Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: The doors of perception

  1. #1

    Default The doors of perception

    The doors of perception

    Leibnitz said the mind is like an empty room, if you walked in and looked around you’d see nothing. Perhaps this is its ‘naked’ state, until something occurs in it; the mind is not any of the things we may attribute to thought, but is the vessel to wit thought occurs.

    When something occurs in mind, it could be seen as like we have opened the door and walked into another room. This room is not empty, it contains a situation or an event you are thinking about, or it could contain some aspect of mind like the ego which until its conception had not existed. It may contain entire personas or characters we use in our lives, like the you at work or with your lover.

    We can keep walking into different rooms finding things out about ourselves, first we discover who we are, yet along the way we find rooms we had not considered to be who and what we are. We have broken the mould, the house that man built, in finding ourselves we have discovered someone else also.

    We keep opening doors to new rooms finding new things, we find connecting rooms to another’s mind and find them out to be not who we thought they were, and we are changed. their house it seems also contains more rooms than are visible from the outside.

    Can we keep opening doors without end?
    Do any of our limits ultimately apply, or is the dynamic of the system constantly changing?

    Surely there is no end to how many rooms the mind contains?

    The trick is to keep opening doors.

    Otherwise you are building fortresses of the self ~ an illusion.

    Eventually you will know the world, and then it can no longer keep you. In ignorance we are slaves, in wisdom masters.

    _
    Last edited by Amorphos; July 12, 2012 at 01:40 PM.
    Formerly quetzalcoatl. Proud leader of STW3 and member of the RTR, FATW and QNS teams.

  2. #2
    Diamat's Avatar VELUTI SI DEUS DARETUR
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    My Mind
    Posts
    10,742

    Default Re: The doors of perception

    This post seems rather idealistic. As such, I will relentlessly criticize it.

    Such criticism can easily be found in Marx (I apologize for the German, but I only read Marx in German):
    Keinem von diesen Philosophen ist es eingefallen, nach dem Zusammenhange der deutschen Philosophie mit der deutschen Wirklichkeit, nach dem Zusammenhange ihrer Kritik mit ihrer eignen materiellen Umgebung zu fragen.
    My Translation:
    It occurred to none of these philosophers to search after the connection between the German philosophy with the German reality, to inquire about the connection of their critique with their material environment.
    The point is, you cannot denote an individual for what they denote themselves. The same goes for your own self. Does this mean that you will uncover "Wirklichkeit" (reality) solely inside your mind? No. The reason being: there is no mind "an sich." Your mind is ultimately "wirklich, sinnlich, materiell" (real, sensual, material). In other words, your mind and the thoughts it contains are just as real or material as the tree outside your house. How does the mind come to acquire knowledge? At the most basic level: induction. All that is in our mind was gathered in the material world. There is no mind "an sich," because mind depends on the material world, not only for its life but also as a source of input. Thus, if you, as an individual, want to discover yourself, you will get nowhere by only looking inside your mind. You must connect ideas with "Wirklichkeit."

    Therefore, you can keep opening doors all you want, but what you will actually be doing is "building fortresses of the self--an illusion," as you said. You'll be nothing more than a Young Hegelian attempting to break the barriers which have supposedly been built by his own consciousness, through a critical consciousness.

  3. #3

    Default Re: The doors of perception

    battle begins...

    In other words, your mind and the thoughts it contains are just as real or material as the tree outside your house.
    No my brain is as real ~ I assume you mean ‘material’, as the tree outside my house. My imagination as all my subjective thoughts may create and interpret that reality into any design I want.

    It occurred to none of these philosophers to search after the connection between the German philosophy with the German reality, to inquire about the connection of their critique with their material environment.
    Nietzsche [if not then most contemporary philosophers] would have left that at ‘value systems’, and not attempted to correlate German + philosophy in any way. Philosophy is pretty much universal, and I have yet to find a culture which isn’t actually a composition of other cultures, at least as well as what it individually gleans from all that.

    e.g. my son is currently on holiday in Germany with his school, there they met a German gentleman staying in the same hotel who’s father went to the same English school as my son; small world eh!
    What I mean is that people have always moved around, as have trade and ideas, entire tribes and movements of peoples.

    All that is in our mind was gathered in the material world.
    We don’t know that, though I too would assume much if not all of it originates in the senses. Though what we do with it once in the mind can diverge greatly from that, not to mention that all sensory info is calibrated in the brain and in that is changed into something the consciousness can perceive. This is why we are subjective beings.
    Whatever you think Germany is as a material environment, ‘Germany’ is a subjective interpretation of its material environment. After all if you moved to another country you’d take the subjective idea of Germany with you ~ still probably consider yourself to be ‘German’.

    I submit that it is your opposing philosophy which is building the fortress! Reality is both objective [a bunch of wave patterns] and subjective, your mind is real, even what you imagine has a reality to it in terms of the mind not being something aside from reality. How can something be a non reality, surely there can only be subjective realities that don’t match the objective one outside your window; but there again absolutely every thing you think is subjective and cannot match anything but a perceived holistic reality outside of the brain.

    _
    Formerly quetzalcoatl. Proud leader of STW3 and member of the RTR, FATW and QNS teams.

  4. #4
    Diamat's Avatar VELUTI SI DEUS DARETUR
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    My Mind
    Posts
    10,742

    Default Re: The doors of perception

    Quote Originally Posted by Amorphos View Post
    battle begins...
    This will be an enjoyable debate.

    No my brain is as real ~ I assume you mean ‘material’, as the tree outside my house. My imagination as all my subjective thoughts may create and interpret that reality into any design I want.
    Are you saying that your mind is somehow not material? If it isn't, then what is it?


    Nietzsche [if not then most contemporary philosophers] would have left that at ‘value systems’, and not attempted to correlate German + philosophy in any way. Philosophy is pretty much universal, and I have yet to find a culture which isn’t actually a composition of other cultures, at least as well as what it individually gleans from all that.

    e.g. my son is currently on holiday in Germany with his school, there they met a German gentleman staying in the same hotel who’s father went to the same English school as my son; small world eh!
    What I mean is that people have always moved around, as have trade and ideas, entire tribes and movements of peoples.
    You misunderstand the context of the quote. In this quote, Marx was attacking the dominant philosophy at the time in Germany, which was through and through idealistic. Hence the title of his work, "The German Ideology." Thus, although it may appear very general, it is, in fact, very specific.

    We don’t know that, though I too would assume much if not all of it originates in the senses. Though what we do with it once in the mind can diverge greatly from that, not to mention that all sensory info is calibrated in the brain and in that is changed into something the consciousness can perceive. This is why we are subjective beings.
    We do know. It is my fault, however, for not having clarified what I understand as "material." To a Marxist, material incorporates all aspects of reality, including our force of thinking. Ideas are just as material as anything else. It is only a matter of abstraction that we distinguish one from the other.

    So yes, we are subjective beings. This is a point I never meant to challenge. But at the same time we are also objective beings, that is, we are real, and so are all our thoughts. In fact, all our thoughts are true, even the phantasies of the mind, in that they are real (material). Nevertheless, we may relatively distinguish truth from falsity by reference to an object.

    I submit that it is your opposing philosophy which is building the fortress! Reality is both objective [a bunch of wave patterns] and subjective, your mind is real, even what you imagine has a reality to it in terms of the mind not being something aside from reality. How can something be a non reality, surely there can only be subjective realities that don’t match the objective one outside your window; but there again absolutely every thing you think is subjective and cannot match anything but a perceived holistic reality outside of the brain.
    True! (we actually seem to agree on much; a misunderstanding due to lack of elaboration on my part) But more! Our subjective reality is also objective! Again, our subjective reality is real. It is a unique composition of our physical makeup, the nature of the human brain, and the sensory world--all forming an interaction of relations. Sure, we experience these relations from a unique relational perspective, but this does not make it any less real than from any other perspective. Objective and subjective are really the same. It is only because we are human that we make that distinction to begin with.

    You speak of objective reality as if it were somehow outside of us, separate from us. But what is this objective reality you speak of? Where is it? What is this Ding and sich? Where does it begin and where does it end?

    It is our brain that puts "things" together. It is our brain that creates definite boundaries. In other words, our brain puts together quanta into qualities. Thus the Ding an sich is a human invention. This is not to deny the reality behind a phenomenon, but merely deny that these realities possess the boundaries we ascribe to them outside of our mind.

  5. #5

    Default Re: The doors of perception

    Are you saying that your mind is somehow not material? If it isn't, then what is it?
    Well material probably isnt material [see below] but that’s another debate perhaps? what I meant here is that ideas, patterns, symbols and words can be rearranged endlessly. You could think of all that as morphing chemicals and electrical signals [or software?] if you wanted a material answer, personally I can see how that can be the same thing as what we think [even if somewhat correlative]. I covered some of this on my other threads.

