Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[SelfSim]

Yes, and I would suggest that such beliefs may be true in the sense that whatever is believed could indeed possibly be the case.

Likewise, such beliefs may be false - the thing "believed" may turn out to not be the case. Would you agree?

Untested testable hypotheses would be one such example.
A scientist who believes in the truth (or otherwise) of their own untested hypothesis however, causes much grief and cries of 'Hypocrisy!' amongst non-scientifically thinking 'believers'. But, hey, scientists are also humans.

'Truth' (or falsity) in science, is never better than its last best tested theory.
This is a major difference from how a believer conceptualises 'truth', however.

 

[expos4ever]

Next morning...

"...this stuff hasn't helped at all! I still obviously have a soul and am suffering as much as ever!"

Doesn't all this suggest that perhaps there might be something just a little wrong with dualism?

Not sure what your point is. It seems to me that you are begging the question in a rather obvious way - you appear to simply assume that next morning this guy still has subjective experiences. But this is the very point at issue - it is at least conceptually possible that he would not be conscious. