Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Under Humanism because it's about our "human mindscape"


Forums Forums Humanism Under Humanism because it's about our "human mindscape"

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 46 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #309317
    @timb
    Participant

    I would say so.  The neurological coordinates that accompany my imagining, let’s say, a bird, are a physical manifestation.   The bird I am imagining is not physical but the neurons firing is.

    Really. It seems analogous to making a video of a bird.  Playing the video of the bird is a physical occurrence.  Although the bird in the video is not an actual physical bird.

    #309319
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    Are the ideas that result from neurons communicating via chemical reactions not physical?

    The neurons communicating are physical, but the ideas and imagined images are not. The images don’t exist in the neurons, they are a result of those firings plus whatever else we use to get those images in our heads. I don’t know what neuroscientists say, I’m just going with the basic definition of “physically real”.

    Write4U puts “see” in quotes because the mental image is not the physical thing.

    If we don’t define it this way, I’m not sure the term “physical” has any meaning.

    #309323
    @3point14rat
    Participant

    Really. It seems analogous to making a video of a bird.  Playing the video of the bird is a physical occurrence.  Although the bird in the video is not an actual physical bird.

    Me too. But that’s with very little thought on the topic on my part.

    If we don’t define it this way, I’m not sure the term “physical” has any meaning.

    Thoughts don’t exist in a way that is tangible and we’re not able to directly transfer them in any way, so I can see how they can be seen as non-physical. But I know that years ago computers that were able to register them in very general and basic ways (back in the early 2000’s the local science center had a contraption that you could put on your head to compete with another person to move a ball using only your thoughts.)

    I made the huge mistake of doing an internet search for “are thoughts real”. It’ll take me a month of Sundays to read and understand what researchers and philosophers have to say on the topic.

    #309328

    TimB, I read that and had an image of the spanner getting dropped down the silo, but that’s a different story.

     

    Seems to me all metaphor has its limitations and if the object is to split hairs – there’s always something there to play with.

    Mind experiments are only good so far as the lesson your wrestling with.

    My point is that the web of thoughts we have in our mind, oh dear gonna have to reach for another analogy, could even be considered a Super-natural thing, if there ever was such a thing.

    I guess my other real point is that I believe it’s impossible to get a better appreciation for reality until we appreciate reality for what it is, something distinct and separate from our minds.  Of course once we use our hands to turn thoughts into actions, the equation changes, but it doesn’t change anything about the underlying fact that the human mindscape is qualitatively different from the physical world which created it.

    #309340
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    I didn’t expect CC to bring in another term, but I don’t think it changes anything. As long as you are saying that there is a natural, real, physical world and we can imagine things that don’t exist in that world. If you want to call those “supernatural” that’s fine, that is a word, a concept that we all know about. It’s still the same as I said before; the imaginations exists as some sort of explainable phenomenon, regardless of how well or how accurately we can explain it, but they aren’t real in any other way, shape or form.

    #309345
    @write4u
    Participant

    3point14rat said,

    So, are you saying that imagination is physical?

    In a sense yes. perhaps this may clarify the thrust of the argument.

    Typically, a hologram is a photographic recording of a light field, rather than an image formed by a lens. The holographic medium, i.e., the object produced by a holographic process (which itself may be referred to as a hologram) is usually unintelligible when viewed under diffuse ambient light.

    It is an encoding of the light field as an interference pattern of variations in the opacity, density, or surface profile of the photographic medium. When suitably lit, the interference pattern diffracts the light into an accurate reproduction of the original light field, and the objects that were in it exhibit visual depth cues such as parallax and perspective that change realistically with the relative position of the observer. That is, the view of the image from different angles represents the subject viewed from similar angles.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography

    I believe that such an arrangement exists within the brain. The continual electro-chemical stimulation of all the neurons at once, forming a continually changing message, perhaps similar to a billboard changing its message by selecting set patterns of light from among the colored light bulbes.

    This phenomenon allows us to “envision” what we see or what we can imagine. The “human mindscape”.

     

     

    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by Write4U.
    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by Write4U.
    #309367

    I didn’t expect CC to bring in another term, but I don’t think it changes anything. As long as you are saying that there is a natural, real, physical world and we can imagine things that don’t exist in that world.

    It’s still the same as I said before; the imaginations exists as some sort of explainable phenomenon, regardless of how well or how accurately we can explain it, but they aren’t real in any other way, shape or form.

    Actually I hate the ‘super natural’ – and agree it doesn’t change anything to what I’m trying to say.

    Second sentence sounds like you’re starting to get it.

    “regardless of how well or how accurately we can explain it, but they aren’t real in any other way, shape or form.”

    Isn’t that what I’m trying to explain?

    The physical world the ‘mind’ exists within, that is real in every way, shape and form, no matter how well we think we understand it or not.

     

    This phenomenon allows us to “envision” what we see or what we can imagine. The “human mindscape”.

    That works for me.

    #309415
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    I’m in a facebook group called “Real Atheology” they do super technical logic stuff about theology, but the “A” is against, just like a-theist. Here’s how they put it just recently:

    The Mind-Body Problem

    (1) The body is a physical entity.
    (2) The mind is a non-physical entity.
    (3) The mind and the body causally interact.
    (4) Physical entities and non-physical entities cannot causally interact.

    These 4 propositions cannot all be true. No one can consistently believe all 4 propositions. If any 3 are true, then the 4rth must be false.

    The mind interacts with the body => The body is a physical thing => A physical thing cannot interact with a non-physical thing => The mind is a non-physical thing

    I’m a little uncomfortable with it, but I think 2 is true and 4 is false.

    #309416
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    The above links to a longer discussion, which I haven’t worked through and probably won’t get entirely. 

    But, I noticed it is proving that immaterial minds don’t exist. That’s a fine distinction. There is no such thing as a mind without a physical brain, so in that sense, “everything is physical”, but that’s different than saying the mind is the brain. They can’t be separated physically, but there is a distinction in what we are talking about it when we use the words.

    #309426

    Agreed.

    As for that previous post and that discussion – it seems focused on the mind – while overlooking the universe we exist within.

    Which brings me right back to the point I’m hammering on.

    Okay, let me try to put it this way:  It’s the mind that is the starting point for all their discussion.

    Whereas I make a big deal about being an EARTH CENTRIST expressly because my starting point is the physical universe and I work back to the mind from that central perspective.  I believe most other do it the other way around, which I believe leads to the thinking that the universe must fit into the mind and which leads to all the obsession for absolute knowledge, which in turn creates a need for gods.

    Which leads to the endless talk for the sake of talking, not to mention a bunch of bellybutton gazing.

    #309443
    @timb
    Participant

    I think both 2 and 4 are false.

    The most reasonable thing to do, I think, is to define “mind or mindscape” differently from “brain”.  There is nothing that is supernatural or non-physical about the “mind”.  Even tho it is not the same thing as the “brain”.  And I think that the most concise and practical way of looking at the mind is that it is the composite of all of our covert mental behaviors.

    But I am not expecting to have any converts to my way of thinking about this, today.

    #309459
    @write4u
    Participant

    CCv3 said,

    I believe most other do it the other way around, which I believe leads to the thinking that the universe must fit into the mind and which leads to all the obsession for absolute knowledge, which in turn creates a need for gods.

    True, and of course that is the absolutel last solution to the Quasi-Intelligent mathematical values and functions of the Universe.

    However. There is a third and ideally suited environment for guiding natural phenomena.  Mathematics. It meets all requirements for dynamic regularities and completely replaces the necessity for a “sentient director”.

    It is very simple. Spacetime is a physical mathematical construct and as such function mathematically.

     

    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by Write4U.
    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by Write4U.
    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by Write4U.
    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by Write4U.
    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by Write4U.
    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by Write4U.
    #309464
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    TimB, that is a valid alternative to the problem. I was considering in the back of my, um, mind, but I can’t quite get on board with it. I don’t like that the mind is not aware of it being a result of activity in the brain. It feels like thoughts are swirling around my head somewhere and that some of them come from other parts of my body or just sneak up on me. I can travel across time and space with my mind. I only know I’m not really doing that because I’ve been told that no one has demonstrated that happening, ever.

    CC, simple and accurate. That’s it in a nutshell.

    #309466
    @timb
    Participant

    Lausten, When you said “…I don’t like that the mind is not aware of it being a result of activity in the brain…”, I don’t understand what you mean.  What were you referencing by “it“.

    #309467

    I think, is to define “mind or mindscape” differently from “brain”.

    Hasn’t that been done?  The Brain is the mass of flesh.  The Mind is what that mass of neurons and whatnot produces.

     

    I don’t like that the mind is not aware of it being a result of activity in the brain.

    Seems to me that’s where the wonder of the human invention of Science comes in.  It is only through science that our mind can get a sense of being produced by the brain.

     

    some of them come from other parts of my body or just sneak up on me.

    Hasn’t it been show that our brain neurons extend far beyond the mind and into our bodies and guts.  Particularly guts if I’m remembering correctly.

     

    CC, simple and accurate. That’s it in a nutshell.

    Hmmm, flew right by me.  What’s in the nutshell?

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 46 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.