    We do know. It is my fault, however, for not having clarified what I understand as "material." To a Marxist, material incorporates all aspects of reality, including our force of thinking. Ideas are just as material as anything else. It is only a matter of abstraction that we distinguish one from the other.
    Its easy to say that but no-one has ever shown how all our thinking and qualia are in the material. We can show that there is a direct correlation between the two, but you cant equate one within the context of the other, and in that is a very important distinction.

    Objective and subjective are really the same. It is only because we are human that we make that distinction to begin with.
    They are largely the same, not exactly. From birth we build a representative construction or model of the outside world, it is largely accurate in as much as if the brain were a camcorder it would show an image of the world that has some degree of accuracy. Then over time we re-enforce that model over and over so it gains an impressive degree of accuracy ~ though one which can be brought down with a simple optical illusion. Equally language has a lot to do with it, like that tribe in Africa [famous example] which doesn’t see all the same colours we do because they never see them in the world.

    Yea I think we actually see things similarly, but for me it gets more interesting in the fine detail and in the language.

    Objective reality is inside us to - I concur, I meant that there is a difference because the brain is an instrument.
    I also think that there are mental quale which are emergent properties and not physical, equally that the mind itself is as fundamental as energy or dimensions.

    Or to use another language/description, I think everything is information communicating. I have been debating this at other forums and ‘background information’ as part of the holographic principle, also defines the universe similarly; as a holographic representation of info. However science is thinking of only one kind of info [collocative], something similar to affectance - if you’ve heard of it. Anyways this is all going into way to much depth but I just thought I’d present you with this below, so you can just give it a quick browse. Then we can get back to our former considerations about the importance of language, and what is or isn’t ‘physical’.

    ----------------------------------------------------

    Redefining ‘information’

    All things are informations, particles are carriers of such.

    There are many kinds of info;

    Collocative-causal-preserving [particles] [resolves informations in the form of objects]
    Collocative-causal-derivative [originates from direct interactions of forces, objects, dimensions]
    Collocative-causal-cardinal [defines objects, gives aggregate]

    Collocative-causal, non-cardinal-infinite [balancing, preserves fundamental basis]
    Collocative-causal, non-cardinal-infinite-relative [defines and refines boundlessness]

    Collocative-holistic-visual [as images, shapes, forms]
    Collocative-holistic-imagined [visualisations]
    Collocative-holistic-shaped [such as how an animal may imagine a smell]
    Collocative-holistic-tactile
    Collocative-holistic-dimensional [how we envision spatial locations, entities, landscapes]
    Collocative-holistic-gravity [the thing of and the sense of]
    Collocative-holistic-pattern making [DNA, binary code]
    Collocative-holistic-pattern recognition
    Collocative-holistic-cognitive

    Perceptual-collocative-holistic-pattern ~ recognition
    Collocative-non-Perceptual-holistic/all-pattern ~ recognition
    Perceptual-intuitive-circular
    Perceptual-intuitive-creative-originating
    Perceptual-intuitive-derivative-originating
    Intuition-perceptual
    Inspiration-perceptual

    Conceptual, all of the above
    Conceptual, none of the above [where there must be an equivalent factor, in the resolution of the mental with the non-mental] = data.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Sub level

    Intuition-perceptual
    Inspiration-perceptual
    Intuition-non-perceptual, non-mental
    Inspiration-non-perceptual, non-mental
    Causal-circular [derives from existent informations in a returning cycle]
    Causal-derivative-collocative [originates from direct interactions]
    Conceptual-



    _
    Formerly quetzalcoatl. Proud leader of STW3 and member of the RTR, FATW and QNS teams.

  6. #6
    Diamat's Avatar VELUTI SI DEUS DARETUR
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    My Mind
    Posts
    10,742

    Default Re: The doors of perception

    Quote Originally Posted by Amorphos View Post
    Well material probably isnt material [see below] but that’s another debate perhaps? what I meant here is that ideas, patterns, symbols and words can be rearranged endlessly. You could think of all that as morphing chemicals and electrical signals [or software?] if you wanted a material answer, personally I can see how that can be the same thing as what we think [even if somewhat correlative]. I covered some of this on my other threads.
    I feel I am still somewhat misunderstood. I present a monist perspective. I agree that ideas, etc., can be rearranged in an endless fashion. However, this rearranging would be impossible were it not for the material world. Not only does the material world allow the brain to live, it is also a source of data. In fact, our whole bodily structure, including the brain, is specifically designed for this world. You can certainly explore the mind introspectively, but whatever you discover is real, and is ultimately dependent on your bodily composition as well as the composition of the world around you. This is the starting point no human can avoid. Hence, whatever it is you do with your mind, whatever you wish to discover, ultimately possesses a real, material basis, just as real as are your thoughts.

