On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[Little Idiot]

When I say "we experience our mental experience", what I mean is that all our experience is mental. The content; mental, the observer; mental, the observed, mental. Its all mental. We have no experience of anything not mental.
So yes; we have our experience which we call mental.
How do you understand experience? (I am rewording the question 'do you agree all experience is mental, which you are seemingly reluctant to answer).

1. You can't show 'the observer' to be 'mental. It is merely one of your axioms.
2. We can define 'experience' to be mental, but what the experience is of is not shown to be mental.

If the experience is mental, then if there is an observer of 'the mental' the observer must also be mental, unless you wish to accept a duality between the mental experience and the supposed non-mental observer.
I do not suggest there is an observer independent of the experience, but at the time of the experience it is experienced by an 'apparent experiencer' and in this sense there is a mental observer.

If the experience is mental, the either
1. the source of the experinces is also mental,
or
2. You have to accept duality between mental experience and non-mental (and unexperienced) 'something' which causes the world. You are basically asserting without foundation that the 'neuoma' are non-mental, and accepting a duality into the bargain - just to say there is a non-mental cause of our mental experience!

Well I did what I think to be a clear explaination of fiction and knowledge when I said in the last post
Some 'knowledge' can be a special class of knowledge; fictional knowledge. If I speak 'klingon'

from star trek, its not a 'real' language spoken by real klingons, but I could comunicate in written or verbal form with another speaker showing some real knowledge content.

A fictional language is not something you can converse with. If you can do that it musty be a real language. If I invent a fictional language Poplosian, without creating a real functional language, it is a fiction. If I design the thing as a functional language then it is a language.

As you say, it's the Klingons that are fictional. The language Klingon is a real language. The history told about the language might be fiction.

If I study the works of fiction, I could write reviews, earn money, and debate with others concerning my knowledge of a fictional subject.

Indeed you could, but it would have absolutely no metaphysical significance, would it? You could write reams of prose about Klingons or Hobbits and the only link between that knowledge and 'reality' would be the fact that the ideas involved would all be rehashing and recombining of ideas acquired from experience.

To try make it more clear;
I dont speak klingon, but lets assume 'Xak ikit tikle' was klingon for 'I speak klingon', then I could say
'Xak ikit tikle' is true.

It is clear enough. If you define a lexicon and grammar and thus define what Xak ikit tikle means then it might indeed be 'true'.
As it is I suspect you just made up some meaningless character strings, in which case it is not 'true'. If you do define the language you can trace the roots of the semantics. Where would that take you, to the world of experience?

We might define an entity lacking all attributes that we experience and understand as faults in ourselves

I am not sure what you mean. can you rephrase for me?

I mean that we experience change, substance, confusion, ignorance etc. We can use those experiences to define an abstract concept of a being that is changeless, immaterial, omniscient etc. We aren't identifying real attributes of a real being, we are merely defining what this being would not be. Such thinking doesn't transcend experience, it is a fiction based on experience.

I have not suggested the absolute reality is "a <insert any word>" and certainally not "a being"
Infact "absolute reality is a <insert any word>" and "absolute reality is a being" are both false.
As I have shown earlier, and shown again with the klingon example there is a distinction between 1. the linguistic content (regardless of if it's attempting to describe 'absolute reality' or existence or fiction), and 2. the logical true or false statement.
To describe absolute reality it must be linguistically accurate and logically true.

I showed earlier why the statement "reality is a ..." is wrong linguistically, and this also applies to "reality is a being" so we need not bother to try prove then wrong logically as well, they can be dismissed on linguistic grounds.

[GrahamH]

When I say "we experience our mental experience", what I mean is that all our experience is mental. The content; mental, the observer; mental, the observed, mental. Its all mental. We have no experience of anything not mental.
So yes; we have our experience which we call mental.
How do you understand experience? (I am rewording the question 'do you agree all experience is mental, which you are seemingly reluctant to answer).

1. You can't show 'the observer' to be 'mental. It is merely one of your axioms.
2. We can define 'experience' to be mental, but what the experience is of is not shown to be mental.

If the experience is mental, then if there is an observer of 'the mental' the observer must also be mental, unless you wish to accept a duality between the mental experience and the supposed non-mental observer.
I do not suggest there is an observer independent of the experience, but at the time of the experience it is experienced by an 'apparent experiencer' and in this sense there is a mental observer.

If the experience is mental, the either

Stop there a moment. Now you are bringing in the ontology of mind, without establishing anything about that.

1. the source of the experinces is also mental,

If 'mental' is merely a category of phenomena about which a human organism has data then 'mental' is not 'something else'.

or
2. You have to accept duality between mental experience and non-mental (and unexperienced) 'something' which causes the world. You are basically asserting without foundation that the 'neuoma' are non-mental, and accepting a duality into the bargain - just to say there is a non-mental cause of our mental experience!

You really need to establish the ontology of 'mental' before you go further with this duality argument.

We observe physical. We don't observe 'the observer'. We don't know mental. 'Mental' is a process of observing/knowing, which is probably an interaction (of physical stuff perhaps), not a non-physical substance.

If you think you can show mind to be a non-physical substance let's see it.

Well I did what I think to be a clear explaination of fiction and knowledge when I said in the last post
Some 'knowledge' can be a special class of knowledge; fictional knowledge. If I speak 'klingon'

from star trek, its not a 'real' language spoken by real klingons, but I could comunicate in written or verbal form with another speaker showing some real knowledge content.

A fictional language is not something you can converse with. If you can do that it musty be a real language. If I invent a fictional language Poplosian, without creating a real functional language, it is a fiction. If I design the thing as a functional language then it is a language.

As you say, it's the Klingons that are fictional. The language Klingon is a real language. The history told about the language might be fiction.

If I study the works of fiction, I could write reviews, earn money, and debate with others concerning my knowledge of a fictional subject.

Indeed you could, but it would have absolutely no metaphysical significance, would it? You could write reams of prose about Klingons or Hobbits and the only link between that knowledge and 'reality' would be the fact that the ideas involved would all be rehashing and recombining of ideas acquired from experience.

To try make it more clear;
I dont speak klingon, but lets assume 'Xak ikit tikle' was klingon for 'I speak klingon', then I could say
'Xak ikit tikle' is true.

It is clear enough. If you define a lexicon and grammar and thus define what Xak ikit tikle means then it might indeed be 'true'.
As it is I suspect you just made up some meaningless character strings, in which case it is not 'true'. If you do define the language you can trace the roots of the semantics. Where would that take you, to the world of experience?

We might define an entity lacking all attributes that we experience and understand as faults in ourselves

I am not sure what you mean. can you rephrase for me?

I mean that we experience change, substance, confusion, ignorance etc. We can use those experiences to define an abstract concept of a being that is changeless, immaterial, omniscient etc. We aren't identifying real attributes of a real being, we are merely defining what this being would not be. Such thinking doesn't transcend experience, it is a fiction based on experience.

I have not suggested the absolute reality is "a <insert any word>" and certainally not "a being"

Fine, define it is 'not a being' or 'not a thing' or 'not in existence', it's just another non-characteristic derived from experience. It doesn't matter what you are non-describing, a being, 'the Void, 'The infinite', 'Absolute Reality'.

Infact "absolute reality is a <insert any word>" and "absolute reality is a being" are both false.
As I have shown earlier, and shown again with the klingon example there is a distinction between 1. the linguistic content (regardless of if it's attempting to describe 'absolute reality' or existence or fiction), and 2. the logical true or false statement.
To describe absolute reality it must be linguistically accurate and logically true.

What does that mean? What is 'linguistically accurate' in this context? What do you mean by 'logically true'? Just that it conforms to logical rules and your particular axioms? How does that address 'absolute reality'?

I showed earlier why the statement "reality is a ..." is wrong linguistically, and this also applies to "reality is a being" so we need not bother to try prove then wrong logically as well, they can be dismissed on linguistic grounds.

[Little Idiot]

On Mind

Wiki link offers
Mind (pronounced /ˈmaɪnd/) is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes. The term is often used to refer, by implication, to the thought processes of reason. Mind manifests itself subjectively as a stream of consciousness.

I suggested a very similar definition of mind on RDF, which I will more or less reuse here
I would suggest, to avoid words for which we do not have a common understanding or meaning;

MIND
The collection of processes by which thought is created, manipulated and known, this includes all such conscious and subconscious activity. Examples of the minds activity include thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination. Human mind manifests subjectively in humans as a flow of thoughts, experienced sequentially in time.

Anybody object to that, or wish to suggest improvements to it?

Additional points to toss into the lion pit;
I would add, based on this understanding of mind that the terms ‘collection of processes’ and ‘flow’ and ‘sequentially’ show how the passage of time is a crucial underpinning of our understanding of mind. If we wish to talk of ‘timeless mind’ it would bear very little resemblance to our understanding of the term.

This is a specific reference to claims that my World Mind concept (or BM) is just a 'big me'

I would also point out that the very nature of our mind seems to be flux (flow), but if we look deeper, the fact that we have stability and recognise the flux would suggest a deeper stillness against which the flux is known.
Consider a simple analogy of a car; inside the car we are at ease moving comfortably around in the cabin, often as if stationary so long as the car has a constant velocity. Only a change in velocity (speed or direction) or looking out of the window shows the car is in motion.
If the mind is in constant motion through time, the fact that we can know this seems to indicate a component of greater stability against which we can judge the motion.

[SpeedOfSound]

I would add, based on this understanding of mind that the terms ‘collection of processes’ and ‘flow’ and ‘sequentially’ show how the passage of time is a crucial underpinning of our understanding of mind. If we wish to talk of ‘timeless mind’ it would bear very little resemblance to our understanding of the term.

This is a specific reference to claims that my World Mind concept (or BM) is just a 'big me'

Seeing as the BM has no evidence and now we can't even talk about it because of it's timelessness we will just toss this shit in the toilet.

I would also point out that the very nature of our mind seems to be flux (flow), but if we look deeper, the fact that we have stability and recognise the flux would suggest a deeper stillness against which the flux is known.
...(SOS NOTE no we will not consider silly analogies about riding in cars)
If the mind is in constant motion through time, the fact that we can know this seems to indicate a component of greater stability against which we can judge the motion.

This bit of evidence would also seem to indicate that human beings can make higher order discriminations about concepts that they pull out of their asses.

It certainly is a stretch to be using the evidence as supporting some sort of supernatural fairy mind.

In summary...There ain't no Fucking Stillness!!!

[Little Idiot]

1. You can't show 'the observer' to be 'mental. It is merely one of your axioms.
2. We can define 'experience' to be mental, but what the experience is of is not shown to be mental.

If the experience is mental, then if there is an observer of 'the mental' the observer must also be mental, unless you wish to accept a duality between the mental experience and the supposed non-mental observer.
I do not suggest there is an observer independent of the experience, but at the time of the experience it is experienced by an 'apparent experiencer' and in this sense there is a mental observer.

If the experience is mental, the either

Stop there a moment. Now you are bringing in the ontology of mind, without establishing anything about that.

Try this; Subject: On treeness of Oak1, and other things and we can develop from that start.

1. the source of the experinces is also mental,

If 'mental' is merely a category of phenomena about which a human organism has data then 'mental' is not 'something else'.

or
2. You have to accept duality between mental experience and non-mental (and unexperienced) 'something' which causes the world. You are basically asserting without foundation that the 'neuoma' are non-mental, and accepting a duality into the bargain - just to say there is a non-mental cause of our mental experience!

You really need to establish the ontology of 'mental' before you go further with this duality argument.

We observe physical. We don't observe 'the observer'. We don't know mental. 'Mental' is a process of observing/knowing, which is probably an interaction (of physical stuff perhaps), not a non-physical substance.

If you think you can show mind to be a non-physical substance let's see it.

As I am not allowed to assume it is not non-physical, you are not allowed to assume it is physical.

I suggest my model offers a self consistent mechanism for how physical objects enter mental awareness, without inconsistency. The 'objection' being a gut wrench at the end point of a derived BM.

I suggest the physical model does not, and has inconsistencies. The objection being it is based on an unestablished foundation that physical can cause thought and subjective experience. Also the inability to explain how the non-mental (physical) interacts with or becomes the mental experience.

I mean that we experience change, substance, confusion, ignorance etc. We can use those experiences to define an abstract concept of a being that is changeless, immaterial, omniscient etc. We aren't identifying real attributes of a real being, we are merely defining what this being would not be. Such thinking doesn't transcend experience, it is a fiction based on experience.

I have not suggested the absolute reality is "a <insert any word>" and certainally not "a being"

Fine, define it is 'not a being' or 'not a thing' or 'not in existence', it's just another non-characteristic derived from experience. It doesn't matter what you are non-describing, a being, 'the Void, 'The infinite', 'Absolute Reality'.

Infact "absolute reality is a <insert any word>" and "absolute reality is a being" are both false.
As I have shown earlier, and shown again with the klingon example there is a distinction between 1. the linguistic content (regardless of if it's attempting to describe 'absolute reality' or existence or fiction), and 2. the logical true or false statement.
To describe absolute reality it must be linguistically accurate and logically true.

What does that mean? What is 'linguistically accurate' in this context? What do you mean by 'logically true'? Just that it conforms to logical rules and your particular axioms? How does that address 'absolute reality'?

I showed earlier why the statement "reality is a ..." is wrong linguistically, and this also applies to "reality is a being" so we need not bother to try prove then wrong logically as well, they can be dismissed on linguistic grounds.

Linguistically accurate means we are not making a linguistic contradiction. We are not saying things which are self contradictory; using words with meaning only in space and time to attempt to describe reality we are claiming to be outside space and time. Or at least we acknowledge we are speaking in loose poetic terms if we can not do other than be contradictory.
This means using words such as 'big' 'small' 'here' 'there' which are spacial and words like 'next' 'before' or 'after' which are temporal words. This rules out most words, and explains why it is often said we can not speak of it without error.

[SpeedOfSound]

The objection being it is based on an unestablished foundation that physical can cause thought and subjective experience. Also the inability to explain how the non-mental (physical) interacts with or becomes the mental experience.

Where are your references to this inability to explain thought in particular? Site the books and peer reviewed papers you have read on the physical basis of thought.

Or just quit saying what you know nothing about.

[Little Idiot]

I would add, based on this understanding of mind that the terms ‘collection of processes’ and ‘flow’ and ‘sequentially’ show how the passage of time is a crucial underpinning of our understanding of mind. If we wish to talk of ‘timeless mind’ it would bear very little resemblance to our understanding of the term.

This is a specific reference to claims that my World Mind concept (or BM) is just a 'big me'

Seeing as the BM has no evidence and now we can't even talk about it because of it's timelessness we will just toss this shit in the toilet.

Your dismissal on lack of evidence may be a pesonal bais, so;
Consider it a hypothetical. If we do not assert its factuality we do not need evidence, and dismissal on that basis is invalid.
Then, in the hypothetical, is this a valid description of what a BM would be, were it to be?
You are able to consider the merrits of the idea without agreeing with the idea, I hope.

I would also point out that the very nature of our mind seems to be flux (flow), but if we look deeper, the fact that we have stability and recognise the flux would suggest a deeper stillness against which the flux is known.
...(SOS NOTE no we will not consider silly analogies about riding in cars)
If the mind is in constant motion through time, the fact that we can know this seems to indicate a component of greater stability against which we can judge the motion.

This bit of evidence would also seem to indicate that human beings can make higher order discriminations about concepts that they pull out of their asses.

It certainly is a stretch to be using the evidence as supporting some sort of supernatural fairy mind.

In summary...There ain't no Fucking Stillness!!!

If you are in a flow ( I want to say flux to look all techy and smart ) (say a river if you like an example), you would be unaware of it, exept by reference to something not moving at the same speed as the flow.
This is not woo, its factual.
We sit on Earth moving through space at incredible speed, but we see the planet as still. We spin on the surface at incredible speed, but we see it as steady, we... Oh what the hell; do you understand the point or not?

[Little Idiot]

The objection being it is based on an unestablished foundation that physical can cause thought and subjective experience. Also the inability to explain how the non-mental (physical) interacts with or becomes the mental experience.

Where are your references to this inability to explain thought in particular? Site the books and peer reviewed papers you have read on the physical basis of thought.

Or just quit saying what you know nothing about.

I Site the RDF and Rationalia as two examples where a lot is said which doesnt answer the question!

[SpeedOfSound]

If you are in a flow ( I want to say flux to look all techy and smart ) (say a river if you like an example), you would be unaware of it, exept by reference to something not moving at the same speed as the flow.
This is not woo, its factual.
We sit on Earth moving through space at incredible speed, but we see the planet as still. We spin on the surface at incredible speed, but we see it as steady, we... Oh what the hell; do you understand the point or not?

Just the fact that you can make up all these analogies so quickly should be your clue about how you know that your brain is in flux.

Do you understand the point?

Your analogies are R1 solid. Meaning they are floating in the toilet hoping against hope that no one will flush.

This is kind of basic stuff about what brains are for.

[SpeedOfSound]

The objection being it is based on an unestablished foundation that physical can cause thought and subjective experience. Also the inability to explain how the non-mental (physical) interacts with or becomes the mental experience.

Where are your references to this inability to explain thought in particular? Site the books and peer reviewed papers you have read on the physical basis of thought.

Or just quit saying what you know nothing about.

I Site the RDF and Rationalia as two examples where a lot is said which doesnt answer the question!

I site, where something has been said and actually has some evidence:

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Con ... ligence%29

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl ... =&gs_rfai=

And this is just the barest beginnings of what we know about thought.

[Little Idiot]

If you are in a flow ( I want to say flux to look all techy and smart ) (say a river if you like an example), you would be unaware of it, exept by reference to something not moving at the same speed as the flow.
This is not woo, its factual.
We sit on Earth moving through space at incredible speed, but we see the planet as still. We spin on the surface at incredible speed, but we see it as steady, we... Oh what the hell; do you understand the point or not?

Just the fact that you can make up all these analogies so quickly should be your clue about how you know that your brain is in flux.

Do you understand the point?

Your analogies are R1 solid. Meaning they are floating in the toilet hoping against hope that no one will flush.

This is kind of basic stuff about what brains are for.

There is nothiong R1 about the point I am making, the analogies are just that, analogies to give R1 examples of R2 knowledge.

Do you acept or dispute the following point; If you are in a linear flow you only perceive it by refering to (or being influenced from) beyond the flow, inside the flow all things are flowing and relative to the frame of reference 'inside the flow' nothing is moving.
We can do the maths to show it, too.

[Little Idiot]

What about the definition of mind? any comment?

[SpeedOfSound]

If you are in a flow ( I want to say flux to look all techy and smart ) (say a river if you like an example), you would be unaware of it, exept by reference to something not moving at the same speed as the flow.
This is not woo, its factual.
We sit on Earth moving through space at incredible speed, but we see the planet as still. We spin on the surface at incredible speed, but we see it as steady, we... Oh what the hell; do you understand the point or not?

Just the fact that you can make up all these analogies so quickly should be your clue about how you know that your brain is in flux.

Do you understand the point?

Your analogies are R1 solid. Meaning they are floating in the toilet hoping against hope that no one will flush.

This is kind of basic stuff about what brains are for.

There is nothiong R1 about the point I am making, the analogies are just that, analogies to give R1 examples of R2 knowledge.

Do you acept or dispute the following point; If you are in a linear flow you only perceive it by refering to (or being influenced from) beyond the flow, inside the flow all things are flowing and relative to the frame of reference 'inside the flow' nothing is moving.
We can do the maths to show it, too.

Do the maths.

What's the point? That you know that things are changing in your mind? That this is supposed to point to some supernatural mind fairie?

[SpeedOfSound]

What about the definition of mind? any comment?

As a start a list of the functions of mind will do for a while. You can't however really define mind unless you account for everything there is to know about brains. Plus you have to consider all of the experimental evidence currently available.

[SpeedOfSound]

Have we successfully flushed your "Duh, science doesn't know about thought" evidence?

What's that argument called again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance