Do any philosophies or philosophers refute the "all is mind" position?
I feel like the "all is mind" position is a cop out position or even just laziness. Kind of like with religion; put god outside of perception or somewhere along blurred perceptual lines and now you can't say he's not real because you can't prove it.
Ditto with philosophy; the mind is the limit of perception so you can't prove all is not mind.
Is this it? The end all be all winner of all philosophical debates? Nyah nyah you can't disprove me so I win?
Do we just say all is mind just because it is difficult to disprove?
Or has anyone produced some refutations to all is mind that are just as difficult to disprove as the position they refute?
Ditto with philosophy; the mind is the limit of perception so you can't prove all is not mind.
Is this it? The end all be all winner of all philosophical debates? Nyah nyah you can't disprove me so I win?
Do we just say all is mind just because it is difficult to disprove?
Or has anyone produced some refutations to all is mind that are just as difficult to disprove as the position they refute?
Comments (82)
I think the main appeal of the idea is that the only thing you can be absolutely sure exists is a mind. Namely your mind. So it makes sense to take your start there, and say that mind/consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe out of which everything arises rather than trying to get mind through particles bumping into each other. We haven't been able to do that for so long that the main reason "All is Mind" is springing back up is because it offers a very simple explanation.
Not only that but it makes for a very humbling theory that doesn't stroke mankind's ego, and it removes the constant anxiety that your mom might not be conscious but your couch might be (something you can't actually disprove scientifically until we develop a consciousness-o-metre which doesn't seem like it's happening any time soon).
The idea that an idea has to be proven wrong in order to be wrong is wrong. In order for an idea to even be considered plausible, or worth considering, it must have some justified explanatory power. Can “all is mind” justify its premises? That is question number one. If you cannot answer it affirmatively, there is no need to proceed. If you can, then the next question should be what can it explain better than (insert alternative theory/ies)? Then ask what is left unexplained. Once that is determined, simple arithmetic will decide which idea is best.
Simple, sincere, elegant logic. :strong:
:100: :up:
This is backwards. If you reject every possibility until it can be proven, then you reject everything by default and then have nothing with which to prove anything from, leaving you rejecting everything forever.
The only way to rationally choose between possibilities is to tentatively admit all of them until they can be disproven. That does mean you never end up narrowing down to only one possibility, the definite absolute truth, but it at least gives you somewhere to start and some way to make progress from there, unlike the alternative.
I don’t necessarily mean rejecting, just not accepting without proof/evidence. Isn’t this what a default position should be? I shouldn’t automatically accept every idea I stumble across and then begin the process of disproving them all.
Also, you seem to imply that if a methodology leads to universal nihilism (rejection of everything forever), then the methodology is wrong. This isn’t warranted.
It shouldn’t be. Whether or not an idea is rational should be the criteria for consideration.
Quoting khaled
But my reasoning for this isn’t because of some bias/preference, unless you consider desiring truth to be a preference. The purpose or function of an idea is to explain phenomena. If it isn’t able to do that, why should I entertain it seriously?
I would tentatively choose to believe whichever theory explains more. Admittedly, I’m not an expert on solipsism arguments, but from what I understand solipsism points out a possibility that our current theories of consciousness cannot account for. So at this moment solipsism cannot be refuted, whereas it does point out an obvious issue with our other theories. I’m guessing this is what leads some to agree with solipsism. Where I disagree is that while solipsism is possible, it explains virtually nothing. I fail to see the reasoning in rejecting the evidence used to support other theories of consciousness and what they are able to explain, simply because they cannot explain solipsism. Our theories could be wrong completely, and at the very least need to be revised in order to account for solipsism, but this possibility doesn’t make solipsism true, nor does its inability to be refuted. The issue with solipsism is that it lacks evidence to support it and explanatory power.
Solipsism is a philosophical position.
All philosophical positions require language use.
All language use requires shared meaning.
All shared meaning requires a plurality of creatures.
If solipsism is true there is no such plurality of creatures.
If solipsism is true there is no shared meaning.
If solipsism is true there is no language use.
If solipsism is true there are no philosophical positions.
Solipsism is a philosophical position.
Draw your own conclusion.
:wink:
Think of it as analogous to how we treat behaviors in a liberal society; “doing something” is analogous to “believing something” here. If someone does something differently than you, that doesn’t automatically make them wrong; but neither does it automatically make you wrong. Neither of you has the burden to justify your ways to the other, nor any obligation to do as the other does if you can’t justify doing otherwise. Both ways of doing things are initially to be presumed fine, until something can be shown to be wrong with one; and even when something is found to be wrong with one way, that doesn’t automatically mean that the other way is obligatory, unless the other way is the only other possibility.
Quoting Pinprick
That implication is intended and warranted.
If such nihilism is true, then by its nature it cannot be known to be true, because to know it to be true we would need some means of objectively evaluating claims, so as to justifiably rule all such claims to be false. But the inability to make such objective evaluations is precisely what such a nihilistic position claims; at most, the nihilist can express their opinion that nihilism is true, but to be consistent, must agree to disagree with anyone whose opinion differs about that. In the absence of such a means of objective evaluation, it nevertheless remains an open possibility that nothing is real, or that nothing is moral. But we could only ever assume such an opinion as baselessly as nihilism would hold every other opinion to be held.
In the strictest sense, I agree that there might not be anything real or moral at all. But all we could do in that case is one of two things. We could either baselessly assume that there is nothing real or moral at all, and stop there, simply giving up any hope of ever finding out if we were wrong in that baseless assumption. Or else, instead, we could baselessly assume that there is something real and something moral — as there certainly inevitably seems to be, since even if you deny their objectivity some things will still look true or false to you and feel good or bad to you — and then proceed with the long hard work of figuring out what seems most likely to be real and moral, by attending closely and thoroughly to those seemings, those experiences.
