but I will answer your last (and easiest) question.

Can you explain how you arrive at the conclusion that your hypothesis would predict the phenomenon of sleep?

I think it can be inferred from my well-worn car/driver analogy.

I would be willing to bet that right now, while you are reading this, your car is parked. I would also be willing to bet that over half of the cars in the world are also parked right now. Why are all those cars parked?

If we examined the individual parked cars trying to discover why they are parked, we would find a small percentage that were parked for reasons that had something to do with the car itself. For example, some of them are parked because they are out of gas; others because they are being repaired or serviced. But the vast majority of parked cars are in the parking lot simply because they are not being driven. The owner/driver is doing something else which in general has nothing to do with the car.

By analogy, if human bodies are vehicles driven by a single consciousness, it would be reasonable to expect that there might be times when the body simply is not being driven, for reasons having nothing to do with the body. Of course the relentless pressure of entropy requires that the engine of the body remain idling so the body doesn't deteriorate during the interim. This happens to a lesser extent with cars. For example, if a car isn't driven for several years, it is likely to have deteriorated to the point that it won't start.

I think we attach too much importance to these bodies of ours and their activities. I think that in the grand scheme of things, there is a huge amount more going on and it only makes sense to me that the bodies should be parked periodically so that the conscious driver can do something that is maybe more important.

This analogical analysis is, of course, vastly over-simplified. I think that in reality, whatever time-sharing, or multiplexing mechanism accounts for the illusion that a single driver is simultaneously driving billions of bodies, it would make the idea of a driver parking and getting out of a car overly simplistic. But I still think that the general idea applies and makes sleep a plausibly understandable phenomenon.

In contrast to this, we have sleep, which is inexplicably ubiquitous among animals, being IMHO, a huge in-your-face counter-example to the theory of evolution.

Paul

 

[nameless]

Paul, I see bodies, sleeping bodies, beds, leptons.. the whole ball of apparently material wax as solely existing holographically within Mind. I find no paradoxes worth thought in physicality whatsoever. It is Dream, with no more eternal, ultimate 'Reality' than that. Perhaps the metaphoric study of this 'dream' might be fruitful in finding a more Ultimate Reality? I have found value in looking at EVERYTHING as metaphor; me, you, quarks, cars, etc...

'Evolution' becomes an irrelevant concept (when studying 'Ultimate Truths') when the 'illusion of time' is removed from the paradigm, as the 'illusion' that it is (has been found to be).. No time = no evolution. Just another mental construct.

 

[Paul Martin]

I'm having a very difficult time corresponding 'thought' with 'Consciousness'...
'Thought/mind' is ultimately linear...
Consciousness/Awareness just 'is'...
I can't accept an 'equivalency of Consciousness and Mind...
Mind/brain is not a one came first proposition, they are mutually arising aspects of the same phenomenal 'event'...
Thought is a function of mind, so is brain...
thoughts are things, Mind is not...
Thoughts and ideas. I still can't hang with a 'thinking' mind...
NOT MIND, THOUGHTS!...
LETS NOT EQUATE (CONFUSE) MIND (OMNIVERSAL) WITH 'THOUGHTS', ABSOLUTELY SUBJECTIVE.

While I was at the pumpkin patch (an American thing preparing for Thanksgiving) with my granddaughters, I was thinking how to address the difficulties represented in these quotes. My mind began to wander. It occurred to me that if Beethoven and Goethe had a forum like PF, their thread might go something like this.

Goethe: Ludwig, old pal, I have been wondering just exactly what music is. I thought you would be the right person to ask.
Beethoven: Why, yes. I can tell you. Music is a wonderful experience.
G: Yes, yes. That is certainly a feature or a property of music, but I want to know what it is, exactly.
B: Umm. It's a rewarding profession?
G: Yes, but I want to know its ontology. Of what is it ultimately composed?
B: Composed? Oh, that's easy. Being a famous composer myself, I can tell you that music is composed of compositions.
G: Composed of compositions? Don't be ridiculous. That's too circular. It tells me nothing.
B: Well, what do you mean then?
G: Of what is music made? What are its parts?
B: Parts? You mean pieces?
G: Yes. That's it. What are the fundamental pieces of music?
B: Do you want a list of them? There are thousands of pieces of music. I have composed many of them myself.
G: Look, I'm trying to discover the ontology of music. I'm searching for something enduring. Do these pieces of music endure?
B: Well, some of mine have lasted over two hundred years.
G: That's a start. Now are these pieces fundamental? Or are they made of something else as more fundamental constituents?
B: Oh, I see what you're getting at. Yes, all pieces of music, even though they are quite different, are made of notes. That is probably what you are looking for. Right?
G: Yes. Now we're getting somewhere. Music is made of notes. Now, what are notes made of? And how long do notes endure?
B: One question at a time, please. Hmmm. When I compose music, the notes I make are made out of ink. The notes are written on the manuscript.
G: Wait a minute. I know I can hear music...
B: (Speak for yourself)
G: So are you saying that I can hear ink marks on paper?
B: No. No. The notes you hear are tones. The notes on paper simply represent the tones.
G: OK, so we need to figure out which of these types of notes are ontologically fundamental to music. How long do these tones endure?
B: Well, a good tenor can sustain a tone for maybe a few minutes, but a violinist might be able to hold one for an hour or so. We would have to consult Guiness to find out the world record.
G: Never mind looking it up. In any case it wouldn't compare to the longevity of the ink notes which you said can last for centuries. The ink note must be the fundamental essence of music.
B: That's fine with me, because I can't hear anyway. But you can't hear the ink notes so you wouldn't be able to enjoy the music without the tones. Where would they fit in?
G: You're right. Music is something you hear to enjoy and you can't hear ink marks. So how about the tones. Are they made of something or are they fundamental?
B: Tones are made of vibrations.
G: Ah Ha! I think we almost have it. Music is fundamentally vibrations.
B: So is noise. . .

My point is that except for having fun, it is pointless to try to learn anything about Mind/consciousness/thought/awareness/ideas/concepts/etc. by precisely defining terms. We can't precisely define the terms without knowing exactly what is going on. And if we knew exactly what is going on, we wouldn't need to define terms or even discuss it. There would be some value if one of us knew exactly what is going on and he was intent on getting the other guy to understand it. But I don't think that's the case. At least I certainly don't know exactly what is going on.

So my approach (which might just be laziness or cowardice) is to lump all of those terms together as synonyms, not spend too much time trying to differentiate among them, and then posit that they all inhere in a single entity about which I can't say very much. The only thing I would venture to say about it is that it is the only "thing" that those terms apply to, and I doubt very much if it is perfect, infinite, omni...etc.

Brains, on the other hand are something quite different which I think deserve some discussion along with other phenomena that we experience. So with that, I'll proceed to some specifics of your delightful post.

I changed my mind. I'll post this much now and then get to work on the rest. Thanks for your patience.

Paul

 

[nameless]

My point is that except for having fun, it is pointless to try to learn anything about Mind/consciousness/thought/awareness/ideas/concepts/etc. by precisely defining terms.

It seems, though (and I did enjoy being a fly on the wall during Beethoven and Goethe's discussion. T'was all I could not to 'buzz' in! *__-) tha as our understanding deepens and changes thereby, so does the meaning (for us, anyway) of many of the words that we use.

We can't precisely define the terms without knowing exactly what is going on.

But as we learn, the terms take on different shades of meaning. We can fairly 'precisely' offer definitions of the words according to our current understandings.

And if we knew exactly what is going on, we wouldn't need to define terms or even discuss it.

I don't know if it is a need, but I feel 'drawn' to sharing with others the 'treasures' that I have found on my travels. Discussion is one way. Poetry is another. Head speaks to head, heart to heart. Some things, only the head can understand; some things only the heart can encompass!

There would be some value if one of us knew exactly what is going on and he was intent on getting the other guy to understand it.

Hahahaha... I doubt it. Even if one knew exactly 'what is going on', the next person would still argue! Hahahahaha... egos! I still feel that there is benefit in dialog and the attempt to understand the next person in order to more fully understand elephant. This is NOT found in 'debate' and 'argument' however.

So my approach (which might just be laziness or cowardice) is to lump all of those terms together as synonyms, not spend too much time trying to differentiate among them, and then posit that they all inhere in a single entity about which I can't say very much.

I can certainly respect this, but it does make discussion a bit more difficult. If all the blind men describing their portion of the elephant merely said that it was 'warm', incorporating wrinkly, hairy, thick like tree, like snake, etc.. into the one term 'warm', none still would have any better understanding of elephantness.

Brains, on the other hand are something quite different which I think deserve some discussion along with other phenomena that we experience.

True. That might be interesting. Relating to the topic at hand though. *__-

So with that, I'll proceed to some specifics of your delightful post.
I changed my mind. I'll post this much now and then get to work on the rest. Thanks for your patience.
Paul

Take your time, I am enjoying this.

 

[moving finger]

My point is that except for having fun, it is pointless to try to learn anything about Mind/consciousness/thought/awareness/ideas/concepts/etc. by precisely defining terms.

Your fictitious Goethe/Beethoven conversation is very good, and very entertaining – a pity that you stopped at the point where it seemed to be converging on the answer (Goethe suggests music is vibrations, Beethoven counters that so is noise…….).

My conclusion from this is the same as my conclusion from the Oxford University analogy. That pure reductionism does not provide all of the answers. Take apart Oxford University, break it down to its constituent parts, and that does not provide a complete understanding of what Oxford University means. Similarly, take apart music, break it down to its constituent parts, and that does not provide a complete understanding of what music means.

Goethe thinks he can “understand what is music” purely through reductionism – through breaking down the elements of music into their most basic and enduring components. He cannot, any more than one can understand what is Oxford University by breaking down the elements of the university into their most basic and enduring components.

MF

 

[nameless]

Music has many different meanings to many different people.
So turn down your damn car stereo!

 

[moving finger]

Goethe: Ludwig, old pal, I have been wondering just exactly what music is. I thought you would be the right person to ask.
Beethoven: Why, yes. I can tell you. Music is a wonderful experience.
G: Yes, yes. That is certainly a feature or a property of music, but I want to know what it is, exactly.
B: Umm. It's a rewarding profession?
G: Yes, but I want to know its ontology. Of what is it ultimately composed?
B: Composed? Oh, that's easy. Being a famous composer myself, I can tell you that music is composed of compositions.
G: Composed of compositions? Don't be ridiculous. That's too circular. It tells me nothing.
B: Well, what do you mean then?
G: Of what is music made? What are its parts?
B: Parts? You mean pieces?
G: Yes. That's it. What are the fundamental pieces of music?
B: Do you want a list of them? There are thousands of pieces of music. I have composed many of them myself.
G: Look, I'm trying to discover the ontology of music. I'm searching for something enduring. Do these pieces of music endure?
B: Well, some of mine have lasted over two hundred years.
G: That's a start. Now are these pieces fundamental? Or are they made of something else as more fundamental constituents?
B: Oh, I see what you're getting at. Yes, all pieces of music, even though they are quite different, are made of notes. That is probably what you are looking for. Right?
G: Yes. Now we're getting somewhere. Music is made of notes. Now, what are notes made of? And how long do notes endure?
B: One question at a time, please. Hmmm. When I compose music, the notes I make are made out of ink. The notes are written on the manuscript.
G: Wait a minute. I know I can hear music...
B: (Speak for yourself)
G: So are you saying that I can hear ink marks on paper?
B: No. No. The notes you hear are tones. The notes on paper simply represent the tones.
G: OK, so we need to figure out which of these types of notes are ontologically fundamental to music. How long do these tones endure?
B: Well, a good tenor can sustain a tone for maybe a few minutes, but a violinist might be able to hold one for an hour or so. We would have to consult Guiness to find out the world record.
G: Never mind looking it up. In any case it wouldn't compare to the longevity of the ink notes which you said can last for centuries. The ink note must be the fundamental essence of music.
B: That's fine with me, because I can't hear anyway. But you can't hear the ink notes so you wouldn't be able to enjoy the music without the tones. Where would they fit in?
G: You're right. Music is something you hear to enjoy and you can't hear ink marks. So how about the tones. Are they made of something or are they fundamental?
B: Tones are made of vibrations.
G: Ah Ha! I think we almost have it. Music is fundamentally vibrations.
B: So is noise. . .

...
G : yes, then Music must therefore possesses a quality which distinguishes it from mere noise. What do you suppose it could be?
B : Music is a kind of noise which is pleasing to the ear?
G : Now that is perhaps getting closer to the truth. Of course, there are many different ears, therefore we cannot assume that what is pleasing to one ear is necessarily pleasing to all ears, or can we?
B : Yes, you are right there. One has only to look at (listen to?) some of the awful noise that is produced in the name of “pop music” these days. Not a patch on my symphonies of course.
G : But nevertheless still Music?
B : I suppose one could say that. Not pleasing to my ear, but I suppose there are some who enjoy it.
G : Then “Music is in the ear of the listener”, is that it?
B : Just as “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”? Yes, I suppose so.
G : So what do we have…..Music is relative….. one man’s Music is another man’s noise…… and really any audible vibrations could qualify as Music, as long as someone (or something) could claim to enjoy listening to it?
B : Now that is stretching things a bit far…… but I wonder….. hmmmmm…. Have we finally captured the essence of Music?
MF

 

[nameless]

Uh, I could be incorrect, but I thought we were discussing 'existence'?

 

[Paul Martin]

'Thought/mind' is ultimately linear (and thereby creates the universe that it 'studies' in it's own image); sequentially correlating concepts, memories, impressions, constructs, categorizing (insidious), processing, computing, analyzing... Basically a bio-computer for processing our 'sensory' data input.
'Consciousness' is the 'ground of the Matrix', (Thought IS the Matrix!) observes but doesn't record, categorize, etc... as that is the property of 'mind'. Consciousness/Awareness just 'is'. Timeless. Wholistic. Non-mechanistic, as mechanism is linear, and that would require temporality. DreaMatrix stuff.
I have tried to remove these 'objectionable qualities' of 'thought' so I could fit it into your hypothetical paradigm, but without all those temporo-physical aspects, there's nothing left of thought (besides a foul smell *__- ). What remains is Consciousness.

By cracky, that IS my world outside of the 'DreaMatrix'. But 'there', there is no longer a 'me' as I am a part of the 'DreaMatrix'. 'There' is no 'differentiation' for a 'me' to exist independently from 'else'.

It seems clear to me that you and I agree except for some semantic choices. You have studiously categorized the terms 'Mind', 'thought,' 'consciousness', etc. so that some of them refer to the erstwhile "nameless' world", AKA "ultimate reality", and others refer to the temporal/phenomenal world so beloved by science. I attempted to avoid the categorization (and mainly the hard work involved) by simply using all terms in both contexts, but capitalizing them when referring to ultimate reality and using lower case when referring to this mundane world of bodies and beds. It probably remains to be seen which would serve us better in our discussion.

If quantity is any measure, you will notice that my method gives us twice as many terms to use as your method. So, e.g., to me, 'mind' is what you are talking about, being the temporal mental world of an individual human, but 'Mind' is what Gregory Bateson was hinting at by suggesting that the entire universe (I suppose he meant all of reality) is something like a mind. So, I would say, yes, all of reality is in fact a Mind. But this Mind, being different from all those minds, is outside of time and space and furthermore, there is only one of them.

Now, if we may be so bold as to speculate on some of the aspects of what this Mind might be like, then it might be useful to talk about aspects we find in minds and see if it makes sense to extrapolate them to Mind. We might want to take that tack later on.

I like the notion of one mind dreaming a bunch of brains and egos, etc... Ok, if we equate Consciousness with Mind, One Mind that functions in the role that I posited for Consciousness, then that Mind 'dreams' a brain that originates 'thought' (at least among some people.. *__- ) in which arrises 'self' and universe... The Dualistic world of phenomenon. Am I close here to your conceptualization?

Yes, very close. We might differ only in how we imagine that that Mind actually 'dreams' up those things. But I think we both believe it does.

What I was doing was perhaps interbreeding mind and thought. Thought is a function of mind, so is brain, so... An I understanding your view of the elephant??

Yes, except perhaps for the interbreeding part, I think you understand my view of the elephant.

AAARRRGGGHHHH! Nooooooo! Thought is linear, as above. Perhaps Mind Is, but would be wholistic, non-temporal, as Consciousness, but 'thought' is sequential, as explained above.

We don't seem to agree on this idea of 'thought'. On the other hand, I don't have a very clear view of this part of the elephant myself so I can't expect you to agree with me yet.

It might help if I explain some of the difficulty I have in making sense out of my hypothesis and its implications. We start with this one, ultimately fundamental, ontological constituent of reality. I think the name we give it is unimportant, but we could call it 'Mind' for now. I have posited that Mind is conscious. That is, Mind can at least know. If it can know, then it can know something. Again the labels are not significant, but we could call the "something" it knows, 'thoughts' or 'ideas' or 'concepts'. Since the first of these terms evokes capital letters and exclamation points from you, and since you indicated some puzzlement at my use of the second one, let's for the sake of civility call the known things, 'concepts'. And then, adding my capitalization convention, we have our starting point:

In (or near) the beginning, the Mind knew some Concepts.

This immediately raises a question that one of you forced me to think about in another thread: Did the Mind really know the Concepts? Or did the Mind only think it knew the Concepts? A related question, or maybe the same question phrased another way, is, Did the Mind know that it knew the Concept?

In my opinion, this leads to a finite (N.B. not infinite) regress. I would say that the Mind knew that it knew that it knew... that it knew the Concept (for some finite number of 'that it knew's). I think this could only have happened if the Mind was able to remember and recall that Knowledge of the Concept and come to know that, indeed, it knew. This spawns and generates temporality. We have a change for the first time. The Mind went from a state of not knowing to a state of knowing. And following that was a succession of similar changes of state.

Now, with temporality, Consciousness would be able to acquire new talents like noticing, judging, and choosing. These would lead, in turn, to yet new capabilities like imagining, creating, and experimenting. Now we come to the problem that plagues me.

The question is what is the substrate which supports these Concepts (which are known, noticed, chosen, imagined, etc.)? In other words, how exactly does that memory and recall function work?

We could just posit that memory and recall are simply intrinsic capabilities of the Consciousness. After all, if you are positing, why not posit large? But that would have to be some prodigious memory to keep track of, say, all the numbers populating the matrix of the Hilbert space describing what has happened to this world since the big bang. (People who admit infinities wouldn't need to blanch at this problem, but for us finitists, it seems to be a hard problem.)

Instead, my guess is that there have been levels of development, along the lines of the helix I have mentioned before, where a relatively simple primordial Mind actually constructed some sort of memory/recall device simply using primitive Concepts. Then that primitive memory device could be stoked up with much more complex Concepts, including such things as numbers and algorithms, which could in turn, be used to construct or devise an even more powerful and capacious memory/recall device at the next level. These levels are the turns in my helix.

It could be that our phenomenal universe is a virtual reality being played out in the memory of some such device built in some "physicality" one turn of the helix below our own familiar phenomenal physicality. And, being here in this particular physical world, we can even now see that Mind (or minds - I won't argue which at this point) has devised new memory devices (DRAMs, RAMs, etc.) which have been populated with numbers and algorithms which play out virtual realities which the Mind (or minds) enjoy experiencing. (I suspect that in order to make the next complete turn of the helix, most of our entire phenomenal universe will have to be harnessed and connected up into a single giant computer-with-memory, containing all the information about the behavior of this physical universe, and Mind's experience with it, since the BB, and at which time that computer will come up with some much more advanced Concepts which will be used to launch the next round of physicality. Sort of like Teilhard de Chardin and Frank Tipler have suggested. But that's beyond the scope of this post. We're trying to keep it simple.)

So the problem is, what was that very first primitive memory device? It seems to me it can only consist of Concepts because nothing else exists, unless the Mind itself had such a capability. One memory scheme would simply be a delay loop (those were used in some of our earlier computers). With this implementation, Mind would simply endlessly repeat, as in a mantra, or a whale's or a bird's song, some Concept or other. Then as distinctive features of this 'song' (a faint smile comes over Pythagoras' face as he stirs in his grave -- wasn't it he who thought that music was at the root of reality? Or am I thinking of someone else?) are noticed as they pass by the attentive part of Consciousness, the Mind would recognize and remember that feature. Some sort of permanence would have been achieved without the Mind having to constantly attend to, or know about the remembered Concepts.

This isn't very satisfactory, but it gives you some idea of how I see the problem and of my meager attempts at solving it. Any new ideas would be greatly welcomed.

(Incidentally, for those of you who remember me relating an altered state experience in the Dentist's chair under the influence of nitrous oxide, this scenario of how reality all got started is my best recollection of how I remember seeing it. When I woke up from that experience, I distinctly remember having been shown how it all got started and how it works, but I couldn't remember any of the details. I did get the impression, however, that it is within the power of human intellectual activity to figure it out from first principles.)

How about that the Mind/Consciousness has/creates ego which conceptualizes Duality (a 'me' as distinguished from 'other') which allows a brain (vs not brain) which views this 'created Duality' through its cognitive grid as a 'material universe'? Meditation and other disciplinary practices take us in the reverse direction of realizing 'Oneness' and Consciousness/Mind?

Yes. I buy all of that.

Such is the nature of synthesis. It has been exceeding rare for me to find another that I can actually hold discourse at this depth and understanding. How do you think that we are doing so far? I feel good, still, that we are describing the same elephant, but your description of your end actually makes sense to me and inspires thought and synthesis.

Thanks for your kind words. I am greatly enjoying this discussion and I think we are doing well so far. I hope I didn't mess it up by entering the Twilight Zone with this post.

Paul

 

[Paul Martin]

Let's not be so hasty. Yes, we humans have a conscious appreciation of what we (anthropocentrically) believe Oxford University comprises, but I respectfully suggest that one could (in principle) envisage a machine-version of Oxford University (where the faculty and students are replaced by non-conscious machines). This machine-version would of course NOT be identical to the human version (I am not suggesting it would be), and to any human being it would clearly "not be" Oxford University as we (humans) know it.
I would suggest the entity "Oxford University" does not pre-exist as a necessarily and exclusively human artefact in some platonic sense. Rather, the entity "Oxford University" is context-dependent and in fact it is whatever we define it to be. In a non-conscious machine society there could be the equivalent of Oxford University for machines - but no consciousness is involved.

I think you have pointed out another disagreement between you and me. It seems that you believe in strong AI. I definitely do not. I think my conviction comes from my long career working with computers and gaining some familiarity with what they can do and what it takes to get them to do it. I fully realize that there are people with as much experience with computers as I have had who do believe in Strong AI, but that hasn't changed my opinion.

Worse than that, as you must have gathered from these discussions, not only do I believe that computers can't become conscious, I believe that human beings (the biological part) are not conscious either. I think that what appears to be consciousness in us humans is really the Consciousness of a single entity completely separate from the body/brain. I know this is an unorthodox view and that I can't present a compelling case for it, but I mention it just to show you how difficult it would be to convince me that a machine can become conscious when I don't even think an organism can become conscious.

If we changed the rules a little, I might agree that a machine could become conscious. That is if we allowed the machine to be controlled remotely by a conscious operator. If you built such a machine, you might be able to sneak it past the administrator of the Turing Test and it might pass. This is essentially what I think human bodies have done. I think brains are a communication device allowing the brain/body to be operated remotely by the Conscious operator. In fact, if we ever learn enough about the brain to discover how that communication takes place, we might duplicate the device and install it in our robot thus making it just as conscious as we humans seem to be. But, since the robot would still be remotely operated (by the One Consciousness rather than by a human), it would still need that rule change. If you would accept that rule change, maybe we don't disagree on Strong AI after all.

But regardless of that disagreement, it shouldn't stop us from having a reasonable discussion. One or both of us might stand to gain some insight, and even if we don't, I'm sure it will be enjoyable. At least for me, and I hope it can be fun for you as well.

I'm glad you suggested not being hasty. I would like to take this slowly, and savor it piece by piece.

We have been discussing the putative "essence" of Oxford University. Nameless has just opined that he thought we were talking about "existence". I think we were. I think we were asking the question, Is there something that exists which is the fundamental ontological constituent of Oxford University? And if so, what is it?

From what you said about my Beethoven/Goethe piece (BTW thank you for your comments and for completing it. You did much better than I could have.) I think you would agree with me that there is no fundamental "thing" which is the essence of the University. We are talking about a Concept. The University is essentially a Concept, and that Concept involves buildings, grounds, documents, people, traditions, history, etc. But, Concepts can only inhere in minds (Mind). So this moves us into the discussion nameless and I have been having.

The question is, What minds (Mind) are we talking about? If we start with human minds as candidates and ask, Which among them harbor the Concepts that constitute Oxford University?, I think we would have to agree with Wittgenstein (or was it Quine?) who said that to capture the full meaning of any concept, you have to include the total context of everyone who has ever used the language expressing the concept. In other words, the meaning of the term "Oxford University" involves the ideas entertained in the minds of everyone who has ever heard, read, or used that term since it was first coined.

Now, if we agree with that, then my departure from most people comes into play. I say that none of those humans was conscious but instead, the Consciousness which entertained the Idea of 'Oxford University' from the perspective of each of those brains in those human beings, was in all cases the one and only Conscious entity which drives them all. That is simply a direct consequence of my hypothesis of only a single Consciousness in all reality. Now, if you don't buy into my hypothesis, then, we'll just note the disagreement and move on.

But regardless of whether you agree with me or not, I can consider that Consciousness operates vicariously in the various human brains, and Consciousness has the illusion in each case that the individual being driven at the time is indeed conscious. So they appear to conduct themselves exactly as Wittgenstein saw them. They go about communicating with one another, inventing and using words, which are more or less understood for all practical purposes. The notion of 'Oxford University' is sufficiently well understood in order to allow people to visit, or attend, or work there or to talk about it in any number of contexts.

I would say that the same thing happens with individual humans who seem to understand concepts like 'see', 'know', 'think', 'understand', 'feel', 'imagine', etc. well enough to be able to communicate among themselves about certain aspects of mentality. Just as two Mars rovers might 'see' each other, 'know' how to avoid collisions, 'understand' their mission, etc. when in fact, all of those things are really done by the JPL scientist.

So, I think that we might agree that there is no essence of Oxford University except for concepts. I would just add that, in my view, all of those concepts are held in a single Mind, and not in a collection of human minds.

Now, as for the machine-built Oxford University, I would say there are two cases: The first is if you allow the rule change that let's the machines be remotely operated by a conscious operator. In that case, I would say that even though it might not resemble the present Oxford University, you would still get an equivalent, as you say, and there would be no on-site consciousness involved. The second case is if you don't allow the rule change and you disallow conscious involvement altogether. In this case, I am strongly persuaded that a machine University is impossible and can never happen. I don't even think the first robot student will ever reach the point where it would even consider applying for admission. Just my humble opinion.

Now, what about the essence of physical things? Is there some ontologically fundamental stuff of which everything is made? Here again, I would say that it all boils down to concepts. All of the theories of science are, at base, nothing but concepts. Even the fundamental particles are mathematical points with no real substance to them. So if we want a complete explanation of the physical world, and if we have posited a Mind, then the Mind is capable of harboring whatever concepts are required for the physical world to exist and the explanation lacks nothing. But without such a Mind, how can theorists explain how concepts can lead to anything substantial, and how concepts can even exist in the first place? Those seem to be fatal stumbling blocks to me.

If consciousness is the essence of everything else, does this mean that any concept of an entity existing “without consciousness” is meaningless?

It's a little tricky to unravel what you are asking here, but I think I understand the question. Let me make sure.

If, by "an entity existing "without consciousness"", you mean an entity which is not conscious itself, such as a rock, then some concept of that entity, e.g. a concept of the rock, could certainly have meaning to a conscious entity which held that concept. So the answer is 'no', such a concept is not meaningless. It can have meaning to the consciousness which is the essence of everything else.

If, by "an entity existing "without consciousness"", you mean an entity existing in a hypothetical reality in which there were no consciousness at all, then your question has an inherent contradiction making the question itself meaningless. On the one hand, your question takes as a premise that "consciousness is the essence of everything else" and on the other hand stipulates that there is no consciousness at all in this hypothetical reality. That would mean that there is nothing at all in that reality, no concepts, no entities, no anything.

I disagree. A non-conscious machine could in principle "understand" what constitutes a Rolls Royce, and could thereby construct one, without any consciousness being involved.

Yes. We disagree on the possibilities for machines. I think we also disagree on the role and profundity of consciousness, but at least we agree on the severe limitations of reductionism.

Good talking to you, MF

Paul

 

[nameless]

It seems clear to me that you and I agree except for some semantic choices. You have studiously categorized the terms 'Mind', 'thought,' 'consciousness', etc. so that some of them refer to the erstwhile "nameless' world", AKA "ultimate reality", and others refer to the temporal/phenomenal world so beloved by science. I attempted to avoid the categorization (and mainly the hard work involved) by simply using all terms in both contexts, but capitalizing them when referring to ultimate reality and using lower case when referring to this mundane world of bodies and beds. It probably remains to be seen which would serve us better in our discussion.

I still got a problem with 'thought', capitol or small 't', being anything more than a temporal phenomenon born with the omniverse in the Big Bang of the Launching/Creation of the dreaMatrix, but Consciousness/Mind/Awareness can all be 'Reality' in .. 'my' world! *__- Still attempting to locate 'Thought' in 'Here', but no luck so far... I'll keep you posted on developements! Unfortunately, I seem to have waaaay too much thought... 'here'. *__-

If quantity is any measure, you will notice that my method gives us twice as many terms to use as your method.

"If quantity is any measure"... An interesting redundancy.
I, personally, have enough trouble understanding meaning and implications of the 'few' words I use. I roll my eyes at multiplicity and redundancy of words with only slight variation.

So, e.g., to me, 'mind' is what you are talking about, being the temporal mental world of an individual human, but 'Mind' is what Gregory Bateson was hinting at by suggesting that the entire universe (I suppose he meant all of reality) is something like a mind. So, I would say, yes, all of reality is in fact a Mind. But this Mind, being different from all those minds, is outside of time and space and furthermore, there is only one of them.

Hologramic Content of mind = Omniverse?!

Now, if we may be so bold as to speculate on some of the aspects of what this Mind might be like, then it might be useful to talk about aspects we find in minds and see if it makes sense to extrapolate them to Mind. We might want to take that tack later on.

I'm having a poblem here. I started to respond and stopped to think. Mistake!
Now, I am really f**ked!
I seem to be running into 'demons in the machine', so I'm going to go 'Eastern' for a moment and see if that paradigm would provide a 'better' construct.

It is Bindu, undifferentiated potential (UP), perhaps 'within' or perhaps a 'component' or 'aspect' of Consciousness/Mind, that seems to equate to Chaos, or the 'aspect' (of Consciousness) that is equivalent to QM's 'possibility/probability waves'. An immanently pregnant almost limitless sea of possibility, bursting to collapse into one of all possible 'futures' (realities) by the singular focused 'touch' of Consciousness. "The Ground of all Being" is Consciousness/Mind that must 'focus' upon a possibility wave (quanton) in the 'sea' of Bindu (UP).
The 'reality/omniverse' that is thus formed (from the 'union' of Consciousness and Bindu) manifests within 'Mind' 'hologramically'.
A hologram contains all the information for the totality/structure of the hologram in every point within the hologram.
Exactly as http://www.heartspace.org/misc/IndraNet.html" that is also interesting and perhaps relevent.

"We calculate, but that we may calculate, we make fiction first." -Nietzsche

Yes, very close. We might differ only in how we imagine that that Mind actually 'dreams' up those things. But I think we both believe it does.

Perhaps this was a useful construct above? I'm liking it more and more.

In (or near) the beginning, the Mind knew some Concepts.

Amen! I always thought that the relevant portions of the Bible could be rewritten, interperted, according to modern understandings and concepts. No attempt to preserve the origional 'agenda' though, only 'Truth'. Yours is a GREAT beginning! I'd leave out the 'the' of the Mind, and the 'some' though, it weakens the power of the phrase.
"In the Beginning, Mind knew Concepts and the Omniverse was Born.
BANG!
But Ignorance was upon the face of Conceptual Man and he began to Believe."
Leave in a bit of King James' quaint phrasing for poetic and dramatic reasons...
Paul, I think I'm going to try it! I presently am on page 54 of the book that I'm writing, but the damn thing pales before my new project. I might need collaborators (fellow conspirators?)... *__-

This immediately raises a question that one of you forced me to think about in another thread: Did the Mind really know the Concepts? Or did the Mind only think it knew the Concepts?

One of 'me'?
I 'understand' that all that I know is conceptual within mind. I still enjoy the Concepts even though I understand that it is all 'hologramic fiction' within conceptual Mmind (covering all bases! *__- )
Or, put another way, what's the difference? Does it matter whether I am 'really' happy, or just 'think' that I am?

A related question, or maybe the same question phrased another way, is, Did the Mind know that it knew the Concept?

Who is the 'Observer' of 'concept'? Consciousness/Mind? Not necessarily 'knowing' but 'observing'?

In my opinion, this leads to a finite (N.B. not infinite) regress. I would say that the Mind knew that it knew that it knew... that it knew the Concept (for some finite number of 'that it knew's). I think this could only have happened if the Mind was able to remember and recall that Knowledge of the Concept and come to know that, indeed, it knew. This spawns and generates temporality. We have a change for the first time. The Mind went from a state of not knowing to a state of knowing. And following that was a succession of similar changes of state.

I'm seeing unnecessary complications and forays down non-existent rabbit holes. On the other hand, could it be possible that 'Mind' can be 'Mentally' ill? Then it can know that it can know that it can...

Now, with temporality, Consciousness would be able to acquire new talents like noticing, judging, and choosing. These would lead, in turn, to yet new capabilities like imagining, creating, and experimenting.

Nooooooooooo... Consciousness/Mind transcends temporality which is a hologramic construct... within Consciousness. All that temporal stuff, the linearity of thought, for instance, happens within the hologram!

"The function of Mind is as a perceiver, but thoughts find their origin in the 'memory' of Mind's Perception."

"Perception is an active process!" -K.C.Cole, Sympathetic Vibrations

"The true nature of Mind is to perceive in receptive awareness."

