On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[SpeedOfSound]

Do the maths.

I have just now figured out that putting an s on the end of math doesn't do a thing to my ability to grasp a Hilbert space.

God damn.

[SpeedOfSound]

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.

I don't want to discount this entirely. You have brought up an important point that might shed some light on why we think we have all these gap problems with subjective experience.

[GrahamH]

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'

It is a big version of human mind from which you remove some characteristics of mind. You remove 'not knowing' and 'changing'. The result isn't actually comprehensible, but that just makes it seem 'mystical'.

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.

This is nonsense. We can detect change without 'stillness'. We detect relative motion just fine without having access to any absolute stationary point. Your own example shows this. The rover flows relative the bank, but the bank is in motion relative to the centre of the Earth, which is in motion relative to the solar system, etc. Are you saying that BM is not necessarily 'stillness', but is in relative motion to us?

[GrahamH]

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

The physical evidence suggests it is physical, a fact you have yet to offer an account of. What are brains for and why does messing them up alter all this 'mental'? The physical models account for that very well.

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.

The only inconsistency might well be an error of thinking, an assumption that subjectivity is more than a relation between objects producing reports of 'qualia'. The 'paradox' might be a hollow as Zeno's.

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.

Which is one reason why 'Metaphysics is an error'. You want to use languages to refer to a supposed 'realm' when all you can say about it is that it lacks certain aspects of the observed universe.

[GrahamH]

Perception involves detecting relative change, not absolute distinction from a fixed background.

[Little Idiot]

Do the maths.

I have just now figured out that putting an s on the end of math doesn't do a thing to my ability to grasp a Hilbert space.

God damn.

Your an American, thats why, poor thing. When you lot have some history to talk about you will understand why one puts ones 's' after ones abbreviation of mathematicS.

[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.

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?

There is no point, I was simply making an observation, and as I said throwing it to the lions, for our mutual entertainment (one assumes lions enjoy eating christians, in my analogy).

[Little Idiot]

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

I think the argument you are using is called 'straw man'

I did not say "Duh, science doesn't know about thought"

I did say "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."

Did I miss the point where it was established that the physical can cause thought and subjective experience?
Did you explain how the non-mental interacts with or becomes the mental experience?

[Little Idiot]

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.

I don't want to discount this entirely. You have brought up an important point that might shed some light on why we think we have all these gap problems with subjective experience.

[Little Idiot]

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'

It is a big version of human mind from which you remove some characteristics of mind. You remove 'not knowing' and 'changing'. The result isn't actually comprehensible, but that just makes it seem 'mystical'.

AS I said, its scarecly comprehensible with out the familiar method of time perception. This is what I am ultimatly aiming at. Its not like me, but more powerful; Its not, as in a Xian versions, a grumpy old man.

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.

This is nonsense. We can detect change without 'stillness'. We detect relative motion just fine without having access to any absolute stationary point. Your own example shows this. The rover flows relative the bank, but the bank is in motion relative to the centre of the Earth, which is in motion relative to the solar system, etc. Are you saying that BM is not necessarily 'stillness', but is in relative motion to us?

Correct, everything is relative.
I am suggesting this relativity applies in our own mind. I have said before consciousness is relative, and here is another way into that concept.
So yes, there is a relative movement between BM and us, and at the risk of being 'woo'ed' there would be a relative motion between MB and absolute reality.
If we are to think of these three (absolute reality, BM, IM) then if the changeless grounds has been accepted (or at least accepted as an axiom of mine) then the absolute reality is the end point of this relativity; it is the 'stationary base line', everything else is relative, even 'god' to flippantly refer to BM as such.

[Little Idiot]

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

The physical evidence suggests it is physical, a fact you have yet to offer an account of. What are brains for and why does messing them up alter all this 'mental'? The physical models account for that very well.

Nobody here disputes the physical world is physical, and thats all the science shows; it does not however show that physical is not a subset of mental.
Show me a single piece of scientific evidence which does so. Or admit that you can not, and hence you dont know.

It is my position that the physical is a subset of the mental. 'its all mental' but some of the mental is physical.

I have accounted for physical brains in recent posts, I can link it up if you missed it.

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.

The only inconsistency might well be an error of thinking, an assumption that subjectivity is more than a relation between objects producing reports of 'qualia'. The 'paradox' might be a hollow as Zeno's.

If that was the case, dont you think its a reasonable ask 'why have we not tracked it down yet, like we have with zeno (james's point not withstanding)?

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.

Which is one reason why 'Metaphysics is an error'. You want to use languages to refer to a supposed 'realm' when all you can say about it is that it lacks certain aspects of the observed universe.

But thats a huge assumption there, have you thought through as far as our thought can go on this path?
If not, how do you know that we can not say some things about it.
We have done some preliminaries so far, have we not?
We have established that it is sigular, for example. There are not realities. There are not two things in reality.
The statement "absolute reality is singular" is true, and its a positive description of what absolute reality is.

[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

I think the argument you are using is called 'straw man'

I did not say "Duh, science doesn't know about thought"

I did say "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."

Did I miss the point where it was established that the physical can cause thought and subjective experience?
Did you explain how the non-mental interacts with or becomes the mental experience?

Explain how what I attacked was a straw man and please be logical and specific.

See if I can save us some time here.

You said

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.

See the bold part? That's point one. Following that is an entirely different argument about SE. I see two parts.

The foundation for the physical basis of thought is well established. I gave you a link to one of the best models we currently have. But that's not necessarily the foundation. That would start in the references at the end and extend to comprise a body of literature that is essentially all of the NS [papers in the last 100 years.

Nowhere in any of that work by tens of thousands of people has there been even the slightest indication that thought is not completely enacted by a physical brain. Further, foundational theory abounds for how thought works and how organisms behave as a result. If you want to keep saying that this theory doesn't exist then then you are going to have to mount a monumental argument for your claim.

I'll get to your OTHER argument later.

[SpeedOfSound]

I have accounted for physical brains in recent posts, I can link it up if you missed it.

I have done some gathering and work on your accounting of physical brains and put it in the other thread for convenience. I think it all comes from just two posts.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 04#p402504

Enjoy!

[Little Idiot]

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

I think the argument you are using is called 'straw man'

I did not say "Duh, science doesn't know about thought"

I did say "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."

Did I miss the point where it was established that the physical can cause thought and subjective experience?
Did you explain how the non-mental interacts with or becomes the mental experience?

Explain how what I attacked was a straw man and please be logical and specific.

See if I can save us some time here.

You said

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.

See the bold part? That's point one. Following that is an entirely different argument about SE. I see two parts.

The foundation for the physical basis of thought is well established. I gave you a link to one of the best models we currently have. But that's not necessarily the foundation. That would start in the references at the end and extend to comprise a body of literature that is essentially all of the NS [papers in the last 100 years.

Nowhere in any of that work by tens of thousands of people has there been even the slightest indication that thought is not completely enacted by a physical brain. Further, foundational theory abounds for how thought works and how organisms behave as a result. If you want to keep saying that this theory doesn't exist then then you are going to have to mount a monumental argument for your claim.

I'll get to your OTHER argument later.

Its a straw man because thats simply not what I said.
I dont say science doesnt know anything about thought, as you suggest.

I said its not established; we dont know how or even if the physical can cause thought.
Yes we know a lot about corelates between experience, thought an brain states aet - but not if or how physical causes this.

My criticism is aimed at one spefic point only, there is A LOT of good stuff going on in neuroscience.
Is there is an answer to this single point? Dont even waste your time saying the last 100 tears work, because we both know that its not all aimed at this point.

On the other hand its well established that the mental can appear as-if the physical, external to the body - most of us frequently experience this effect in dream on a regular basis, and most of us agree at the time the dream seems real.

[Little Idiot]

I have accounted for physical brains in recent posts, I can link it up if you missed it.

I have done some gathering and work on your accounting of physical brains and put it in the other thread for convenience. I think it all comes from just two posts.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 04#p402504

Enjoy!

Thanks. Good job.