But note that I am not saying to take any particular answer on faith, neither to questions of what is real nor to questions of what is moral. I am saying only to trust that there are some answers or others to be found to all such questions, even if we haven't found them yet. I am not even saying that any such answers definitely will ever be found. I'm not saying that success in the endeavor of inquiry is guaranteed, just to always assume that it is possible rather than (just as baselessly) assuming that it is impossible. I am only saying that we stand a much better chance of getting closer to finding answers, if anything like that should turn out to be possible, if we try to find them, proceeding as though we assume that there is something to be found, than if we just assume that there is not, and don't even try.
Because if you accept nihilism rather than objectivism, then if there is such a thing as the right opinion after all, you will never find it, because you never even attempt to answer what it might be, and you will remain wrong forever.
There might not be such a thing as a correct opinion, and if there is, we might not be able to find it. But if we're starting from such a place of complete ignorance that we're not even sure about that — where we don't know what there is to know, or how to know it, or if we can know it at all, or if there is even anything at all to be known — and we want to figure out what the correct opinions are in case such a thing should turn out to be possible, then the safest bet, pragmatically speaking, is to proceed under the assumption that there are such things, and that we can find them, and then try. Maybe ultimately in vain, but that's better than failing just because we never tried in the first place.
So anything that ends up implying nihilism has to be rejected along with nihilism via modus tollens (if you deny the consequent of an implication you have to deny the antecedent as well). The kind of justificationist methodology I argue against here implies nihilism, so we must reject it. Funny enough, solipsism implies effective nihilism too, so that is also a reason to reject it as well.
Maybe but it is.
Quoting Pinprick
What else could it be?
Right, I agree.
Quoting Pfhorrest
This is true too, until one person begins questioning the other’s behavior, or unless the two behaviors are directly contradictory to each other (although it’s odd to think of behaviors as being contradictory rather than just different), in which case some resolution is needed.
Quoting Pfhorrest
But this can be done by showing how one method is more effective/efficient than the other, not necessarily proving the other method is flawed/wrong. Consider the example of cleaning a sidewalk. One person does so by sweeping it, while another does so by spraying it with water. If one of these people can show that their method of cleaning the sidewalk is more efficient/effective, then that method can be said to be better. Note that this isn’t claiming that the other method is wrong, only that it is less effective/efficient (which is analogous to explanatory power/rational). Also note that this is a more favorable example on your behalf, as both methods of cleaning the street actually accomplish the task. This obviously isn’t always, or even usually, the case with ideas or beliefs. Ideas that postulate an unprovable or indemonstrable premise as an explanation for something (i.e. God) are, precisely because of this, incapable of explaining anything. IOW’s they never accomplish the task they set out to accomplish, and therefore can be disregarded as relevant ideas at all. Put in the context of this current discussion, if the “all minds” theory cannot demonstrate that minds exist, then it cannot use minds as an explanation of anything. Until it is able to do so it isn’t necessary to take the idea seriously by attempting to disprove it, or refute its claims against physicalism. It’s claims are unfounded to begin with. Again, note that this isn’t claiming “all minds” is impossible or wrong, only that it hasn’t shown itself to be possible or correct yet.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I have much to say about this claim as well, but out of respect for the OP, I’ll wait to see if this thread progresses on topic before responding and derailing yet. :smile:
I take it you reject objectivity?
Quoting khaled
An objective objective?
Not necessarily. I don’t know if it exists or not but even if it did there is no point at which we can be sure we have found it so I don’t care if it exists or not.
Quoting Pinprick
Maybe. But how do you know it is so? Assume that somehow a bunch of floating rocks in space can imply that humanity should have a shared objective (which is a pretty big assumption in the first place). How do you know that that objective is “desiring truth”. If there WAS some “script” for proper human behavior somewhere, we can’t see it, we can only assume that things are on it. And you assumed “desiring truth” is on it. You didn’t know that it is. You don’t have a hotline to truth in these matters even if such a truth existed.
You can say “I think this is an objective truth” you can never say “this is an objective truth”. Pretty much everyone that has said the latter has been wrong so far.
Idealism does not fall prey to the Explanatory Gap/Hard Problem of Consciousness, which imo, is catastrophic for materialism at this point in time. Therefore, it's either dualism or idealism, and idealism is more parsimonious: I can be wrong about the existence of matter. I can't be wrong about the existence of mind and thought. Might as well make thought the building blocks of reality, instead of inanimate non-conscious stuff.
This is not solipsism, it is idealism, so long as you understand that others exist and there is a physical world, which everybody interprets slightly differently.
In my view, you go with the logic, otherwise you may end up in fairy land. There is a logic to your sentence, that is difficult to ignore.
If that’s the case, then why fuss over whether or not I’m being objective? If you don’t care, then I don’t see how you can care about obtaining truth at all. And if that’s the case what’s the point of having these discussions? Without accepting objectivity how can either of us determine whom is correct? Am I missing something?
All evidence supports the idea that “mind” is physical. What evidence is there that anything nonphysical exists?
Quoting RogueAI
My brain is both physical and conscious, and is the cause of thought. Why the need to postulate anything more?
Quoting RogueAI
I agree, but what does idealism explain? Even with the assumption that there are nonphysical objects, how do they interact? How do they form/create/become physical objects? What rules govern their motion, size, shape, mass, etc. (or lack thereof)? Materialism isn’t perfect, but I don’t see how it could be wrong about the things it can explain, like the majority of physics. And that counts for something, right?
When did I do that? I didn't utter the word "objective" once before you did. I honestly don't know where you got "So I take it you don't care about objectivity" from.
I just clarified that people don't believe things based on predictive power necessarily but rather that everyone has their own criteria. That is not even in contradiction with there being an "objective criteria" (Again, I can't see how floating rocks can ever imply such a thing but assuming they do), it would just mean that everyone else is wrong if there was such an objective criteria.
IRL people have different criterias, that's all I said.
Quoting Pinprick
I don't. I care about obtaining ideas that seem true. I can't test if they're true or not (because I don't have a hotline to truth) but I can select the ideas that provide the most accurate models. That is my criteria. That is not everyone's criteria. That's all I said.
Quoting Pinprick
By setting up an actually testable standard. For example: Makes the best predictions, Has the fewest words, Most intuitive, etc etc.
When you think of your mind, do you think in terms of physical properties? What color is your mind? What shape is it? What's its volume? What does it smell like? What's it made out of? How heavy is it? These are nonsense questions because your mind isn't a physical thing.
The hardcore materialist would answer that minds = brains, but that certainly doesn't map on to our intuitions, and (more disastrously, since counter-intuitive claims are sometimes true) when you press such materialists on why brains are conscious and how brains are conscious you either get a shrug or nonsense answers like, "you're not really conscious, it's an illusion". Like I said before, it was maybe OK for science to collectively shrug about consciousness 100 years ago, but now? To not even have a framework for answering the question how brains are conscious? To not even have a working definition of consciousness? How does materialism survive such a failure? And if materialism isn't the case then it's either dualism or idealism. I find idealism more parsimonious, but for most of my life I was a dualist, so I get the appeal of it.
A big point for the "cruel marxist verdict" of the unity of theory and practice.
The most direct refutation remains Stove's Gem.
Incidentally, an excellent piece of analytic philosophy, from a pair of authors who probably would not consider themselves classically analytic. And as a bonus they take out Social Constructivism along the way, clean up some of the less palatable post-modernist conclusions drawn from Derrida or Lacan, re-instate ethics in the face of sociobiology, and save Kant from the blame.
It's an article I would make compulsory reading for anyone wanting to post on this forum.
You seemed to me to be claiming that desiring truth is a personal preference, and that therefore seeking truth is biased (as opposed to objective).
Quoting khaled
My point, or argument, is that everyone prefers ideas that seem true, rather than ideas that seem false. Therefore it seems strange to me to consider someone who does so biased (i.e. subjective). Therefore, the most reasonable, and objective, thing to do is to have “whether or not it obtains truth” as a criteria for any methodology. Therefore choosing explanatory power as the best method is objective, because if something explains something else logically and rationally it by definition is true (or at least seems that way). So, if the method you select does not provide the most accurate models, then the method you selected is objectively wrong.
Quoting khaled
But you can’t determine which standard is best without objectivity.
When I think of my mind, I think of my brain. I equate the two, or rather reduce mind to brain.
Quoting RogueAI
By being able to explain everything else. Consider this example. You’re a judge in a murder trial. The prosecutors are able to explain everything about the case except for motive. They have forensic evidence that shows the suspect was at the scene of the crime, the murder weapon in his possession, etc. It is strange that they are unable to account for any motive whatsoever, but in light of everything they can explain that doesn’t give you a read not to convict the suspect. To make the analogy more symmetrical and fair, let’s say the defense provides an explanation for a motive for somebody else. This other person stood to benefit from the victim’s death, and also strongly disliked the victim, had a history of violence, etc. But in a case with many variables, the most rational thing to do is to agree with whichever theory best explains the most variables.
Since when is objective = what everyone prefers? Then nothing is objective. There is nothing everyone who is, ever was, and ever will be, will agree on.
Quoting Pinprick
Notice the "At least seems that way". Very important. So at no point can you actually know it is that way right?
Quoting Pinprick
That much is true but not vice versa. If the method you select does provide the most accurate models it MAY not be wrong.
Quoting Pinprick
Why do you claim the existence of a "Best standard"? If there is such a thing then what is it?
I can understand the claim that there are objective physical laws in the universe. But what makes you think a bunch of rocks floating in space imply some "Objective standards" with which some evolved ape on one of said rocks must debate?
For me objectivity means unbiased. I don’t consider desiring truth to be a bias because it is essentially the entire point of thought itself. This is demonstrated by its universal acceptance. Of course there are disagreements on what is true, or whether truth even exists, but that is irrelevant. No one chooses to believe something because they think it’s false.
Quoting khaled
That a foot is 12 inches, that the correct spelling of “the” in English is t-h-e, that chess is a game, etc., etc. People may mistakenly think otherwise, but that is only due to human error.
Quoting khaled
I only added that to account for different types of “its.” IOW’s it depends on the subject. Facts, such as my above examples, can be known with certainty.
Quoting khaled
So you’re saying the most accurate models could still be wrong? I’m sure that’s true with some things, but I would limit those to only things that are not fully explained.
Quoting khaled
A standard aims to determine something, correct? For instance, to use one of your examples, if the aim is to establish which of two novels has the fewest words, then the best standard would be one that actually counts the number of words. But having “the fewest number of words” as a standard for truth makes no sense, as the number of words is irrelevant to a thing’s truth value.
Quoting khaled
I don’t think that. I don’t think that objective standards are implied by planets. I believe that truth is objective, which isn’t to say that truth exists in all discourses, but just that if truth exists in a particular area of discourse, then it must be objective. I also believe that there are ways to arrive at truth. Therefore, when considering whether or not a particular idea or theory is true, it is necessary to examine it’s methodology, because not all methods are even capable of arriving at truth in the first place. Therefore a standard is needed to determine which methods are capable, and which aren’t. And that standard is explanatory power, because in order for any statement to be true, it must be able to demonstrate how it arrived at that conclusion. IOW’s it must explain something.
And what does this mean exactly? And again, how does one know they’re unbiased (same question as at what point do we know we have reached objectivity)
Quoting Pinprick
Non sequitor. Everyone thinking does not logically lead to the point of thought being truth seeking. When I think about what I’m having for dinner am I seeking to find “the objectively best dinner”?
Quoting Pinprick
So why are we having this conversation?
Quoting Pinprick
That much is true but it leads to none of the rest of the paragraph it’s in
Quoting Pinprick
All of these are statements true by definition. This is not “truth seeking”, this is “truth creating”. If I define socnes as rifheos then it is obvious that socnes is rifheos but no new knowledge has been gained here. Similarly if I define a foot as 12 inches then a foot is 12 inches. No new knowledge has been gained here
Quoting Pinprick
Your above examples aren’t new knowledge. Whether or not quantum physics is the best model for describing the world for example will never be known for certainty. No matter what theory we come up with we cannot know that it is correct, only that it hasn’t been proven incorrect yet.
Quoting Pinprick
Science is empirical. Any theory is immediately incorrect as long as there is an observation that doesn’t match it. Claiming that we have finally reached the “final form” of physics where nothing can be incorrect anymore is unscientific. Empiricism will never reach 100% certainty until time ends and the theory is still not proven wrong
Quoting Pinprick
I’m not following. What’s the truth value of Harry Potter? 27?
Quoting Pinprick
Believe what you want, but if you’re going to keep replaying to me I’ll keep defending my belief that there are no ways to arrive at said truth. Actually let me ask you, how does one arrive at said immutable truth (aside from things that are true by definition)?
Quoting Pinprick
“It must demonstrate how it arrived at the conclusion” =/= equal it must explain something
Let me ask you this then: How many times do we have to throw a ball into the air to be 100% sure Newton’s theory of gravity is making accurate predictions? At how many throws can we know for certain that it is impossible for the next throw to oppose the theory?
If minds are identical to brains and two people from ancient Greece are talking about their minds, it would follow that they're talking about their brains. The problem is that ancient Greeks COULD have meaningful discussions about their mental states. They could NOT have meaningful discussions about their brain states. They were clueless about the brain. They thought it cooled the blood. Because they could exchange meaningful communication about their minds, while at the same time NOT exchange meaningful communication about their brains, brains aren't identical to minds.
That you aren’t letting your personal views (opinions) cloud your judgement, draw inaccurate conclusions, etc.
Quoting khaled
By being able to justify your claims logically, rather than resorting to some preference to do so.
Quoting khaled
Well, that would be a subjective truth, but otherwise yes.
Quoting khaled
Lol, now you’re starting to sound like me.
Quoting khaled
No one believes something because they think it’s false. Therefore, people believe what they think is true. If truth exists, it must have an object that it is describing accurately (some feature of the world, a concept, physical object, etc.). Therefore, any idea/theory that aims at truth must explain something. Therefore the best ideas/theories are those that have explanatory power. What exactly do you disagree with here? Are you claiming that a theory/idea that explains nothing can somehow still be true? If so, please try to give me an example, because I don’t even see how a theory that doesn’t explain anything can even be considered a theory.
Quoting khaled
What if I use these “true by definition” concepts to learn new things? Does that count as knowledge? BTW, those examples were meant to counter your statement that there is nothing that everyone will agree with. But, consider the example of measuring something. I can objectively say it is 12 inches long after I have measured it. I didn’t previously know the length of the object, but now I do, and because I used an objective form of measurement the knowledge gleaned from its use is also objective.
Quoting khaled
Well, at least partially incorrect, but I have no issue with this. But, this doesn’t mean every “theory” has to be disproven to be incorrect. Hitchen’s razor is a good example of what I’m getting at. Some “theories” aren’t really theories at all because they don’t explain anything, or because they simply assert premise(s) arrived at irrationally and draw whatever conclusions happen to follow.
Quoting khaled
See above example of measuring.
Quoting khaled
Once. But, if there are changes in the environment that could have an affect on gravity, then the experiment would need to be conducted under those particular circumstances.
Quoting khaled
One, unless something in the environment has changed. If I hypothesize that I cannot walk through walls, and then proceed to attempt to do so, and fail to do so; then I can accurately say that I cannot walk through walls (at least at this particular time, with walls made out of this particular substance, under these specific circumstances, etc.).
I don’t understand any of what you’re trying to say here, so let’s start at the beginning. First, what is “mind?” Second, what’s the difference between “mind states” and “brain states?”
This assumes that there is some way to have an “impersonal view” which is begging the question. You’re assuming your conclusion.
Quoting Pinprick
Logic is a vehicle of truth but what premises you choose may not be true. I can argue logically that abortion is bad because the fetus is a human being, but that premise “the fetus is a human being” is still opinion. It is still preference. And if you somehow come up with an argument as to why a fetus is a human being then the first premise of that argument must not be necessitated by a fetus being a human being (or else you’d be employing circular logic). So how do you explain THAT premise. You’ll notice that if you do this long enough you’ll eventually reach premises that are not logically explained OR you’ll keep going forever
Quoting Pinprick
2+2=4 explains nothing but is true. So are any ideas that are true by definition.
Quoting Pinprick
Not here. But the next line you probably want to add which is “Therefore people will believe the ideas with the most explanatory power”. That is what I disagree with.
Quoting Pinprick
I would say no. But then again I’m the type of guy that says mathematics produces no new knowledge.