    Its easy to say that but no-one has ever shown how all our thinking and qualia are in the material. We can show that there is a direct correlation between the two, but you cant equate one within the context of the other, and in that is a very important distinction.
    Here lies the crux of our disagreement. It seems as if thinking, to you, is an emergent property somehow different from that which created it? Then again, I must ask, what is it? A substance? Then, where is it?

    But we know thinking is dependent on the material world. How? Because if the brain gets damaged, thinking will be impaired, or if we take drugs, our thinking is altered. Thus, empirically speaking, it would appear that thinking is dependent and therefore, as you would say, "in the material." I see no empirical evidence to think that thinking is somehow different from everything else existing in the absolute sense. And if you would rebut to this by saying, "just because it is dependent does not mean that it is material," then I would once again ask, "what is it, where is it, and how do you know?" I would also point out that if you put water on fire, it will impair the fire, demonstrating that fire is dependent on specific conditions for its existence. If these conditions are taken away, there will be no fire. Is fire, however, somehow not material? No, it is one with everything. It certainly is a unique combination of the manifold, a unique quality, but it is not somehow more than that which conditions it, the material world. For example, a cake may be a special entity, but it is still a combination of the many (dough, fruits, cream, etc.). Just because it becomes something does not negate its conditions on which it depends. And the cake cannot become more than is materially given, that is, the cake cannot develop thinking. Thus, to say that our force of thinking is somehow more than its dependencies is idealistic and has no empirical basis.

    They are largely the same, not exactly. From birth we build a representative construction or model of the outside world, it is largely accurate in as much as if the brain were a camcorder it would show an image of the world that has some degree of accuracy. Then over time we re-enforce that model over and over so it gains an impressive degree of accuracy ~ though one which can be brought down with a simple optical illusion. Equally language has a lot to do with it, like that tribe in Africa [famous example] which doesn’t see all the same colours we do because they never see them in the world.
    Indeed, perceptions differ with differing conditions. Nevertheless, all perceptions are real, material. The very fact that they differ according to differing conditions once again shows us their conditioned nature.

    Yea I think we actually see things similarly, but for me it gets more interesting in the fine detail and in the language.

    Objective reality is inside us to - I concur, I meant that there is a difference because the brain is an instrument.
    But the difference is unmeasurable, because everything non-thinking does not see the universe in boundaries. Our brain creates those boundaries. This is why I pointed out that there is no Ding an sich behind that which we perceive, that is, there is no definite quality behind it, only quantity.

    I also think that there are mental quale which are emergent properties and not physical, equally that the mind itself is as fundamental as energy or dimensions.
    See above.

  7. #7

    Default Re: The doors of perception

    Good mind yoga mate!

    I present a monist perspective. I agree that ideas, etc., can be rearranged in an endless fashion. However, this rearranging would be impossible were it not for the material world. Not only does the material world allow the brain to live, it is also a source of data. In fact, our whole bodily structure, including the brain, is specifically designed for this world.
    If it can be shown that the mind and all its information are purely material, then your monist view is correct. But as I tried to show it is not certain that reality as a whole is only that, so sure our body and brain are material, they glean info from the world, yet they present it to mind and quale which are not physical. Equally the info we think with is not physical, it is mostly correlative to the physical, yet when we consider all that it is plausible that the mind can attain informations from non worldly sources.

    In fact, if you consider the three boxes conundrum [in my what is colour thread] and think of it in terms of info instead of colour quale, then the information we think about is not the same as collocative information ~ physical patterns from the senses and our DNA. If that kind of info is part of us, surely by the same logic as we would have attributed it to the material world, we can now see it as part of a ‘more than physical world’. as the info we think of can correlate with collocative info, and the mind is non material, then whatever our minds belong to [not necessarily a universal mind, because our minds may be emergent properties] can also glean info from other informations e.g in the world. This means it is plausible that we can acquire informations from outside of our immediate being, it means when you meet someone and fall in love, that is not purely internal! [which would be somewhat perverse imho] There is a real element of our being and reality by which we can experience one another. Not to mention intuition, inspiration etc.

    Here lies the crux of our disagreement. It seems as if thinking, to you, is an emergent property somehow different from that which created it? Then again, I must ask, what is it? A substance? Then, where is it?
    It is not a substance anymore than the info you are thinking right now is. It is also not created by that which it is not ~ the material, how can it be? What I am seeing is something passive which is ‘there’ as part of reality just like energy is just kinda ‘there’ and without creation. Both energy and mind have the ability to communicate then information arises and makes effect. Thinking occurs between the material and the immaterial in this manner, so sure when you affect the brain it will limit what the mind can attain from that instrument ~ naturally.

    This connects to the philosophical zombie argument [wiki it if you don’t know it]; the human machine -so to speak, must be able to do all the things the mind wants it to do, therefore the human being can act and does act subconsciously in its own right. There are experiments which show the brain making decisions for us, and yet have you ever noticed that the scientist never go onto state what the consciousness IS doing and what decisions IT is making!!!! Surely they are not claiming that there is no consciousness making any effect whatsoever, at least I have never heard them say that. Something is amiss, no?

    Indeed, perceptions differ with differing conditions. Nevertheless, all perceptions are real, material. The very fact that they differ according to differing conditions once again shows us their conditioned nature.
    It shows us that they are observing the world and learning from it, it doesn’t show us they are specifically conditioned by it, in fact perceptions can be wildly different to realities [to the world given informations] as we both know.

    But the difference is unmeasurable, because everything non-thinking does not see the universe in boundaries. Our brain creates those boundaries. This is why I pointed out that there is no Ding an sich behind that which we perceive, that is, there is no definite quality behind it, only quantity.
    The differences can and have been measured [I think I put some links up on the what is colour thread concerning that, or can otherwise get them for you]. This how science knows that the brain calibrates colour individually and even according to some cultures I.e. according to the way individual instruments/brain read their environment.

    Everything non-thinking does not see nor observe et al ~ something for the anthropic principle there.
    …and no the physical world is the boundaries and is the basis behind our differences of perception, this is the crux of physical subjectivity! hmm you are right that it is quantities rather then qualities, if here you are referring to quale and not physical qualities in the world. Such terms can be somewhat ambiguous so please accept my apologies if misinterpreted.

    nice sig
    _
    Formerly quetzalcoatl. Proud leader of STW3 and member of the RTR, FATW and QNS teams.

  8. #8
    Diamat's Avatar VELUTI SI DEUS DARETUR
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    My Mind
    Posts
    10,742

    Default Re: The doors of perception

    Quote Originally Posted by Amorphos View Post
    Good mind yoga mate!
    Ok, we are getting into the nitty-gritty now, so we might reach a wall we can't climb.


    If it can be shown that the mind and all its information are purely material, then your monist view is correct. But as I tried to show it is not certain that reality as a whole is only that, so sure our body and brain are material, they glean info from the world, yet they present it to mind and quale which are not physical. Equally the info we think with is not physical, it is mostly correlative to the physical, yet when we consider all that it is plausible that the mind can attain informations from non worldly sources.
    I think a barrier to us both here is that we have different philosophical backgrounds, and therefore we make use of different terminology, and even if the terms are the same, they have different meanings to us. So let me do both of us a favor by defining what I mean by "material." "Material" to me can be equated with "phenomenon." It incorporates all aspects of reality, be that an idea or a white blood cell. I never said that whatever is in our mind is physical. All I am saying is that it is material; that there is nothing out of the ordinary with it, i.e., nothing out of this world.


    In fact, if you consider the three boxes conundrum [in my what is colour thread] and think of it in terms of info instead of colour quale, then the information we think about is not the same as collocative information ~ physical patterns from the senses and our DNA. If that kind of info is part of us, surely by the same logic as we would have attributed it to the material world, we can now see it as part of a ‘more than physical world’. as the info we think of can correlate with collocative info, and the mind is non material, then whatever our minds belong to [not necessarily a universal mind, because our minds may be emergent properties] can also glean info from other informations e.g in the world. This means it is plausible that we can acquire informations from outside of our immediate being, it means when you meet someone and fall in love, that is not purely internal! [which would be somewhat perverse imho] There is a real element of our being and reality by which we can experience one another. Not to mention intuition, inspiration etc.
    Once again our different philosophical experiences construct a barrier (what does this tell you about the mind? ). Taking the above definition of "material," why must the mind be somehow outside the material world, that which gave rise to it, that on which it depends for its existence? What empirical basis is there to believe in a mind so separate? Then I pose the same question again, if not in the material world, then where is it? How can there be a separate world? And why would something material combine with something "immaterial"? Why does it need the body? Why does it need the material world? It's almost backtracking the progress philosophy made in the past two centuries and going back to the old mind-body conundrum.

    It is not a substance anymore than the info you are thinking right now is. It is also not created by that which it is not ~ the material, how can it be? What I am seeing is something passive which is ‘there’ as part of reality just like energy is just kinda ‘there’ and without creation. Both energy and mind have the ability to communicate then information arises and makes effect. Thinking occurs between the material and the immaterial in this manner, so sure when you affect the brain it will limit what the mind can attain from that instrument ~ naturally.
    But this is completely speculative. There is no empirical basis. It reminds me of the common unscientific argument: "just because I can't prove it exits, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist; you can't prove that it doesn't exist; the probability is the same."

    However, we do have an empirical basis for my stance. Let me name a few:
    -The mind depends on very specific conditions, material conditions, in order to even exist. The mind's activity appears to be closely correlated with that of the brain.
    -The mind is able to understand the world owing to our physical composition, specifically our sensory organs, which are designed to communicate with our brain to create mental images of the countless quanta surrounding us, subsequently interpreting them as definite qualities.
    -Thinking differs depending on how you were raised, what era you lived in, where you were raised, in short, thinking is conditioned by your surroundings (not uni-directionally, but in interaction with your surroundings). Thinking develops in your life process, standing in relationship with your life process.
    -No oxygen, no humans, no brain, no thought.

    Edit: Here is an excerpt from
    Luigi Francesco Agnati, Diego Guidolin, Pietro Cortelli, Susanna Genedani, Camilo Cela-Conde, Kjell Fuxe, Neuronal correlates to consciousness. The “Hall of Mirrors” metaphor describing consciousness as an epiphenomenon of multiple dynamic mosaics of cortical functional modules, Brain Research, Available online 11 January 2012, ISSN 0006-8993, 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.003. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...899312000418):
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    I found this academic article insightful, since it provided lots of summary of recent scientific developments and research into how consciousness is created. Although we are not quite there yet, there is certainly a plethora of evidence demonstrating a strong correlation between brain activity and consciousness. Unless evidence is found showing that consciousness is somehow out of this world, I see no reason to leave this world.

    This connects to the philosophical zombie argument [wiki it if you don’t know it]; the human machine -so to speak, must be able to do all the things the mind wants it to do, therefore the human being can act and does act subconsciously in its own right. There are experiments which show the brain making decisions for us, and yet have you ever noticed that the scientist never go onto state what the consciousness IS doing and what decisions IT is making!!!! Surely they are not claiming that there is no consciousness making any effect whatsoever, at least I have never heard them say that. Something is amiss, no?
    But there are no zombies. Hence, there is no empirical basis. I see no reason to believe in a consciousness somehow more than the sum of its parts (e.g., a cake developing thinking). This defies all scientific reason.

    The differences can and have been measured [I think I put some links up on the what is colour thread concerning that, or can otherwise get them for you]. This how science knows that the brain calibrates colour individually and even according to some cultures I.e. according to the way individual instruments/brain read their environment.
    Yes, but it is we, we humans, who, due to the nature of our human brainwork, put these into definite qualities with definite boundaries. It is certainly scientifically valid, but it is not true in itself. What I mean is that how do you put boundaries on the infinite? Where do you start and where do you end? What makes a thing a thing? We know that everything in the universe is causally related, meaning that, in a sense, the whole universe is contained in a single grain of dust. Yet, we still distinguish a grain of dust, that is, we turn a quantity into a definite quality. This is what I meant.

    Everything non-thinking does not see nor observe et al ~ something for the anthropic principle there.
    …and no the physical world is the boundaries and is the basis behind our differences of perception, this is the crux of physical subjectivity! hmm you are right that it is quantities rather then qualities, if here you are referring to quale and not physical qualities in the world. Such terms can be somewhat ambiguous so please accept my apologies if misinterpreted.
    Again, I do not deny this physical world, but, as stated above, I deny the definite distinctions we humans make to have an absolute reality to them. They are certainly real, but only relatively. But I think such a discussion would diverge from the central topic.

    nice sig
    Thanks

    And on a final note, it may indeed be a nice thought to think of our mind as boundary-less or without limits. But then we must remember that it is our human limitation that we cannot know the exact boundaries of our mind. If we would know the boundaries, then we could break them. Whatever we can think about, we can think about, and is thus within the scope of our mind. Whatever we cannot think about, we cannot think about, and we cannot know that we cannot think about it, for if we would know that we cannot think about it, we would be able to think about it. Our limits lie with the given, be that the nature of our human brainwork, our physical composition, or the world surrounding us.

    The mind is just as much an experience to us as anything else. Without experiencing the mind, we would not be able to induce about it. But from this data, humans have drawn all sorts of conclusions about the mind. In the process, they have forgotten how they have come to acquire their knowledge of the mind and have consequently ascribed too great a generality to particulars, far beyond the actual empirical basis.
    Last edited by Diamat; July 17, 2012 at 10:28 AM.

  9. #9

    Default Re: The doors of perception

    All I am saying is that it is material; that there is nothing out of the ordinary with it, i.e., nothing out of this world.
    I’d agree, but most people mean the physical and nothing else with such statements. This is a big topic because there could be other levels of reality other than the world ~ but that’s another debate I am sure we’ll enjoy sometime.

    Taking the above definition of "material," why must the mind be somehow outside the material world, that which gave rise to it,
    Because the mind receives info via the body/material [my interpretation lol], that doesn’t mean that’s the only source of info. Indeed as the mind is not made of physical particles and waves, there is no reason to suspect that those things created it ~ they don’t have mind creation properties, they only have information giving properties [what they are].

    What empirical basis is there to believe in a mind so separate? Then I pose the same question again, if not in the material world, then where is it? How can there be a separate world? And why would something material combine with something "immaterial"? Why does it need the body? Why does it need the material world? It's almost backtracking the progress philosophy made in the past two centuries and going back to the old mind-body conundrum.
    I didn’t think that I said or meant that mind and body are separate, they are in a relationship, they communicate. If something e.g. death separates them, then mind no longer has a vehicle to worldly informations. The dichotomy is resolved if we change the terminology in our language, if we see only informations communicating + mind [reality in Buddhist terms], then informations communicating in the world change their relationships all the time, it is no different when they are changed by something I.e. the mind.

    But this is completely speculative. There is no empirical basis. It reminds me of the common unscientific argument: "just because I can't prove it exits, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist; you can't prove that it doesn't exist; the probability is the same."
    Not completely! It is based upon thought experiments, the most contemporary philosophies and science. I don’t like god of the gaps arguments either, but when science changes its stance from e.g. colour is different frequencies of light to, colour is perceptual, then we have to rethink the philosophy. As I say you only need more than one kind of information out there to blow science out the water. Would you say there is only physical patterns? And that is what you are thinking and seeing?

    -The mind depends on very specific conditions, material conditions, in order to even exist.
    Speculation, we cannot prove that mind is purely physical.

    -The mind's activity appears to be closely correlated with that of the brain.
    Agreed. It is in a relationship.

    I found this academic article insightful, since it provided lots of summary of recent scientific developments and research into how consciousness is created. Although we are not quite there yet, there is certainly a plethora of evidence demonstrating a strong correlation between brain activity and consciousness.
    Little to disagree with there, but I maintain my zombie twin argument, where the mind requires a vehicle to act and think in the world, and that vehicle must naturally have the ability to do everything the mind does with it.

    I feel we are miles away when I read your “cake develop thinking” notion. If we do have a non material mind and it used a cake as its vehicle, it wouldn’t achieve much, it would still be a cake. Life is self animating and creates the conditions for a mind to involve its perception and quale with the vehicle, via informations shared by both the vehicle and the mind in a communication of said informations.

    To prove that wrong you have to show how quale, perception and info are in the material [start with my what is colour thread].

    And on a final note, it may indeed be a nice thought to think of our mind as boundary-less or without limits. But then we must remember that it is our human limitation that we cannot know the exact boundaries of our mind.
    I’d say it is our human un-limitedness of mind by which we cannot know the exact boundaries of our mind.

    _
    Formerly quetzalcoatl. Proud leader of STW3 and member of the RTR, FATW and QNS teams.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •