Consciousness and the Paranormal

[smcder]

Tyger mentioned mathematics - learning calculus, learning to read music and play it (badly) and becoming fluent in German (to think and dream in German) gave me an awareness of the space around each of these languages and I'm reluctant to say what might not exist in this space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

This captures how I feel about trying to conduct a philosophical discussion via touchscreen ..,

Peter Lorre - Mad Love (1935)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

And THIS is what my hands are best at doing.

So much for a "gentle streak" :-(


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

If by this question, you mean to capture the Hard Problem, I've said that I agree that qualia are non-physical. Qualia thus cannot be explained in objective language. This isn't a limit of language, but a constraint of subjectivity. Qualia appear to be subjective. However, we do have language to capture these subjective objects. Thus, we all know what you mean by "annoyance."

However, that does not mean that the subjective experience/feeling of annoyance doesn't exist. Nor does it mean that it isn't constituted of something.

@Tyger, could you please explain how dual substances might interact with one another, thus refuting Monism? Or, could you at least explain why the spiritual realm you describe must be constituted of a dual substance?

Could you explain how you know it is a dual substance? Could you explain how differentiated, complex objects such as gods, demons, and angels might exist but not be constituted of something such as a substance? And if you insist this is the case - though our language can't capture this case - can you explain why this must the case? Or is it a fact that can only be known through experience?

Can you make a statement about what annoyance is constituted of ... ? (Did I just end a sentence in a preposition? Arent you allowed to do that now? If not I have a really funny way to rewrite that sentence.)

The humor in "my Gand kids are the source of my annoyance" is that there is no source of your annoyance in the way the sentence purports to mean - there are conditions and then there is awareness and to some degree consent on your part to be annoyed but the annoyance isn't made of your grand kids or any other material, physical or otherwise. If it is - may I be struck by five pounds of it. (Notice I didn't say fifty... )

Furthermore, this is common sense ... At some point everyone gets such a joke. You have to go pretty far down a literal path (metaphorically speaking) to think otherwise.

Next time you are annoyed (any time now, I bet) ... Try to grab your annoyance with your hands - they are made of the same ultimate stuff, right?

On a planet full of zombies: (I posit zombies)

Little Tommy Zombie is pulling little Suzy Zombies hair ...





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Ok, I'll find a post ASAP.

I'll gladly change my view if I have logical and/or experiential reasons to do so. As it is, I see no reason to believe in Substance Dualism.

What is your personal experience of monism?

I see no reason to believe in either of them and there never should be a need. They make specific verifiable claims - until those claims are proven you should withhold judgement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

I think there is an elephant in the room too! But I'll tell you what I think the elephant is. Capital M-Meaning, or Ultimate Meaning (UM). (By Ultimate Meaning I mean, heh, meaning that is not subjective but objective.)

Physical Substance Monists tend to believe in a deterministic universe devoid of Ultimate Meaning.

I sense that the three of you - @smcder, @Constance, @Tyger - strongly disagree with that concept. You all three seem to believe that there is Ultimate Meaning, particularly for humans.

This UM seems to be related to a supposed non-physical, spiritual realm. A realm filled with souls, God, gods, demons, and angels. These beings are interested in us. We - our souls, spirits, and/or minds - may even "belong" to this realm. A realm where there is Ultimate Meaning.

My own view is that while such a realm might exist, it won't have Ultimate Meaning, just lower case m-meaning.

There may be "spiritual" beings that exist and interact with us, but 1) they gotta be made of something and if they can interact with us, it's gotta be something related to the stuff we're made of, 2) while what these beings have in mind for us may be Ultimate to us, it wouldn't be Ultimate to them. Meaning, if we have a backstory, they too must have a backstory. That is, if we having UM via these entities, then from their POV it is subjective meaning.

It's the old argument: if God created us, who created Him?

If there is a spiritual realm that created us in the physical realm, who created them in the spiritual realm?

Finally, while I'm not as big a proponent of Langan as it may seem, haha, he is apparently a Substance Monist who very strongly believes in a reality suffused with Ultimate Meaning. Thus Substance Monism does not preclude there being UM.

Didn't you deal with some of these questions using an analogy of people sitting in one another's laps... ? The questions you posited in such a way as to involve an infinite regress. I'm not sure they have to be asked that way - your sort of doing a forced choice thing here ...

Like the who made God question ... Suppose we make an artificial intelligence that supersedes us and then go extinct ...

"Oh yeah, well then who made these so called "humans"?"

Will have to think about these things.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

...but the annoyance isn't made of your grand kids or any other material, physical or otherwise. If it is - may I be struck by five pounds of it.

