Truth

[ProphetofOccam]

I'd even be happy to pick up on a couple points we've left behind ( for example your view on truth

I decided to make this it's own thread, so as to not derail the root thread but still allow for the involvement of others. I put it here, in the "Freewheeling" section, as there seems to be no "Philosophy" related section.

In simplest terms, I don't entertain the notion of subjective truth. I think the phrase in and of itself is an oxymoron.

I won't be using phrases like "to me" and "in my view," but understand that they are implied.


There's what is and there's what is perceived. What is psychologically perceived doesn't affect or alter the cosmic state of any object, condition, or phenomenon. Cosmic reality is the only reality; psychological reality is a temporary condition experienced by an individual that can either gel with cosmic reality or be in defiance of it. Cosmic reality never changes to suit the condition of psychological reality, but psychological reality is molded by an individual's knowledge and experience with cosmic reality.

How cosmic reality impacts psychological reality is subjective, depending on a number of factors ranging from education, intelligence and even genetics. The nature of cosmic reality is unchanged by the psychological results of an individual's experience with it; however, the individual's psychological reality is continuously altered by the dependable state of cosmic reality.

Phenomena like an individual's favourite song, cereal or color, concepts often argued as cases of subjective truth, are the results of chemical reactions that take place in the individual as the result of experiencing these phenomena. This is the individual's genetic reaction to cosmic stimulus. These genetic reactions are a concrete, cosmic reality. When the chemical reactions affect the individual's genetic condition, the resulting output is one that is euphorically superior to all other chemical reactions the individual experiences when interacting with various other phenomena of similar, relevant category.

The level of euphoric output is the result of the quantity of pleasure hormones produced by the body as a result of encountering particular phenomena. This experience is concrete and observable. The experience isn't subjective, as the same chemistry is at work, in the same way, in every healthy individual of the same relevant type.

Because cosmic reality can alter psychological reality, but not vice versa, psychological reality is not truly reality. Psychological reality is a model through which an individual involuntarily attempts to assimilate to a condition of objective perception. Because that ability to assimilate is dependent on the aforementioned factors (genetics, intelligence, etc.), the state of objective perception is often impossible for an individual. In this case, the state of psychological reality isn't unaltered due to the nature of its own condition (as with cosmic reality), but due to the nature of the condition of the individual who is projecting it (so, while it may not be altered due to an experience with cosmic reality, its ability to change is altered by the cosmic limitations of the source).

 

[Randall]

To reiterate,

The core view of what constitutes truth that I subscribe to is generally called the Correspondence Theory of Truth. That being that if the subject of a proposition corresponds to the actual situation, we can say the circumstance is true. There are several varieties of this theory, and mine follows the branch where there is the assumption that there are objective realities ( a material universe exists beyond the bounds of our material selves ) and subjective ( or abstract ) realities ( our subjective experience of our personal existence, including our internal thoughts, ideas and feelings ). These two contexts have various levels of interplay that can get a bit complex, but are generally divided along the lines between the abstract and the material.

To respond,

Your view of truth is not substantially different than mine. However if I understand you correctly, you are still viewing subjective truths and objective truths as equal ( in some cases ) based on the measurement of bio and electrochemical reactions associated with subjective experience. That is not accurate. Measuring something does not and will not ever amount to being the thing. Bio and electrochemical reactions will never be the same as the experience they give rise to. These are two separate yet interdependent things. There are probably any number of analogies to illustrate this but an obvious one is the light bulb analogy. A light bulb can be weighed and measured along with its energy consumption and brightness, yet the light bulb and the light are two entirely separate things, and if we only look at the measurements, we will never see the light. Also our subjective reality is as "true" as objective reality. The logic for this stems back to the basic premise for truth itself ( The Correspondence Theory outlined briefly above ).

Subjective and objective reality just need to be kept in focus ( within their respective contexts ) when discussing particular issues. All too often they get jumbled up, especially in new age theories about the "manifestation" of various material desires ( think The Secret ). In my view, that stuff is is a spin on a mix of junk psychology and motivational mumbo jumbo, and it leads into the issues posed by your other assumption, " ... cosmic reality can alter psychological reality, but not vice versa ..." We could get really swamped in there if we're not careful because there is a definite interplay ... a co-dependence ... a feedback mechanism ... whatever you want to call it where bio-electrochemical processes do seem to be directly affected by the experiences they give rise to, leading to larger physical processes that in turn lead to physical action that changes both us and the world around us. I don't know of any science that has the relationship between sentience, intelligence, motivation and action all figured out. Perhaps that is what makes it so interesting to contemplate.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

A light bulb can be weighed and measured along with its energy consumption and brightness, yet the light bulb and the light are two entirely separate things, and if we only look at the measurements, we will never see the light.

The light is the energy that's being consumed, in the same way that the perceived output of an emotional experience is the brain's programmed reaction to the chemicals being consumed by the body. There is a reason that healthy people react in the same way to stimuli which produce the same chemicals in their bodies in like amounts. Certain chemical and neurological reactions cause laughter. It is the standard measure for that area of the nervous system working appropriately. Things that cause that reaction are subjective -- something can't be objectively an abstract concept, like funny -- but the reaction is universal.

In both cases I'd argue that the "feeling" associated with the chemicals generating laughter are all part of the laughter (resulting process) itself. There is no reason to separate the two. The concept of the "feeling" being separate from the observable physical reaction is abstract, like the concept of "funny." In that case, funny, and all abstract feeling concepts, are false constructs, in a cosmic (objective) sense.

a co-dependence ... a feedback mechanism ... whatever you want to call it where bio-electrochemical processes do seem to be directly affected by the experiences they give rise to, leading to larger physical processes that in turn lead to physical action that changes both us and the world around us.

This makes me think we might be talking about two entirely different things when we say "reality." Nobody's arguing that one physical body can;'t change another physical body -- this is where I'm arguing emotions come from -- but those alterations are just different states of an overarching cosmic reality.

In simplest terms, one person could be lead to believe that throwing chairs is good luck -- that is his psychological reality. He throws a chair and the chair breaks a window. The reality of the physical state of the window is that it is broken. It is no less cosmically true that the window is previously not broken. It is cosmically not true that the window is unbroken in this moment in spacetime, but in another moment in spacetime, the window is unbroken. The window holds both states in objective, cosmic reality. However, the person's psychological reality, that throwing chairs creates good luck, is still untrue in a cosmic sense, for the nature of the cosmos was not altered by his belief -- "throwing chairs is good luck" is still cosmically false.

You can't change the nature of the cosmos with your mind. You can change physical conditions of cosmic entities through the application of physical means, but that doesn't affect reality, one way or the other. All conditions the entity has physically experienced are true at some point in spacetime and are still cosmically real.

I think what you're talking about is correctness, which is a subjectively manifested concept of psychological reality. It would incorrect that the window is unbroken. It is incorrect that the window has never been unbroken. These are subjective observations based on psychological experience of spacetime. The states of the window in spacetime are all reality at the corresponding moments in spacetime, regardless of observation -- even in the absence of it.

Anything can be an observation. "5 is the happiest number for everyone" is an observation, which could also be subjectively correct. However, it's not a cosmic reality, as not everyone experiences chemical reaction as euphoria when subjected to the number 5.

Things can be subjectively correct but not be reality and vice versa.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I'll add that science is the attempt to study the cosmic reality without the need of the psychological one. That is what the method is all about. That's why the concept behind the "reality" of scientific principals deals with probabilities, rather than abstractions of concrete correctness. Our ability to break through the psychological reality, to see the cosmic reality, can change and develop over time.

The cosmic reality is "what is." Everything else is an abstract distraction. I'm not trying to get metaphysical, i think it's the opposite of metaphysical -- I think it's ultraphysical. The metaphysical is the psychological reality.

Variations on that worldview are what drives certain people to accept science at a very base level, when it comes to determining both what is correct and what is real.

 

[Randall]

Now we seem to be zeroing in a bit more. Essentially I get the impression that as we do this, we are actually talking about the same things. But details are important. If we use your example of laughter, we both seem to agree that the humor and the laughter are two different things. We can measure decibels, chemical reactions and facial expressions, but the essence of humor that we experience within ourselves that gives rise to these reactions is not the same as the reactions themselves ( although they do say laughter can be contagious ) . So again, the physical processes are like the light bulb and the humor is like the light. We even use such analogies to illustrate when we "get it" e.g. "At first I didn't get it, but then the light bulb went on and I roared with laughter". Clearly there are two distinct contexts going on there. However in a more practical sense. The majority of the time what I'm talking about is the difference between what we visualize and what is material. For example we might visualize a Ferrari in our driveway, but that doesn't mean there is a material Ferrari in our driveway. Yet the colors we see when we visualize activate our visual cortex either way. Therefore the gloss red finish ( if that's what we presume the color to be ) is just as "red" either way and therefore just as real within each context. Even as you have been reading this chances are high that the mere mention of a red Ferrari conjures up an image in your mind. Would you deny that such an image exists when you can see it so clearly? If it doesn't exist, then how are you able to see it within your mind? Clearly these images must be real, even if the Ferrari in your driveway isn't. Interestingly, apparently not everyone is able to visualize things as well as others. I've had debates with people that simply don't understand the concept at all ... even when using synonyms like "imagination". I really find it hard to believe some people are like that.

Imagination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Would you deny that such an image exists when you can see it so clearly?

I'd call the "image" a bio-chemical phenomenon, then I'd deny that the phenomenon is being seen. The phenomenon is being experienced, bio-chemically, with help from areas of the brain that process the psychological abstractions of perceived images. When your brain processes sight data, it's not that different from when you "imagine" that you are experiencing sight data. It's all ultimately your mind's abstract approximation of what's being experienced through the proper application of chemicals and the energies these chemicals produce. An image, though, beyond the abstraction of the sight data, exists as a physical object in the cosmic reality; the Red Ferrari is the abstract result of biological phenomena that are cosmically real.

I had this exact conversation, but more in interrogation form, with a group of Scientologists when I spent six hours at one of their headquarters in New York City. I say interrogation, because the questioning and discussion was what I'd describe as "casually aggressive." Out of the three of us who went to the headquarters that day, I was the only one who had three members doing my interview, as opposed to the one interviewer the other two had.

They use the concept of "seeing" imagined images as a proof of the soul. It is the soul who "see (or otherwise senses)" mentally conjured images and objects.

 

[Randall]

I'd call the "image" a bio-chemical phenomenon, then I'd deny that the phenomenon is being seen. The phenomenon is being experienced, bio-chemically, with help from areas of the brain that process the psychological abstractions of perceived images. When your brain processes sight data, it's not that different from when you "imagine" that you are experiencing sight data. It's all ultimately your mind's abstract approximation of what's being experienced through the proper application of chemicals and the energies these chemicals produce. An image, though, beyond the abstraction of the sight data, exists as a physical object in the cosmic reality; the Red Ferrari is the abstract result of biological phenomena that are cosmically real.

I had this exact conversation, but more in interrogation form, with a group of Scientologists when I spent six hours at one of their headquarters in New York City. I say interrogation, because the questioning and discussion was what I'd describe as "casually aggressive." Out of the three of us who went to the headquarters that day, I was the only one who had three members doing my interview, as opposed to the one interviewer the other two had.

They use the concept of "seeing" imagined images as a proof of the soul. It is the soul who "see (or otherwise senses)" mentally conjured images and objects.

Oh man Scientology ... well that explains it. You obviously weren't exorcised of all those Thetans while you were there . Returning to topic. The image you see when imagining something is no doubt at the very least, facilitated, if not a direct product of the neuro-electro-biochemical processes that take place within the brain. Even the same parts of the brain are used when visualizing as when viewing something optically. Therefore there is no logical reason for you to claim that either image is not being seen. And again, the brain is like the light bulb and the image is like the light. The image you see on a screen in the theater is entirely separate from the projector in the booth. They are not one in the same and never will be. However we do acknowledge their interdependence. So again we find that the only context that is relevant is whether or not the object being seen is in an imaginary context ( visualization ) or the result of optical stimulus ( visual perception ). In science we can perform mental constructions of experiments ( mental simulations ) and work out a lot of problems before any engineering takes place. So both contexts of reality take place in an interplay of mind and matter as we construct and perform the various experiments. When everything works out as hypothesized we can claim our hypothesis is probably true ( within whatever margin of error is applicable ).

 

[ProphetofOccam]

And again, the brain is like the light bulb and the image is like the light.

I tried to disagree with this analogy, but I don't think I explained it well enough.

I wanted to express, as in the previous example, that the brain, the projector and the light bulb are distracting from the idea that the light, or the thought, aren't magically produced. They are energy, converted from other energy; the brain and the light bulb are just vessels that facilitate the conversion. In the case of the brain, the chemistry in the brain interacts with the hardware biology producing energy. That energy is interpreted by other hardware. The output, the mental "image," is just that energy in a converted state. It's not "seen" because things that are seen are experienced with the eyes. Images are tangible things, in the universe, experienced by the eyes and can be shared with others who have functioning eyes, though a loose definition could include what we experience as mental manifestations.

I'm not really comfortable with that definition, for a lot of reasons. I can also mentally manifest taste, touch, smell and audio simulations, but I don't hear, smell, taste or feel anything in my mind, either. These are just mental simulations. The "picture" in your head is just the simulation of a picture, just as the tangible images from the projector are simulations of the in-person events they depict; the relationship is just one of the experiential state of an image, rather than the dimensional state of an object (or person, or whatever happens to be on screen). You don't "see" the mental manifestation anymore than you can directly interact with the objects on screen. The screen simulates what it is like being in the presence of an object or event, and the mental manifestation simulates what it is like when we see.

We are now debating one of the cornerstone concepts of many areas of philosophy, which is also untestable and unknowable. That's not really a practical exercise. We aren't going to agree on the nature of mental manifestations (or mental images, per your view). This is pretty reflective of the idea I mentioned before we began about not be able to agree on the concept of truth (in my view, reality).

In science we can perform mental constructions of experiments ( mental simulations ) and work out a lot of problems before any engineering takes place.

Other than conceiving of a hypothesis, I'm not sure if I know what you mean.

A hypothesis must still be weighted against what portions of the objective universe we've managed to understand via experimentation, as you mentioned. This is because we're capable of recognizing that the mental simulation, our psychological reality, isn't reality, not because there is some importance or relevance to the interplay between psychological reality and cosmic reality. In fact, we're actually trying to eliminate the power that psychological reality has to poison our understanding, or direct perception, of cosmic reality when we practice the part of the scientific method that is experimentation.

We disagree whether or not the thoughts required to form hypotheses, whether visual simulations or not, are actually being experienced in the same way as tangible objects. As a debate, that section has to be concluded (following any necessary follow-up on your end), I think. As a discussion, further explanation of our personal take on these phenomenon can continue. If we keep going point, counter-point, we'll just keep going in circles and greatly reduce the chances of learning more interesting things about our respective viewpoints.

I guess, if I had to sum my view of perception, reality, and the cosmic nature of things up, in a very general sense, I'd say take Hinduism and/or Buddhism, and turn it around 180 degrees. That's where you'll find me.

 

[Randall]

I tried to disagree with this analogy, but I don't think I explained it well enough.
I wanted to express, as in the previous example, that the brain, the projector and the light bulb are distracting from the idea that the light, or the thought, aren't magically produced. They are energy, converted from other energy; the brain and the light bulb are just vessels that facilitate the conversion. In the case of the brain, the chemistry in the brain interacts with the hardware biology producing energy. That energy is interpreted by other hardware. The output, the mental "image," is just that energy in a converted state. It's not "seen" because things that are seen are experienced with the eyes. Images are tangible things, in the universe, experienced by the eyes and can be shared with others who have functioning eyes, though a loose definition could include what we experience as mental manifestations.

No analogy is perfect, and nowhere do I invoke magic. Although we still don't fully understand how consciousness is manifested, I believe there is a scientific explanation, and that we only need sufficient information in order to understand it. But even if we go with your explanation above, the physical brain and the consciousness which arises from it are still separate, although as stated previously, interdependent.

I'm not really comfortable with that definition, for a lot of reasons. I can also mentally manifest taste, touch, smell and audio simulations, but I don't hear, smell, taste or feel anything in my mind, either. These are just mental simulations. The "picture" in your head is just the simulation of a picture, just as the tangible images from the projector are simulations of the in-person events they depict; the relationship is just one of the experiential state of an image, rather than the dimensional state of an object (or person, or whatever happens to be on screen). You don't "see" the mental manifestation anymore than you can directly interact with the objects on screen. The screen simulates what it is like being in the presence of an object or event, and the mental manifestation simulates what it is like when we see.

Actually we can and do regularly interact with the images and other perceptual products of consciousness on a regular basis. We do this both consciously and unconsciously ( dreams ). And we also regularly interact with things that appear on view screens.

We are now debating one of the cornerstone concepts of many areas of philosophy, which is also untestable and unknowable. That's not really a practical exercise. We aren't going to agree on the nature of mental manifestations (or mental images, per your view). This is pretty reflective of the idea I mentioned before we began about not be able to agree on the concept of truth (in my view, reality).

I suppose you have every right to deny that the perceptions you experience aren't real, but I would urge you to reflect on that some in light of the two contexts mentioned at the start. If you can in any way within that framework compose any logical argument as to why either isn't real, then I'd be interested in hearing it, but so far you haven't done that. All you've done is default to denial. On the other hand I've stated using logic and example that because imaginary perceptions involve the same physical brain centers as those experienced through external stimulus response that equivalency with respect to the perception applies, and therefore there is no logical rationale for denying the reality of either one. The only possible objection relates to the nature of the object being perceived, and this is taken care of by recognizing that there are two distinct contexts involved, one objective, the other subjective.

A hypothesis must still be weighted against what portions of the objective universe we've managed to understand via experimentation, as you mentioned. This is because we're capable of recognizing that the mental simulation, our psychological reality, isn't reality, not because there is some importance or relevance to the interplay between psychological reality and cosmic reality. In fact, we're actually trying to eliminate the power that psychological reality has to poison our understanding, or direct perception, of cosmic reality when we practice the part of the scientific method that is experimentation.

We disagree whether or not the thoughts required to form hypotheses, whether visual simulations or not, are actually being experienced in the same way as tangible objects. As a debate, that section has to be concluded (following any necessary follow-up on your end), I think. As a discussion, further explanation of our personal take on these phenomenon can continue. If we keep going point, counter-point, we'll just keep going in circles and greatly reduce the chances of learning more interesting things about our respective viewpoints.

I'm still not so certain that we disagree as much as we are exploring the problem from slightly different viewpoints and that the aim is for us to both come out ahead. While we are doing this I would caution you not to let skeptical bias creep in. For example, our subjective reality ( or what you call psychological reality ) is not a "poison" any more than Jewish people are "subhuman". I understand what you mean but it's better to remain as objective as possible. Returning to topic: Our entire perceptual experience is filtered through our senses and becomes our subjective view of the world around us. Without sensory input we experience nothing at all that relates to objective reality. Furthermore the scientific method relies on empirical evidence, which is evidence that can be experienced through our senses, without which no science would get done at all. In this sense our subjective realities are indispensable. What we are doing with science is attempting within the context of objective reality to verify that it corresponds to what we subjectively perceive or imagine ( hypothesize ) that it actually is. This correspondence then yields our scientific truths, and these truths are in harmony with the Correspondence Theory of Truth I set our earlier.

I guess, if I had to sum my view of perception, reality, and the cosmic nature of things up, in a very general sense, I'd say take Hinduism and/or Buddhism, and turn it around 180 degrees. That's where you'll find me.

Douglas Edison Harding? Buddha Space: An Experiment in Awareness

Not so sure about all that. My view of reality is that reality is simply the state of existence, but again within the objective and subjective contexts outlined above. Hopefully we don't need to start a new thread for that too ( although it does tend to be a recurring theme down through the ages ) .

 

[ProphetofOccam]

No analogy is perfect, and nowhere do I invoke magic. Although we still don't fully understand how consciousness is manifested, I believe there is a scientific explanation, and that we only need sufficient information in order to understand it. But even if we go with your explanation above, the physical brain and the consciousness which arises from it are still separate, although as stated previously, interdependent.

You didn't invoke magic, but the avoidance of how light comes into play implied that it simply does. It doesn't. I think the analogy as presented is disagreeable,m but with the addition of how light, and thought, come into being complete the picture. We can agree to disagree over the nature of that picture.

I am in the camp who believes that evidence is suggestive of the fact that consciousness, as a separate entity from the mechanics of bio-chemistry, is nonexistent. It's an abstraction, conceived within that very bio-chemistry, used to explain the phenomenon of perception. I've seen several debates on the matter, and I've never heard anything that was convincing to me regarding why or even how a condition of the brain would exist above and beyond -- read: outside -- the bio-chemical interplay between hardware in the brain. Magic would be required for "consciousness" to be anything more than a system of perceptions, which are formed from bio-chemical brain processes rooted in an evolution-based punishment and reward systems dependent on stimuli, made over complicated by the addition of near metaphysical explanations for the state of one's being.

Put simply: consciousness isn't an actual thing.

Actually we can and do regularly interact with the images and other perceptual products of consciousness on a regular basis. We do this both consciously and unconsciously ( dreams ). And we also regularly interact with things that appear on view screens.

You're going to have to clarify that.

How do we interact with dreams?

Unless you mean that we simply have dreams, in which simulated interaction with simulated objects and people takes place. If that is the case, we disagree, again.

If you mean we "interact" with objects on computer screens 9which don't exist -- you interact with the screen, not the things in the screen), then we disagree over the very nature of computers, screens, and interaction as a concept. I kind of feel like this isn't what you meant. The only other thing I can think you mean is that we interact with them by visually experiencing them, but that doesn't work for me, either. What you are interacting with, in that case, is still the screen (you are experiencing the screen and whit it does -- it displays the simulated materials).

We'll get to the rest of these a little later.

 

[Randall]

You didn't invoke magic, but the avoidance of how light comes into play implied that it simply does. It doesn't. I think the analogy as presented is disagreeable,m but with the addition of how light, and thought, come into being complete the picture. We can agree to disagree over the nature of that picture.

There was no implied magic. It's how you are viewing the analogy. The projector is not the picture on the screen. Likewise the brain is not the imagery. If it were you could look at the brain and see the imagery. However we both know that is not possible.

I am in the camp who believes that evidence is suggestive of the fact that consciousness, as a separate entity from the mechanics of bio-chemistry, is nonexistent. It's an abstraction, conceived within that very bio-chemistry, used to explain the phenomenon of perception ... Put simply: consciousness isn't an actual thing.

Two things can be separate yet dependent. Such are the brain and consciousness. Using the light analogy ( again ). If you turn on a flashlight ( your brain ), the light ( your consciousness ) is not the flashlight. However the light ( your consciousness ) is dependent on the flashlight ( your brain ) for its existence ( or so we believe ). It may be possible that what is really going on is something else, but the evidence stacks up pretty well for option one.

You're going to have to clarify that. How do we interact with dreams? Unless you mean that we simply have dreams, in which simulated interaction with simulated objects and people takes place. If that is the case, we disagree, again.

It was a response to your claim that we can't interact with the picture on the screen, which was the analogy of a projector being the brain and the image on the screen being imagery produced by our consciousness. I simply pointed out that we do interact with our internal imagery ... regularly too.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I'm not sure we could fundamentally disagree more on such basely definitive topics. Haha, well, in the least, it was a pretty interesting investigation into the way each of us deals with these topics. I had fun. it's a shame nobody else chimed in with anything. that really surprises me. I really thought they would.

 

[Randall]

I'm not sure we could fundamentally disagree more on such basely definitive topics. Haha, well, in the least, it was a pretty interesting investigation into the way each of us deals with these topics. I had fun. it's a shame nobody else chimed in with anything. that really surprises me. I really thought they would.

So far we both seem to agree that:

• Consciousness requires a functioning brain
• Subjective and objective realities exist
• Scientific truths correspond to objective realities

Where we seem to diverge is that you think that the material brain is the same as the thoughts and perceptions it gives rise to, whereas I believe that thoughts and perceptions are emergent properties of a functioning brain, not the brain itself. When I imagine a red Ferrari I see a red sports car, but apparently you don't "see" anything. Personally I'm going to make a leap of faith ( in humanity ) and choose to believe that when you imagine a red Ferrari, you see a red sports car just like the rest of us. But unlike other types of faith ... proving it may not be entirely impossible . Here is one of several similar articles you might find interesting:

Seeing and imagining are the same to the brain, MIT research shows - MIT News Office

I think that the reason people don't tend to chime in much on these issues is because they find it tedious and the value they get from it on a personal level isn't the same as you or I. On my side of the fence I have found our exchanges one of the most valuable experiences I've had in a long while, not because of the content, but because we've basically proven that it's possible for representatives of two seemingly opposing factions to have a meaningful and in-depth conversation without resorting to the trash talk that is often so prevalent. That alone is a cause for celebration ... I mean from the sound of what we've both been through in the past ... I'm not kidding ... cheers! .

 

[ProphetofOccam]

We agreed that the brain uses many of the same systems when processing imagined data and processing empirically experienced data. Since that study, which I actually read parts of in college(the study, not the article), there have been a lot of hypothesis built around why that is.

The brain doesn't use all of the same components, which suggests that it may just reference certain elements to interpret what we see and process it as digestible data (so it would likely also use these elements to "remember" this data later when we simulate the brain-borne experience of seeing). That's a hypothesis I agree with.

I think we have trouble coming together on my thoughts on thought and the brain's relation to it, so I'll just run through my understanding one more time. I don't think the brain and thought are one entity, but I do think thought is energy that has been converted by the brain in the form of sugars, other chemicals and reaction (just as light is energy [electricity] that has been converted in the light bulb). In that way, I see it as no different than running, speaking, or any other expression of bodily energy conversion. So while running is not equal to carrots, it is partially the carrots I ate that provide me with the converted energy to power my muscles to run (or to be finally converted into kinetic energy output). In the brain, some of these same energies, as well as other chemicals, provide me with the energy to trigger certain areas of my brain (just as a muscle) that result in what I experience as thought (or finally converted into bio-electrical energy to process, store, retrieve, respond to and cross reference data [a collective of profoundly complicated functions that I perceive as consciousness]).

Other than that, I'd say we're pretty well informed regarding one another's thought process.

 

[Randall]

The brain doesn't use all of the same components, which suggests that it may just reference certain elements to interpret what we see and process it as digestible data (so it would likely also use these elements to "remember" this data later when we simulate the brain-borne experience of seeing). That's a hypothesis I agree with.

The parts the brain doesn't use ( the neuro pathways from the sensory input to the sensory processors ) aren't relevant to the issue of what constitutes a sensory experience. Both objective and subjective experiences are real experiences. Therefore there is still no reason to claim that you don't see imagined images when the evidence says you do.

I think we have trouble coming together on my thoughts on thought and the brain's relation to it, so I'll just run through my understanding one more time. I don't think the brain and thought are one entity, but I do think thought is energy that has been converted by the brain in the form of sugars, other chemicals and reaction (just as light is energy [electricity] that has been converted in the light bulb).

Thought is a process rather than a thing, and you've described part of the process above. However "a thought" ( e.g. a visualization or mental construct ) is only part of that process, and while we know that such things exist, and are therefore real, there is no direct evidence that sensory experience and matter or energy are one in the same. Brain damage for example may result in impaired sensory performance, but the brain matter and the experience are still two separate issues. Using our analogy, damaging a light bulb doesn't prove that the light bulb is the same as the light it produces. It only suggests that they are related and that light is dependent on a functioning bulb. However in the case of a thought ( an imaginary image ), the image isn't actually composed of light. There is no tiny little projection screen inside your head. It also has no weight that can be measured. Brain waves can be measured on an EEG, but the EEG doesn't display the actual image. So "brain waves" aren't the image any more than radio waves are the music you hear on an FM station. The fact is, we just don't know exactly what it's made of. It's been a philosophical conundrum ever since it was first contemplated, and so far as I can tell, nobody has the answer yet. Certainly not you or I. However, where we do seem to agree is that it seems to be an "emergent property" of a functioning brain ( in conjunction with sensory input ).

In that way, I see it as no different than running, speaking, or any other expression of bodily energy conversion. So while running is not equal to carrots, it is partially the carrots I ate that provide me with the converted energy to power my muscles to run (or to be finally converted into kinetic energy output). In the brain, some of these same energies, as well as other chemicals, provide me with the energy to trigger certain areas of my brain (just as a muscle) that result in what I experience as thought (or finally converted into bio-electrical energy to process, store, retrieve, respond to and cross reference data [a collective of profoundly complicated functions that I perceive as consciousness]).

Running is not equal to to carrots in the same way thinking is not equal to carrots, but a thought is as different from carrots as running is from motion. We can run and still go nowhere ( treadmill ). We might then be tempted to say running isn't actually about how far our body travels, but about the movement of our legs, arms heart and so on that are used when running. But that still involves movement, and we tend to think we understand what is happening when we move something from location to location, but in reality we're not quite sure. This is another philosophical conundrum ( think Zeno of Elea ). When we look at the issue as close as we can, we get down to something called the Planck Length, and what goes on at that distance isn't certain. Below the Planck Length we can't pinpoint the location of anything, yet above it things still traverse the distance, but we we don't know how ... it just seems to happen.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

The parts the brain doesn't use ( the neuro pathways from the sensory input to the sensory processors ) aren't relevant to the issue of what constitutes a sensory experience.

That's exactly what we're disagreeing about. I think that it's not just relevant, but defining.

Thought is a process rather than a thing, and you've described part of the process above. However "a thought" ( e.g. a visualization or mental construct ) is only part of that process, and while we know that such things exist, and are therefore real, there is no direct evidence that sensory experience and matter or energy are one in the same. Brain damage for example may result in impaired sensory performance, but the brain matter and the experience are still two separate issues. Using our analogy, damaging a light bulb doesn't prove that the light bulb is the same as the light it produces. It only suggests that they are related and that light is dependent on a functioning bulb. However in the case of a thought ( an imaginary image ), the image isn't actually composed of light. There is no tiny little projection screen inside your head

Damaging the hardware damages the resulting thought capability of the hardware, just as damaging a light bulb may damage the quality of light it produces. Again, it is not the brain and thought that are one in the same, but the energy converted by the brain, the hardware, and thought that are the same. If you damage the hardware's ability to convert that energy, or even damage or alter the chemistry that helps produce some of that energy, you directly damage the thought that the hardware can produce. That is true of any mechanical system -- why would I assume that the brain and thought are deserving of special pleading?

The thought isn't a projection, surely. It's also not an image, in my view. It wouldn't be projected, because the mechanics required to experience that thought are completely different. The hardware used to process and experience the thought, or mental "image," "project" the thought using chemicals and energy. The image isn't composed of light, because it's not seen, in other words; it's composed of energy hitting the appropriate receptors in the brain, because it is experienced by, and manifested within, the mechanical, chemical brain. We use some of these same systems to translate sight data into something our hardware can read, but that would make sense in a mechanical system.

It's just my view that consciousness is an abstraction invented by human beings to explain the nature of experience and perception. It can't be pointed to or referenced in anyway that isn't abstract and secondary. It's a ghost. There's no reason to believe that it isn't entirely contained in the organ that's managing all other 100% related systems. There's no reason for me to believe that it should be granted any kind of special pleading for its existence.

From even the most basic things science understand about the brain, and how it works, consciousness is pretty easily explained -- that isn't my lone opinion, in case there is some consideration of my lack of understanding of the processes, though I did come upon it myself in my teens. It is my view, then, that people who seek to give some tangible weight to consciousness do so from a purely philosophical position, ironically using only circumstantial abstractions as their evidence for tangibility.

That's just the way it all breaks down to me. I get your view, but it's too abstract for me.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Running is not equal to to carrots in the same way thinking is not equal to carrots

Right. But it is also equal to carrots in the same way. it just depends on how you choose to break that down. The carrots are partially made of energy. We convert that energy into substances that our systems use to power activity -- thought, running, or whatever.

but a thought is as different from carrots as running is from motion. We can run and still go nowhere ( treadmill ).

You have to be in motion for what you're doing to be considered running. Running is a very specific arrangement of muscle movements. What you're talking about is travel. Running and traveling are different thing, but I'm not sure I follow you beyond my understanding that you've equated motion with travel.

Motion and travel are as different as carrots and dirt -- unless we get into philosophical abstractions or wuantum mechanics that don't really follow in this discussion regarding very physical matters of biological reaction.

We might then be tempted to say running isn't actually about how far our body travels, but about the movement of our legs, arms heart and so on that are used when running.

Yes.

But that still involves movement, and we tend to think we understand what is happening when we move something from location to location, but in reality we're not quite sure.

This is an argument from semantics.

Medical science is dependent, in many cases, on knowing how our muscles are activated by the body to produce reaction. You're setting a definition for motion that is outside the realms of the physical conversation and using it to deconstruct the original idea. The problem with that is, there's no reason for that definition of body motion. What we're talking about is bodily reaction (thought, running, etc.). Not the nature of being here and being there.

This is another philosophical conundrum ( think Zeno of Elea ). When we look at the issue as close as we can, we get down to something called the Plank Length, and what goes on at that distance isn't certain.

There's no reason for any of that. It's just clouding the water to allow for what i perceive as special pleading. We aren't talking about concepts at the quantum level. Trying to apply theoretical quantum mechanics to large body physics isn't really appropriate. Even if it were appropriate, Planck distance isn't a known -- it's entirely theoretical -- I wouldn't use it, for myself, to try to explain anything within known reality.

Below the Plank Length we can't pinpoint the location of anything

Mostly because we can't try. It's entirely theoretical. Even if we could assure that Planck distance was a valid concept (a physically shortest distance at the quantum level), we'd have no way of seeing it, let alone observing how elements of matter behave at that size.

But, again, this is quantum physics being melded with ancient philosophy, and, per my view, outside the realms of this particular discussion.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, yet again.

 

[Randall]

That's exactly what we're disagreeing about. I think that it's not just relevant, but defining.

It's only "defining" in the sense that it differentiates between an objective and subjective reality. Other than that, the experience of seeing is still the same, and as I've mentioned before even dictionary definition of the word "see" includes as a transitive verb "imagine something" ( Encarta ). So again, simply stating that it is "defining" without providing a rationale for that belief is not a sufficient counterpoint to the objective examples and logic I've posted. But don't get me wrong here. It is a very important differentiation to make. On one hand we see something entirely imaginary, while the other corresponds to something material and external to the boundaries of our physical selves. When we lose our perspective on that we start sliding into new agey mumbo jumbo.

That's just the way it all breaks down to me. I get your view, but it's too abstract for me.

There are very pragmatic reason for discussions like this. If we skip over them like most people we run the risk of going on to make larger assumptions based on personal preferences and biases rather than a solid foundation. I sense that your allegiance to science is your own way of associating yourself with what you believe to be a solid foundation, and there are certainly worse ways to go IMO as well. But what our discussion here is doing is probing those boundaries and challenging those assumptions. When we do that, we find that although scientific ideals are logical and the pursuit admirable, it suffers from many of the same issues as other human endeavors. It is not the absolute of truth that it is typically promoted by scientific skeptics and scientists to be, and there are other tools we can use to help us in our quest for truth ( if that is what you are really after ).

 

[stonehart]

Sorry I could not resist this.

 

[Randall]

But, again, this is quantum physics being melded with ancient philosophy, and, per my view, outside the realms of this particular discussion. We'll just have to agree to disagree, yet again.

If either of us cannot or will not provide sufficient counterpoint to defend our reasoning, then we aren't disagreeing, we're in a state where one of is choosing to ignore the argument or is unable to contribute anything beyond what has already been said, and that is not technically disagreement. It is simply a limitation. Sometimes that limitation can be exceeded, and ultimately that is our goal here. But it takes a lot of work. These seem like easy concepts but in reality they aren't. You created the thread and it is called "Truth" and it is a concept based in as ancient a philosophy as there is ... so how can it not be applicable to this particular discussion?

A Clip on Critical Thinking​

​

​