"Thought doesn't enhance the joy and beauty of life but only removes one from the 'direct experience' of it."

Now we come to the problem that plagues me.

The question is what is the substrate which supports these Concepts (which are known, noticed, chosen, imagined, etc.)? In other words, how exactly does that memory and recall function work?

Back to the 'material world'? Brain function? Thought? Actually, I lean to the view that all moments are 'created' simultaneously. It is 'awareness'? Consciousness? that 'flits' from already extant moment to moment (like a frog from lilly pad to lilly pad) as the Observer. Our momentary existence comes complete with memories. Every moment. Memories ain't necessarilly related to anything 'real' and thusly, not to be trusted.

We could just posit that memory and recall are simply intrinsic capabilities of the Consciousness. After all, if you are positing, why not posit large? LETS NOT GET SCATOLOGICAL HERE! But that would have to be some prodigious memory to keep track of, say, all the numbers populating the matrix of the Hilbert space describing what has happened to this world since the big bang. (People who admit infinities wouldn't need to blanch at this problem, but for us finitists, it seems to be a hard problem.)

Memory = temporal = not 'Real' .. just another Construct of the Dreamed.

Instead, my guess is that there have been levels of development, along the lines of the helix I have mentioned before, where a relatively simple primordial Mind actually constructed some sort of memory/recall device simply using primitive Concepts. Then that primitive memory device could be stoked up with much more complex Concepts, including such things as numbers and algorithms, which could in turn, be used to construct or devise an even more powerful and capacious memory/recall device at the next level. These levels are the turns in my helix.

I fear you'll find yourself in an 'infinite' loop by your attempt to anthropomorphise that which is 'transcendent' of anthropos and Is the 'matrix' structure within which the concept of anthropos, the dreaming dream, has 'life'.

It could be that our phenomenal universe is a virtual reality being played out in the memory of some such device built in some "physicality" one turn of the helix below our own familiar phenomenal physicality.

Dude, you're too old for those drugs! They could break your brain!

'Occam's Razor' trims away unnecessary complication in the persuit of 'Truth'. 'Truth' has always been accepted as simple (by those who experience it), and any 'complexity' is just an obfuscation created by 'belief' in the 'illusion'...

And, being here in this particular physical world, we can even now see that Mind (or minds - I won't argue which at this point) has devised new memory devices (DRAMs, RAMs, etc.) which have been populated with numbers and algorithms which play out virtual realities which the Mind (or minds) enjoy experiencing.

I would guess that the 'Observer' enjoys observing the Dreams; unless Mind is Mentally ill, which would answer all kinds of questions, by the way! *__-

(I suspect that in order to make the next complete turn of the helix, most of our entire phenomenal universe will have to be harnessed and connected up into a single giant computer-with-memory, containing all the information about the behavior of this physical universe, and Mind's experience with it, since the BB, and at which time that computer will come up with some much more advanced Concepts which will be used to launch the next round of physicality. Sort of like Teilhard de Chardin and Frank Tipler have suggested. But that's beyond the scope of this post. We're trying to keep it simple.)

A little LATE to keep it simple? Hahahahahahaahaha...
Due to the nature of the 'Holoverse' (!) the possible 'expansions' are relatively endless. Whatever Consciousness/Mind wishes to 'find' like some bitty new 'particle', by conceptualizing something to find, the 'sought' is 'brought' into 'material' manifestation. Build a machine to find a 'posited' Hereford shaped 'moo-on', and it will! So the potential permutations are endless. Which is why (OK, now is the time for all you fine classical physicists out there to put your hands over your ears and ignore the rest of this ...'opinion'!) I don't take the 'hard' sciences too seriously (they're like dogs chasing their own tails, always thinking that they are getting closer yet always finding more distance to cover...), except where it intersects 'Truth'. Like QM, and there are still damn few within the QM community that truly understand the 'import' of their own work..

So the problem is, what was that very first primitive memory device? It seems to me it can only consist of Concepts because nothing else exists, unless the Mind itself had such a capability. One memory scheme would simply be a delay loop (those were used in some of our earlier computers). With this implementation, Mind would simply endlessly repeat, as in a mantra, or a whale's or a bird's song I BEG YOUR PARDON! PERHAPS OUR 'BABBLING' SOUNDS LIKE ENDLESSLY REPEATING NONSENSE TO A WHALE OR A BIRD?, some Concept or other. Then as distinctive features of this 'song' (a faint smile comes over Pythagoras' face as he stirs in his grave -- wasn't it he who thought that music was at the root of reality? Or am I thinking of someone else? THE BEATLES?) are noticed as they pass by the attentive part of Consciousness, the Mind would recognize and remember that feature. Some sort of permanence would have been achieved without the Mind having to constantly attend to, or know about the remembered Concepts.

This isn't very satisfactory, but it gives you some idea of how I see the problem and of my meager attempts at solving it. Any new ideas would be greatly welcomed.

Simplify! Simplify. Simplify...
One cannot apply Dream Science to 'Reality' as 'Reality' is not Dream. I fear that your conceptual 'borders' between Dream and Reality are a bit... 'unstable'?

(Incidentally, for those of you who remember me relating an altered state experience in the Dentist's chair under the influence of nitrous oxide, this scenario of how reality all got started is my best recollection of how I remember seeing it. When I woke up from that experience, I distinctly remember having been shown how it all got started and how it works, but I couldn't remember any of the details. I did get the impression, however, that it is within the power of human intellectual activity to figure it out from first principles.)

Nitrous would be effective in reducing the brain's oxygen supply, thereby increasing the CO2 content which opens the 'reducing valve' that limits 'input' a bit. Visions can be experienced. I'd recommend mescaline though as a more effective tool of consciousness expansion (access).
"Better living through chemistry!"
*__-

I hope I didn't mess it up by entering the Twilight Zone with this post.

Hahahahha, dude, I LIVE in the Twilight Zone! Hahahahhaahahah...
Good night...

 

[igot_noid]

I read a great deal of this thread and find it very interesting.

But i have been posed by a question. What is it to exist? (i.e define existence).

And if you do have a fair definition for this (by this i do not mean simple dictionary definitions which always define existence as "the state of existing" etc), then i would be grateful if you could answer this question: What is it to not exist?

Could you please also give me an example of something which does not exist? And I personally believe that doing so is not possible (i.e such a thing can not be comprehended by the human mind). Am I correct in saying this?

Forgive me if my post seems a bit off topic. I am new to the forum, and haven't been able to browse enough to find a thread which does help me.

 

[nameless]

What is it to exist? (i.e define existence).

The philosophers have been battling out this question for millennia.
Would you like a one line answer or two? *__-
I shall offer you one answer (another answer will be an additional $10.00!)thusly; If you can conceive of it, it 'exists' for you. If you have no concept of 'something' it does not 'exist' in your universe.
If you wish to go further and question your own existence, that might take a bit more time (and an extra $50.00!). But, hey, what is more important in life than to find who or what you really are, if anything. The Hindus say that "the purpose of life is 'Self Realization', not self gratification."

What is it to not exist?

'Nothing' is Perfect, just not very interesting!
I have found that there is no difference between 'existence' and 'non-existence'.
Your question, for most, would be faulty, for a non-existant person that would know the answer to your question couldn't possibly answer your query as they do not exist!
Another answer might be; very lonely.

Could you please also give me an example of something which does not exist?

There, want another?
Seriously folks, if I actually gave you an example of something that has previously not existed for you (your first response would probably be to argue with me as so many do, as that item doesn't exist in your world and you would therefore argue that it 'doesn't exist'...), my description will initiate concepts for you and bring the item into existence in your universe.

Forgive me if my post seems a bit off topic. I am new to the forum, and haven't been able to browse enough to find a thread which does help me.

Take off your shoes, wander around, take your time, make yourself at home.. Theres no rush. If you don't find a relevant thread after searching all over, start your own. If it is redundant, someone will surely let you know.
Welcome aboard!
*__-

 

[igot_noid]

Call me stupid… but you seem to have contradicted yourself in each part of the above.

But my humble and inferior mind can understand this from what I read:

- All that which u can conceive exists… in your own perception of the universe. Does that mean that 'nothing', as it self, exists?
- Existence is the same as non-existence and so if taken the way u explained (i.e. without an extra say $20- for input) that means that everything that what you can't conceive also exists?
- However the part about if u described something, would only meant that that already exists in your 'universe'. I am talking about non-existence and existence as a reality. That is existence as what it truly is in the universe, not what it is in ones perception of the universe. Therefore the question i pose to you is: is it possible to define existence (which is something that does exist in my 'universe') in terms of reality and not just ones own perception of reality?

I do not believe you are correct in saying that there are many universes (that is a matter of personal opinion), but only that there are many ways in which people define their universe. In fact (as far as i can tell), there shud only be, by its definition, only one universe.

 

[igot_noid]

btw.. i do not at any stage intend on arguing with you, it is just that i found it difficult to find an answer to my questions in your reply.

also, i am a practicing hindu. *___-

 

[nameless]

…you seem to have contradicted yourself in each part of the above.

And you have a problem with that?
Is 'consistancy' that important to you? More important than 'Truth'? Logic does not = Truth. Do you think that you can 'logically think' yourself into Nirvana? Satori? Think yourself into 'Enlightenment'? Logically? Sequentially? Temporally?
If you are seeking easily digested 'answers' to your 'mountainous' questions, you will be disappointed.

But my humble and inferior mind can understand this from what I read:
- All that which u can conceive exists… in your own perception of the universe. Does that mean that 'nothing', as it self, exists?

Whether or not anything 'exists' independently of mind, is nor can ever be 'known'.
All you can see, hear, etc.. all you think, feel, conceive, everything that you 'perceive' in and as 'your' universe truly exists solely within your mind. There is much modern scientific 'evidence' that seems to support the hypothesis that, no, there is NO-THING 'out there' in front of your nose. This has been well discussed (and argued) elsewhere on this site. Read.

- Existence is the same as non-existence and so if taken the way u explained (i.e. without an extra say $20- for input) that means that everything that what you can't conceive also exists?

Not for you.
If you cannot conceive of it, it cannot exist for you. For example; 'Spirit guides' seem to be very real to those who seriously maintain the 'concept' of their 'reality' inclusive of their conceptualized 'Guides'. Sheerest of nonsense, though, to those who don't have that 'concept' of their 'reality'.

Therefore the question i pose to you is: is it possible to define existence (which is something that does exist in my 'universe') in terms of reality and not just ones own perception of reality?

No.
Yes, but it would be from ignorance.

I do not believe you are correct in saying that there are many universes (that is a matter of personal opinion), but only that there are many ways in which people define their universe.

You certainly aren't alone in your 'belief'. Most people accept their sensory/mental 'evidence' as a true gauge of 'Reality'. Otherwise, they must engage in the difficult and painful practice of 'self' examination. 'Ego' says that you are truly the arbiter of 'Reality' and any differing opinions are simply wrong! After all, the only 'Real' Reality is the one that 'I' percieve! Thence the arguments and the bloodshed

Infact (as far as i can tell), there shud only be, by its definition, only one universe.

Wasn't it you, a few moments ago, who refused to accept a dictionary definition of 'existence'? Yet you (lazily) resort to the dictionary for 'universe'? Was the dictionary written by 'Enlightened Sages'? Google up the terms 'Omniverse', 'Metaverse', 'Multiverse', and after the publication of my book, 'Holoverse'! *__- (****! I just Googled 'Holoverse' and the term is already out there! Figures! Hahahaha...)

btw.. i do not at any stage intend on arguing with you, it is just that i found it difficult to find an answer to my questions in your reply.

If you truly believed that you had a "humble and inferior mind" (and that was not a vapid platitude), of course you wouldn't argue.
No, I'm not interested in argument. It benefits no-one and nothing but ego.
You are asking very weighty questions. If the level of 'difficulty' bothers you, perhaps a different question? 'What makes the sky blue?' 'Where do eclipses come from?' (and no, there is no dark planet Rao between the Earth and the moon!) These are easily answered (superficial) questions. Actually, the more 'superficial' the question, the more easily found and digested the 'answer'. Is it 'ease' that you are truly after? It is not difficult to find a comfortable chair.

You will not find any 'answers' in 'my replies' (perhaps, though, you can find some food for thought), you can find answers, if 'answers' exist, to the 'deeper' questions, within yourself, within your own 'mind'. Use it. Hone it. Perfect it. Then discard it. You cannot 'find' Truth, you 'become' Truth!

Even if I could magically touch your forehead and share all that I Am, I would not deprive you of the inestimable joys and wonder of hard won 'discovery'.
Is that not what life is about?

 

[dubmugga]

slightly off topic but I like the terms NEGAVERSE and ECHOVERSE too...

...one implies a negatively charged universe of equal dimensions between which we flip at superliminal speed and the other implies waves of thought reverberating through many universes

as you were...

 

[nameless]

'Twas A Negaverse Christmas


Twas a Negaverse Christmas and all through the land,
Not an evil thing stirred, like a dead bird in your hand.
Crystals were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that energy would be collected there.
The youma were nestled all snug in their beds,
As visions of energy danced in their heads.
And Zoisite and Malachite, as you might suspect,
Had just settled down for a long winter's neck.<^_^>
When out in the throne room, there arose such a clatter,
Zoey sprang from his lap to see what was the matter.
Malachite soon followed, quick as a flash,
Angry enough to turn someone into a fine hash.
The energy from the dais lent a dim glow,
And barely shed light on what happened below.
When what to the generals' wondering eyes should appear,
But a quite drunken Beryl, and a keg full of beer!
With sleight of hand so cunning, so slick,
She produced Tuxedo Mask, whippity quick!
More rapid than racehorses, she spoke gibberish:
"We've beaten the Scouts! They had a death wish!
I've invited all our friends who aided the fight,
To all come and join us this fine Christmas night!
There's Galaxia, and Fish-Eye, we've got them all!
So come on, get busy, we'll have a big ball!"
As hungry cats set before roomfuls of mice,
They came: didn't have to tell them twice!
To the middle of the bash, the generals they flew,
Zoisite, Malachite, Jedite, and yes, Neflyte too!
Then, they all saw it, by the great hand of Fortuna,
The graces had granted them Sailor Scouts and Luna
They all fainted quickly and by the time they came around,
Their poor ears were ringing with a terrible sound.
Beryl had started cheers and was refilling her stein,
When, from above, there came a moon's shine.
The villains collectively gasped and began to hack,
But Zirconia went further and had a cardiac!
The light: how it twinkled,
It fostered despair
In the hearts of the villains
Who all gathered there.
It was the Moon Princess, with her heart and her wands,
Who had come to liberate Sailor Scouts from their bonds.
She raised her Moon Wand, and in a voice loud and clear,
Yelled, "No Negaverse Christmas this year!"
The villains were worried and they vocalized their peril
For the Negaverse and for the life of Queen Beryl.
"Cosmic Moon Power!" Serenity shouted, sans fear.
And the glimmer of death came uncomfortably near,
But the inebriate Beryl, she lost drunken awe
And without missing a beat, she began to withdraw
The most evil weapon; one might say "It rocked!",
An M-16 rifle, fully loaded and cocked.
She emptied a magazine into the air,
And some of it took off the long, pigtailed hair
Of the Moon Princess as she fell with a thud,
Into a pool of her own lunar blood.
The Queen dropped the rifle and held out her hand.
The Crescent Moon Wand came to her on command.
The youma rejoiced and began to giggle and titter
As the Silver Imperium Crystal began to glitter.
We heard Beryl exclaim as they fade from our sight:
"Merry Christmas to all! Earth will be ours by moonlight!"

Email comments and praise to ThreeLites@aol.com
Send hate mail to billgates@microsoft.com

I'm pretty sure that this will have meaning to someone who will appreciate it. Wiccans?

There are listings for Echoverse, some are from you!
Sillyverse?
Cheese McVerse?
Dubmuggaverse?
*__-

 

[igot_noid]

I must admit i am a great fan of logical reasoning, however am able to accept every thing you attempt to explain (in your own personal abusive way i might add.. btw: do you have many friends?). I really don't think you understand what i am trying to say here (actually i think i just can't word it correct - but hey dnt blame me if english was my second language).

How can non-existence never be able to exist, if i (in my own universe) believe it exists in the first place? What i am saying is that there must be something that doesn't exist because such a thing exists in my head. I understand tha it being in my head is existence in itself, but i dnt believe in this actual thing, just that there is such a thing. (i knw the first thing going in your rather ignorant mind is that "if u did ever find this thing, then it would exist for u in ur own universe", but hypothetically, what if someone else found this, and i had no knowledge of it, but that it exists).

 

[igot_noid]

Oh... yea..Saying i had a "humbler and inferior mind" was just an attempt to satisfy the ever so lasting need of yours to feel superior to others (especially the people whom you don't personally knw). This is clearly shown by the way you speak (or atleast write) in this forum.

 

[nameless]

Oh... yea..Saying i had a "humbler and inferior mind" was just an attempt to satisfy the ever so lasting need of yours to feel superior to others (especially the people whom you don't personally knw). This is clearly shown by the way you speak (or atleast write) in this forum.

Ahhhh, opinions are like... Hahahahahah.. I guess that you are the spokesman for everyone here? And after just being here for a relative few moments? Startling progress you make! Learn to walk at 3 months old? I'm sure that you'd still remember something so recent..

Ahh, so you were being disingenuous in your words, sarcasm..
And I gave you the respect of answering your dishonest crappola as if you were asking an honest question. Silly me. I spoke to you honestly, from the heart. Obviously you are unused to such communication. You must have many 'friends' if honesty and forthrightness mean so little to you.

Congrats, you have wasted my time, but wait.. maybe not? There are lurkers just reading these words that can understand and find value therein.
"Words from the heart find homes in many diverse places. Stones cast from the hand of ignorance find no mark at all!"
If not you, gee, oh well. I spoke to you with the same love and honesty with which I speak to my children, I guess that you are not used to that. A shame. No I don't look down on you, or feel superior. Your youthful insecurity is showing though. Well, if you don't like my apples, young man, just leave the tree alone. So, I won't waste anymore time with you. Good luck with your maturation.
(English is your second language? You do well! Is your first language Australian?)

 

[moving finger]

slightly off topic but I like the terms NEGAVERSE and ECHOVERSE too...
...one implies a negatively charged universe of equal dimensions between which we flip at superliminal speed and the other implies waves of thought reverberating through many universes
as you were...

with respect, all these ideas seem like they originate from the PERVERSE...

MF

 

[igot_noid]

ah yes.. the ever-so ignorant response.

No Hindi was my first language, because i live in Australia does not mean i was born here. Neither does me practicing Hinduism or speaking Hindi mean i was born in India (now I knw you are wondering where I was born, but we'll leave that for you). People move. Things change. Might be hard to believe and understand, but hey.. it happens. Live with it.

And my queries were honest, as were me reading your "honest" replies. I have great respect for you at the philosophical level. However, i do not understand the neccesity of adding quick smirk remarks between each and every well thought out answer. You seem to not want to help people who don't have as great as understanding as you do in philosophy. Quite hyprocritcal i belive, because i am sure at some stage in your life that you were a 'questioner' doing just as such to gain knowledge (perhaps)... (trail of thoughts)

And it is this lack of respect for those wishing to learn which has, in me, aroused a certain dislike for you.

And I gave you the respect of answering your dishonest crappola as if you were asking an honest question. Silly me. I spoke to you honestly, from the heart.

To this you have left me with nothing but to say: heart? what heart?

 

[Divisionbyzer0]

Define 'existence'?
Are you assuming that there is a 'me' to 'have' a mind?
Are you assuming that 'mind' exists?
'Cogito ergo sum' seems like a self-referrential fallacy. Does 'thought' always reflect absolute 'reality'? If not, why assume your 'existence' from thought. We have heard this quote for so long that it is assumed to have validity. Another cognitive fallacy.
What if there were a 'thought' floating through the mists hallucinating a 'Me' and a 'my universe'?

Then couldn't you still be said to "exist", but rather as a "thought" floating throught the mists, as opposed to existing as your conventional perception of "yourself" informs you that you exist.

 

[hypnagogue]

igot_noid and nameless, please keep the discussion civil and relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[nameless]

Then couldn't you still be said to "exist", but rather as a "thought" floating throught the mists, as opposed to existing as your conventional perception of "yourself" informs you that you exist.

Certainly, if you wish to 'expand the definition of 'existence' to include to include the 'temporal', to include the 'constructed' and 'dependent'.
I was (and am) referring to 'inherent' existence. Existence that is self-consistent, self supported, not affected by time, etc... 'Ultimate existence'.

 

[meL]

nameless

STAY :-)

IT is happening right
on "time"
.
.