Quoting Pinprick
Bruh you literally followed them up with “People can disagree with this but it would be human error”
Quoting Pinprick
Fair enough but I was thinking more of a physics theory.
Quoting Pinprick
Ok so I now propose to you a theory:
Pens never run out ink
I have just written a line with a pen
Therefore pens never run out of ink. This is now a proven scientific theory that cannot possibly be incorrect
Does that seem right to you? Newton’s laws are also something like this as they claim objects will move a certain way forever. How can you be sure of a theory that states something will be the same for all time.
Quoting Pinprick
But what if there are other variables other than the substance, time, etc that you don’t know about that WOULD let you walk through a wall. As you’ve stated it this is not a theory. “I cannot walk through wall X at time Y with variables A,B,C being equal to this and this and this” is not a theory it’s an observation. A theory generalizes from observations to highlight what variables matter and what are inconsequential. If you do ONE observation you can infer an infinite number of theories. That’s why you definitely need more than one. But even if you do many observations you can still infer an infinite number of theories. Occam’s razor only culls theories that add variables that cannot be changed or tested. If someone proposes that the gravitational constant is affected by how often we pray to God that is a valid testable theory. It’s just that when we pray it won’t change so that would make the theory wrong. However if someone claims that something will happen until the end of time how do you about proving that theory? At what point can you be sure that the proposed theory will actually work for all time?
If you are equating minds and brains, why are you asking me "what is mind?" I gave you an argument that if minds are brains, then talk of minds is talk of brains. This is patently absurd, seeing as how ancient peoples could meaningfully talk about their minds without meaningfully talking about their brains.
If my personal views are irrelevant then I can still have them without them skewing my results. For example, if I’m measuring something, my religious, political, etc. beliefs will not influence my measurement. Therefore, my measurement is objective.
Quoting khaled
If you choose an untrue premise, then the argument isn’t logically sound.
Quoting khaled
Or, you’ll reach a premise that is also factual. Something like this:
Water is a liquid.
All liquids take the shape of their container.
Therefore, water will take the shape of its container.
This argument is logically sound and valid. It is also objective. This is an objective truth.
Quoting khaled
This does explain something. It explains what the value of “2” and “4” is, as well as what it means to add. Also, if this is referring to actual objects, it explains the quantity of those objects, or groups, whichever the case.
Quoting khaled
I’m not trying to make that claim. People are irrational, and will believe whatever they want, or are compelled/forced to believe.
Quoting khaled
If you don’t know how to add, and then you learn how to, don’t you now know something that you previously didn’t? Even counting can lead you to learn something. You don’t know how many pennies are in my pocket. You count them, and now you know. That’s new knowledge.
Quoting khaled
If the point you’re trying to make is that people don’t always believe what is true, then of course I agree. There will likely always be someone that disagrees with everything, but this isn’t an issue with “truth” or “knowledge,” but with humans.
Quoting khaled
I think you should consider the opposite when making theories that presume eternal consistency. For example, you should see what the hypothesis “pens will run out of ink” concludes. Or that “when a force is acted upon an object, that object moves.” The conclusions of these experiments would provide causes. This would lead to the truth that force causes motion. If that is true, then it’s inverse(?) would also be true (that objects do not move unless acted upon by a force).
Quoting khaled
I don’t really know if you can, but if you’ve tested every possible counter theory, and they’ve all failed, then what is left to doubt? But of course that just shifts the issue to knowing when every possible counter theory has been tested. I guess the point is that science isn’t meant to be static, or that 100% certainty isn’t possible (although Decartes’ cogito may be an exception). But does this have any relevance to whether or not explanatory power is the best criteria for judging a theory? Or that theories with no explanatory power must be refuted before they can be considered false?
Because you’re not being understood. I’ll elaborate my confusion:
Quoting RogueAI
What do you mean by talk of brains/minds? Does talk of brains mean talking about things like neurons, synapses, and neurotransmitters? Or does it mean talking about things like thoughts, memories, and ideas? If the former, then no ancient Greeks couldn’t talk about brains, because they had no knowledge of the existence of neurons, etc. If the latter, then of course they could, but that is really talking about the content of brains/minds. Think about a cup of water as an analogy. We can talk about the cup itself, it’s size, shape, material, etc.; and we can talk about its content, the water.
Quoting RogueAI
They could talk about the content of their minds/brains, but not about their brains/minds themselves. But that is only due to their ignorance.
Quoting Pinprick
That is literally all I was saying.
If brains are identical to minds, then talking about brains is the same as talking about minds. If X and Y are identical, then talking about X entails talking about Y, and vice versa. For example, talking about bachelors is, necessarily, talking about unmarried men.
Do you believe brains are identical to minds?
I came to the conclusion that "all is mind" by inference from the modern scientific theory that "all is Information". Einstein determined by theoretical reasoning that Matter is a form of Energy. Then Shannon determined mathematically that Information content can be measured by its degree of Entropy (negative energy). Which means that "Information" is equivalent to positive Energy. Therefore Information = Energy = Matter. Ironically though, the term "Information", prior to the 20th century referred only to the contents of minds, i.e. knowledge & concepts. Hence : Information = Mind.
Unfortunately, the new common usage in high tech has caused many people to forget that "Information" is actually Mind Stuff : ideas, thoughts, imagination, intention, etc. Nevertheless, some cutting-edge scientists have concluded that everything in the universe, both Energy & Matter, is a form of Information. This is not yet a mainstream theory, but it makes sense to me. And it may help to explain how Minds evolved from Energy and Matter.
Years ago, one early quantum physicist exclaimed in surprise, that on the quantum level of reality, particles are "nothing but Information" (i.e mathematical). Look into the works of physicists Paul Davies and Seth Lloyd to see if their conclusions sound like "cop-outs" or new insights into reality. :nerd:
Origin of information :
First recorded in 1350–1400; Middle English infformacion, informacyon “instruction, teaching, a forming of the mind,” from Middle French, Old French informacion, information “criminal inquiry,” from Late Latin inform?ti? “teaching, instruction,” from Latin: “sketch, first draft; idea, conception”; see inform1, -ation
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/information
Everything is Mind Stuff? : So here's the deep question: Is information the ultimate constituent from which the cosmos is constructed?
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html
Is it possible that everything is made of information? : Yes. Some influential physicists, mathematicians, philosophers, strongly theorize that the entire universe is comprised of bits of information.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-everything-is-made-of-information
Why information can't be the basis of reality : A growing number of scientists, Gleick writes, are beginning to wonder whether information "may be primary: more fundamental than matter itself." . . . But the everything-is-information meme violates common sense.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-information-cant-be-the-basis-of-reality/
Note : Science is not based on Common Sense, but on Extraordinary & Exceptional Reasoning.
Good on the equivalence, but more correct to substitute 'mass' for 'matter'. In e=mcc, 'm' is 'mass' and the equation is indeed showing equivalence, not that mass makes energy or vice-versa.
Technically, you are correct, but I was not speaking as a physicist. Mass is indeed an inferred immaterial property or essence of Matter. But humans never experience raw Mass. Like Information and Energy, all of our experiences are with the material containers of properties, qualities, and Information. :joke:
To be specific, I don’t believe minds exist, only brains do. Until some sort of evidence can be presented that shows minds, of the metaphysical/immaterial variety, are even possible of existing, I see no reason to change my belief. I’m always open to the possibility that there is evidence that I’m not aware of, however.
The burden of proof is on the materialists to demonstrate something non-mental.
Nonsense.
Why?
How?
Stove's "Gem" is a bit over my head. But how does he accommodate Einstein's Relativity ?''
Relatvity and Reality : [i]We take our own personal orientation for granted most of the time, (especially when we are overseeing an abstract equation or model of everythingness), but to model everythingness absolutely faithfully, we would need to include this very strange, but very ordinary state of affairs that we know as ‘being here’, or ‘our presence’; consciousness. . . .
It is for this very reason, that purely mathematical approaches to understanding the universe as a whole and consciousness are ultimately doomed. Their rigidity arises from a reference frame which is intrinsically incompatible with the floridly eidetic and creative frame of human privacy.[/i]
https://multisenserealism.com/thesis/7-space-time/relativity/
Note : this site is also above my pay-grade.
Yes. I came to the "all is mind" conclusion from the evidence of Quantum and Information theories. The "hard problem" of how Mind and Consciousness emerged from insentient Matter and amorphous Energy can be explained by applying information theory to Evolution. This is not a religious belief, but a philosophical theory, based on cutting edge science.
If the essence of Energy & Matter is abstract Information, as several physicists have concluded, then we may infer that our world was Enformed by some kind of Mind, and actualized in the Big Bang. My thesis resulted from following such evidence to the conclusion that our Real world is essentially an Idea. But then, a materialistic mind-set cannot "see" essences with the body's eye, so will be incredulous of such nonsense, as "seen" by the mind's eye. :nerd:
To Enform : to give meaningful form to; to create -- as a sculpture from clay or marble
Integrated information theory : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory
Reality is not what you see : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
Then you’d be a robot which I doubt you are. I never get materialists doubting their own consciousness. Not very scientific of you to ignore the most fundamental observation that preceded all others “I, a MIND, exist”. I never get theories that try to say the mind is the brain. You can say the mind is caused by the brain but you can’t say the mind is the brain. As rogueAI said, you can talk meaningfully about minds without knowing how brains work.
The critical point is, that it is not an observation.
I told you already. It's an observation. You disagree. So YOU tell me what you think it is.
Quoting Heiko
I don't see how this makes sense. When did I say "empirical science is the enemy" first of all?
Are you implying that if something is not explained by empricial science it is not an observation? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Empirical science is the attempt at explaining observations. If it can't explain an observation you can't just pretend the observation doesn't exist.
Qualia has yet to be explained by empirical science. That doesn't make it not an observation. It's so weird to me that people would rather pretend that they are zombies than admit that a purely materialistic view of the world doesn't make sense. To be honest it makes me think "Maybe this people really experience no qualia" sometimes. Looking at you daniel dennett.
I am just what wondering that Descartes got famous by stating something obvious. I didn't think that it was meant merely descriptive. Well, you learn...
Quoting khaled
Hmm, as you are talking about ontics there is no difference at all.
I’m not doubting consciousness, only that it derives from “mind” as opposed to brain.
Quoting RogueAI
I’m being sincere, but you seem to have no interest in explaining yourself. You posit minds exist, but can’t or won’t define them. You also can’t or won’t provide evidence of their existence. You seem to have no problem disparaging my comments, but again won’t or can’t explain why. I’m willing to learn about your position and consider it. Are you willing to explain it?
For what it’s worth, if the only reason for believing in minds is that they explain consciousness, then how is this anything more than a “god of the gaps” style argument? “Brains can’t explain consciousness, but minds can, therefore minds exist.” All the while completely overlooking or ignoring the fact that minds themselves require an explanation. Hitchens’s razor seems to dispose of this rather quickly.
I don’t really care about this, but if it were an observation, it would of had to been observed using one of our five senses. “I exist” is arrived at through deductive reasoning. Perhaps you could argue that it is felt or sensed, but Decartes doubted his senses/feelings.
It just occurred to me that my All Is Mind reply above, may have inadvertently explained the essence of Poetry : it expresses immaterial qualities & subjective feelings in real-world concrete terms, thereby giving substance to the insubstantial, and objective form to subjective imagination . 'Poet' comes from a Greek word meaning "to make." Perhaps poetry makes Ideal concepts Real, so others can experience them. N'cest pas? :nerd:
"Like Information and Energy, all of our experiences are with the material containers of properties, qualities, and Information."
I agree that immaterial Mind is the function of Brain matter. But, do you know of a viable theory to explain how Mind & Consciousness & Meaning are "derived from" from mindless Matter, such as neural networks? Where is the latent potential for mental properties located in brain matter? How does that latency transform into manifest mental behavior? :smile:
Mind is just a basic word for whatever goes on inside of a person, as opposed to what we can observe about them from looking at their physical characteristics. At least I think that is how people who disagree with you are defining it. Thought, intellect, feelings, will, memory, impressions. Mind is kind of a catch all word for the combination of all those things. You can claim those things are not all part of a singular thing called a mind, but what appears absurd to many is claiming those things are reducible to matter.
"mind" is the experience of qualia. You cannot explain to someone what the color red looks like without showing them the color red. Even if someone knows everything there is to know scientifically about the color red (it's wavelength, appearances in nature, etc) they will not know what the color red looks like without seeing the color red.
Consciousness is that thing which experiences these qualia.
Both have not been observed by the senses (no one has smelled tasted, seen, touched or heard consciousness yet). Both are definitely noticable in real life (that you experience qualia and that there is a "you" experiencing qualia are things you cannot deny unless you're a philosophical zombie) but have yet to even be approached by the scientific method.
Thanks for clearing that up, at least now I know what I’m arguing against. I would say that to a certain, limited extent, we are able to observe whatever is going on in someone’s “mind.” Granted there is no apparatus that can decipher the precise content of your thoughts, memories, feelings, etc., but we are able to observe that you are or are not conscious, in an emotional state, thinking logically, etc. Being that there is a direct causal relationship between physical brain states, consciousness, and qualia, the evidence points to materialism.
Quoting Yohan
I like to think those things not so much as things, but more like events. They will not reduce to one neuron, or 1,000 neurons. Nor will they reduce to neurotransmitters, hormones, or subatomic particles. The point I think that gets lost is that when a thought occurs, it is the result of very complex interactions that occur within the brain. So to use an analogy, thoughts are like races, as in motorcycle races, not ethnicities. A race isn’t really a physical thing, it’s an event that involves physical objects. When certain physical objects do certain things in certain ways, it’s a race. Same with thoughts, decisions, feelings, etc.
Yeah, because we’re unable to visualize, or imagine particular wavelengths, etc. You can’t hear the color red either, because redness is a strictly visual property. So I don’t see what this proves. Redness is still a physical property, it just can’t be perceived through any medium other than vision.
Quoting khaled
I would say we can observe consciousness when we observe brain activity. We are able to correctly predict whether or not someone is conscious by observing brain states, right?
I’m not “proving” anything. I’m explaining what the word “mind” means.
Quoting Pinprick
Incorrect. Colorblind people will see green when looking at a red object for example. Physical properties include things like “wavelength emitted”, “length”, “mass”, etc. All physical properties can be measured in a way that everyone agrees on the measurement. However color is not like that. Two people can look at the same object and not perceive the same color. They can see the same wavelength is being emitted, but not the same color. That is an example of an object that is identical in physical properties producing different qualia. Another more common example is disagreement on what something tastes like.
Quoting Pinprick
For the same reason as above, color and wavelength are different. Everyone can agree on wavelength without agreeing on color.
Quoting Pinprick
If you’re proposing that consciousness IS brain activity then that is demonstrably false. We have more brain activity while sleeping but we’re not “more conscious”.
Quoting Pinprick
I’m not even sure that’s true and regardless “observing brain states” is different from “observing consciousness”. The former to the latter is like measuring a radio wave vs listening to the channel.
So you’re claiming that when we see color, we’re seeing something immaterial? Care to explain how that works? The fact that people perceive the same phenomena differently has no bearing on whether or not the object is physical. Our sense receptors have varying levels of sensitivity. By and large, that is what causes differences in perception.
Quoting khaled
If true, this is news to me. But regardless, it isn’t as simple as quantifying our brain activity. The particular parts of the brain that are active also play a role. We are able to determine the difference between a brain that is awake, and one that is asleep, right? If so, I would claim whatever that difference is has to relate to consciousness.
Quoting khaled
Perhaps it’s an indirect observation, but how can you be sure that whatever brain activity you’re observing isn’t consciousness itself? If you observe people hitting a tennis ball back and forth across a net, are you observing a game of tennis?
I'm not saying that the object is immaterial. I'm saying that "color" is not a physical property. "wavelength emitted" is. And that the experience of seeing color is fundamentally a different sort of thing from the wavelength that caused that experience.
Quoting Pinprick
And you would be correct. It relates to consciousness. It IS not somehow consciousness.
Quoting Pinprick
Yes but I'm not looking for a game of tennis I'm looking for the sensation of hitting the ball. I can't "observe" that no matter how many tennis matches I watch. I have only been able to observe it by hitting a tennis ball.
I wasn’t trying to either. I meant color.
Quoting khaled
Then how do we see it? Similar to brain states and consciousness, I equate color and wavelength emitted. The emitted wavelength is what we are seeing. Certain emitted wavelengths are red. But the point is that we are not capable of seeing anything that is immaterial. Sight requires photons, which are physical.
Quoting khaled
I worded it that way because that in itself may not be consciousness. I didn’t want to exclude whatever parts of the brain are active during sleep. They may need to be active in addition to whatever parts are not in order to be conscious. So the inactive parts of the brain during sleep relate to consciousness because they are a part of the whole.
Quoting khaled
True, but what makes you think that the sensation of hitting a tennis ball isn’t physical? We can’t experience exactly what others do, and we can’t know exactly how others experience. But I don’t see how this calls into question whether or not what we experience is physical or not. I don’t need to know how you experience seeing a rock to know that it’s physical. We can only experience physical things. Therefore all things experienced are physical. Even if you’re trying to get at experience itself, it still must be physical, because it to is experienced.
So how come you can imagine the color red without any photons entering your eyes?
Quoting Pinprick
To know that the ROCK is physical not the "experience is physical" whatever that means.
Quoting Pinprick
So can I hold "the experience of seeing the color red" in my hand? Or can "the experience of seeing the color red" be propagated through a medium like a wave? Because if the answer is no to both of those questions then what exactly is "physical" about it?
Memory. Because, as you’ve noted, you cannot imagine the color red without seeing it first. So when we imagine it now, we are just remembering or recalling our prior knowledge of what it looks like.
Quoting khaled
No.
Quoting khaled
I’m going to say yes. That is the only way we can experience the color red. If there is no wave, there is no color red.
As I said, you can imagine red. So what you're saying is that color itself is an electromagnetic wave? So if we were to imagine color using memory does that make memroy an electromagnetic wave? What is memory then?
Does memory EMIT an electromagnetic wave (since according to you the color red IS an electromagnetic wave) in your brain that is somehow processed as "red" without going through your eyes? Are you proposing that when I think of red, if you open up my skull you will literally see red, that there will literally be a light with the wavelength of red bouncing around in my head? After all, the experience of the color red and the wavelength of red color is the same therefore people should be able to see that wave from the outside right? You're probably not proposing any of these things but then how exactly does imagination work in your view? How come there can be the experience of the color red without the wavelength red even though they're supposed to be "the same thing"?
If red literally IS the electromagnetic wave then how come the same electromagnetic wave can enter people's eyes and they will report drastically different colors if they're color blind? In that case the wave and the resulting experience of color are different. So they're clearly not the same thing.
A lot of knots are made when someone conflates a mental phenomena with the physical phenoena that causes it.
My point is that our brains interpret the raw data (wavelength) into a form that we are capable of understanding (experiencing). Memory would be the place that data is stored, after it has been interpreted. I don’t know the specific mechanics involved in choosing to think about a certain memory, and then accessing my memory to do so.
Quoting khaled
Well, I wasn’t planning on bringing this up, but I think people tend to overestimate how good our imagination is. What I mean is when we imagine the color red, we really do not see it. We see whatever our eyes are focused on. Nonetheless, there is “something” that happens called imagining, but what exactly that something is is a mystery to me. I would say somehow our brains activate whatever neural networks correspond to the color red which causes us to experience it, minus any actual visual data or context.
Quoting khaled
I agree, but I don’t understand why they both can’t be physical.
A bit of a side note, but do you think consciousness is required to experience qualia? There are animals with no brains, which implies that they are not conscious, which are still able to navigate their environment and discriminate between different types of things (food, mate, etc.).
Well what's the meaning of the word "physical" at that point then? If the experience of color is not something you can hold in your hand and is not a propagating wave or some sort of force or energy what's the point in calling it physical? The word "physical" itself loses its meaning then. People call it immaterial precisely because it is none of the above and so calling it "physical" would make the word itself meaningless.
Quoting Pinprick
I'm not sure but my view is that consciousness is inherent in everything not just brains.
Ironically, Aristotle's definition of "Substance" combined the mental (metaphysical) and material (physical) elements : Form + Matter. But Materialists only recognize the sensory stuff as "real", and ignore the invisible structure or "essence" of reality, that is apparent only to Reason. It's true that human minds cannot "make substance" (matter) directly, but they can and do Enform matter to Conform to imaginary concepts (information) in the mind of the designer.
Poets express intangible concepts by presenting them clothed in familiar forms (material things). As an architect myself, I often imagine unreal things (such as proposed buildings on empty lots) that eventually become real. Of course, that is only a pale imitation of the creativity of a World Enformer. Creation of something that did not exist before, in any form, is the ultimate Difference that makes a meaningful distinction : i.e Information. That's not a religious belief, but a scientific concept, that an ancient pagan philosopher could accept. :cool:
Substance : According to Aristotle, the being of any individual thing is primarily defined by what it is, i.e. by its substance. Substance is both essence (form) and substratum (matter), and may combine form and matter. Substance constitutes the reality of individual things.
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/firstphilosophy.html
Enform : [i]to form, fashion, create new forms of things.
e.g. A sculptor enforms a block of marble into the form of a human body.[/i]
Concept :
[i]1. an abstract idea; a general notion.
2. a plan or intention; a conception.[/i]
Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
The Enformer :
AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. I simply label it "G*D". But Materialists call it "Multiverse".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
PS__In a poem, which is the faux, and which the true substance? Does poetry make any meaningful difference in the world?
I don’t know exactly, but I find it more reasonable to assume that perhaps we aren’t aware of all properties a physical thing can have, as opposed to assuming things must be immaterial. For example, some physical objects have the property of “color,” but others do not. So why couldn’t it be that some physical things have a subjective quality, or property, that allows us to experience them directly? If I’m remembering correctly, Searle may have proposed something similar.
Well the definition of physical has always been: Wave, Force, Or touchable thing. The experience of red is none of those as has been shown. That's why people call it immaterial. If you choose to call it material then the word itself loses its meaning eventually and "Physical thing" just becomes "Thing".