Its certainly made of something otherwise it would be made of nothing and therefore not exist. The subjective feeling of annoyance does exist and thus it is made of something.

That something can be called "quale" and quale may be non-physical so they won't weigh anything, at least on any physical scale.

If the feeling of annoyance isn't made of anything, how does one differentiate it from the feeling of angry, joy, or sadness? Do these subjective feelings not exist? Are they the same?

If they are really just environmental, then shouldn't everyone be annoyed by their grand kids?

No, subjective feelings really exist and they really are made of something. Otherwise they wouldn't exist and they wouldn't be differentiated.

Next time you are annoyed (any time now, I bet) ... Try to grab your annoyance with your hands - they are made of the same ultimate stuff, right?

When you hear musical notes, can you reach up and pull them from the air? Does that mean they don't exist? Does that mean musical notes are made of a dual substance?

Monism: I know you disagrees with me last time, but again, particles seem to be made of quanta, and particles make molecules, and molecules make elements, and so on. While I think there is more to reality than the physical, it's pretty clear how a "simple" building block can interact with itself to build an incredible variety of things.

Follow the link for a fun, informal video showing this process to a degree:

See cellular forms grow wildly in software simulation - Boing Boing

 

[smcder]

"While I think there is more to reality than the physical, it's pretty clear how a "simple" building block can interact with itself to build an incredible variety of things"

Ok - how? Internet too to watch slow for videos.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Its certainly made of something otherwise it would be made of nothing and therefore not exist. The subjective feeling of annoyance does exist and thus it is made of something.

That something can be called "quale" and quale may be non-physical so they won't weigh anything, at least on any physical scale.

If the feeling of annoyance isn't made of anything, how does one differentiate it from the feeling of angry, joy, or sadness? Do these subjective feelings not exist? Are they the same?

If they are really just environmental, then shouldn't everyone be annoyed by their grand kids?

No, subjective feelings really exist and they really are made of something. Otherwise they wouldn't exist and they wouldn't be differentiated.

When you hear musical notes, can you reach up and pull them from the air? Does that mean they don't exist? Does that mean musical notes are made of a dual substance?

Monism: I know you disagrees with me last time, but again, particles seem to be made of quanta, and particles make molecules, and molecules make elements, and so on. While I think there is more to reality than the physical, it's pretty clear how a "simple" building block can interact with itself to build an incredible variety of things.

Follow the link for a fun, informal video showing this process to a degree:

See cellular forms grow wildly in software simulation - Boing Boing

You're reacting, not responding. This does seem to be a matter of belief for you - but to the extent that monism makes claims that can be verified and or falsified it's an empirical question. The same with dualism.

I understand Chalmers / Nagel and others to say that consciousness may be basic to the universe ... If it's a fundamental thing then why do you want to make it into some kind of particle or attach it to an existing particle? To "materialize" it? Consciousness may be consciousness period and there might not be more to say about it's composition. Why not be open to that possibility? That might then lead to other insights. That possibility is your reason to "think otherwise".



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

When Chalmers says that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, he's not implying that, say, my entire conscious mind is fundamental. He's implying that the material of which it is constituted is fundamental and cants be reduced to physical material. See Constitutive Russelian Panprotopsychism, the model he pegged as the most likely to resolve the hard problem.

No, I'm not "reacting." I've been a monist from the start of this discussion and still am today. I will be until I have reason to believe otherwise. Furthermore, I've logically explained my views, which, with all due respect, is more than those opposed have done.

Re: Simple building block interacting to create our complex physical world.

Quarks > Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons > Elements > Compounds

I don't know how else to explain it. Here are some brief links with explanations.

Quantum Diaries

Q & A: Combining Atoms | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Meanwhile not one person has straigforwardly answered any of my questions.

 

[smcder]

When Chalmers says that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, he's not implying that, say, my entire conscious mind is fundamental. He's implying that the material of which it is constituted is fundamental and cants be reduced to physical material. See Constitutive Russelian Panprotopsychism, the model he pegged as the most likely to resolve the hard problem.

No, I'm not "reacting." I've been a monist from the start of this discussion and still am today. I will be until I have reason to believe otherwise. Furthermore, I've logically explained my views, which, with all due respect, is more than those opposed have done.

Re: Simple building block interacting to create our complex physical world.

Quarks > Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons > Elements > Compounds

I don't know how else to explain it. Here are some brief links with explanations.

Quantum Diaries

Q & A: Combining Atoms | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Meanwhile not one person has straigforwardly answered any of my questions.

I answered your questions:

I am not a dualist.

I am not a monist.

What other questions did I not answer?

As to the Great Chain of Being from quarks to monkeys you provided it's not much more satisfying than the traditional one - less so. That one appeals to an intuition that the lesser comes from the greater and does not require emergence.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

When Chalmers says that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, he's not implying that, say, my entire conscious mind is fundamental. He's implying that the material of which it is constituted is fundamental and cants be reduced to physical material. See Constitutive Russelian Panprotopsychism, the model he pegged as the most likely to resolve the hard problem.

No, I'm not "reacting." I've been a monist from the start of this discussion and still am today. I will be until I have reason to believe otherwise. Furthermore, I've logically explained my views, which, with all due respect, is more than those opposed have done.

Re: Simple building block interacting to create our complex physical world.

Quarks > Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons > Elements > Compounds

I don't know how else to explain it. Here are some brief links with explanations.

Quantum Diaries

Q & A: Combining Atoms | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Meanwhile not one person has straigforwardly answered any of my questions.

Your questions are set up as forced choices - I suspect no one answers them because they don't see their views contained in the choices you've given them.

Why do you say that you "believe" monism - when it's a matter to be proven or disproven?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

From Constance:

When you get a chance would you also post this link to the SEP article on Monism -- as a whole but particularly to "Section 3.2.2 Quantum emergence"? I think this might help clarify some ambiguities in the discussion around Soupie's viewpoint.

Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Thanks.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Bad storms here - I may be offline for the dutation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

From Constance:

When you get a chance would you also post this link to the SEP article on Monism -- as a whole but particularly to "Section 3.2.2 Quantum emergence"? I think this might help clarify some ambiguities in the discussion around Soupie's viewpoint.

Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Thanks.

To get a better idea of my viewpoint regarding monism, the entry on neutral monism would be best, particularly the ideas of Kenneth Sayre.

Neutral Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Kenneth Sayre

But section 3.2.2 was interesting. I agree that all of reality is interconnected - both literally and metaphorically - like a superfluid.

 

[smcder]

I think there is an elephant in the room too! But I'll tell you what I think the elephant is. Capital M-Meaning, or Ultimate Meaning (UM). (By Ultimate Meaning I mean, heh, meaning that is not subjective but objective.)

Physical Substance Monists tend to believe in a deterministic universe devoid of Ultimate Meaning.

I sense that the three of you - @smcder, @Constance, @Tyger - strongly disagree with that concept. You all three seem to believe that there is Ultimate Meaning, particularly for humans.

This UM seems to be related to a supposed non-physical, spiritual realm. A realm filled with souls, God, gods, demons, and angels. These beings are interested in us. We - our souls, spirits, and/or minds - may even "belong" to this realm. A realm where there is Ultimate Meaning.

My own view is that while such a realm might exist, it won't have Ultimate Meaning, just lower case m-meaning.

There may be "spiritual" beings that exist and interact with us, but 1) they gotta be made of something and if they can interact with us, it's gotta be something related to the stuff we're made of, 2) while what these beings have in mind for us may be Ultimate to us, it wouldn't be Ultimate to them. Meaning, if we have a backstory, they too must have a backstory. That is, if we having UM via these entities, then from their POV it is subjective meaning.

It's the old argument: if God created us, who created Him?

If there is a spiritual realm that created us in the physical realm, who created them in the spiritual realm?

Finally, while I'm not as big a proponent of Langan as it may seem, haha, he is apparently a Substance Monist who very strongly believes in a reality suffused with Ultimate Meaning. Thus Substance Monism does not preclude there being UM.

Trying to take another look at the questions you've asked ... and something occurs to me:

I'm wondering if the way you have characterized @Constance, @Tyger and myself comes from your experience of fundamentalist Christianity?

This UM seems to be related to a supposed non-physical, spiritual realm. A realm filled with souls, God, gods, demons, and angels. These beings are interested in us. We - our souls, spirits, and/or minds - may even "belong" to this realm. A realm where there is Ultimate Meaning.
...

Constance and Tyger may answer and I'm interested in their responses. This isn't a view that resonates strongly with me on an every day basis ... but many people seem to sense such a realm ... the McDermott/Sean Kelly video Tyger posted discussed the views of Jung and Steiner on such a realm - for Jung, it was autonomous psychic entities that we are not aware of - (roughly, that exist in the subconsicous) - for Steiner it seemed to be more literal.

I think there is an elephant in the room too! But I'll tell you what I think the elephant is. Capital M-Meaning, or Ultimate Meaning (UM). (By Ultimate Meaning I mean, heh, meaning that is not subjective but objective.)

I can't seem to think of meaning except in subjective terms?

(If a value is comprimised in the forest and no one is there to feel guilty, are there moral consequences? ;-)
Seriously, if there is an Ultimate Meaning then it would have to be determined by an Ultimate Subject ... ? Are you thinking in terms of natural law?

Physical Substance Monists tend to believe in a deterministic universe devoid of Ultimate Meaning.

Finally, while I'm not as big a proponent of Langan as it may seem, haha, he is apparently a Substance Monist who very strongly believes in a reality suffused with Ultimate Meaning. Thus Substance Monism does not preclude there being UM

To clarify, you believe

 

[Soupie]

Re Believe

I've never argued otherwise. My current metaphysical beliefs - my worldview - are based on my own logic and experience. And of course I've been influenced by the ideas and theories of others over the years.

I'm very open to new ideas, constantly reading and asking, but that doesn't mean I won't continue to assume that the ideas I currently hold represent the best model of reality. Just because there are other ideas, theories, and possibilities doesn't mean they're more likely than the ones I've already arrived at and/or encountered. Especially when people presenting opposing ideas can't explain them nor explain why mine are false. And I've never been one to accept any ideas based on authority alone.

For instance, currently neither polyism nor monism can be proven. Thus they are both possibilities. However, logically and experientially, I believe that monism represents a better model of reality. While I grant that polyism could be the case, I believe monism is the case.

As I've said/asked repeatedly, please show me - either logically or experientially - why monism is flawed or why dualism/polyism is a superior model. It's that simple.

Do I believe that any of us can do that conclusively? No. This is simply an interesting intellectual exercise. Well leave the heavy lifting to the philosophers and physicists, but we can certainly site them as we reason through this stuff ourselves.

 

[smcder]

Re Believe

I've never argued otherwise. My current metaphysical beliefs - my worldview - are based on my own logic and experience. And of course I've been influenced by the ideas and theories of others over the years.

I'm very open to new ideas, constantly reading and asking, but that doesn't mean I won't continue to assume that the ideas I currently hold represent the best model of reality. Just because there are other ideas, theories, and possibilities doesn't mean they're more likely than the ones I've already arrived at and/or encountered. Especially when people presenting opposing ideas can't explain them nor explain why mine are false. And I've never been one to accept any ideas based on authority alone.

I didn't finish my last post ... That ended in "believe" ... fell asleep ...

But after sleeping on it seems to me the best thing to day is that I think you are bringing a religious mindset to a scientific theory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Ok the last bit you posted is better ... The last sentences ... As to the flaws in monism read the SEP entry on monism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

Ok the last bit you posted is better ... The last sentences ... As to the flaws in monism read the SEP entry on monism.

The entry Constance had you post did not address the flavor of monism I subscribe to, thus any problems identified would not be relevant. Besides, I'd rather one of you explain any problems you see.

A religious mindset? So are you the empiricist now? I can only hold a belief if it's been empirical lay proved, haha? Tsk tsk. I would think you would value logic and (phenomenal) experience above empiricism.

Is double-aspect theory the new monism?

Double-aspect theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the philosophy of mind, double-aspect theory is the view that themental and the physical are two aspects of, or perspectives on, the same substance. The theory's relationship to neutral monism is ill-defined, but one proffered distinction says that whereas neutral monism allows the context of a given group of neutral elements to determine whether the group is mental, physical, both, or neither, double-aspect theory requires the mental and the physical to be inseparable and mutually irreducible (though distinct).[1]

Double-aspect theorists include:-

• Baruch Spinoza, who believed that the Existence had two aspects, Extension and Mind, which together were to be taken as two of an infinite set of attributes comprising God (or, Nature).
• There is a dual-aspect interpretation of Immanuel Kant's noumenon.
• Arthur Schopenhauer, who considered the fundamental aspects of reality to be Will and Representation.[2]
• Gustav Fechner
• George Henry Lewes
• Carl Gustav Jung
• Wolfgang Pauli
• John Polkinghorne
• Thomas Nagel. [3]
• David Chalmers who explores a double-aspect view of information, with similarities to Kenneth Sayres' information-based neutral monism.

Interesting to see Jung on the list!

And there's Mr. Sayres, haha. Incredible. I recall many, many posts ago when you first introduced Chalmers to me, saying that my views were closer to his than you thought. I just didn't have the language to express them.

I'm sure C. Langan would be on this list as well.

Not that it matters, but I'm not sure how you can express disappointment with my views when they obviously share the support of thinkers such as the above. I'm not implying that this makes them correct, only that any sins I might be committing must be applied to those above. Are the making this a "religious" issue too?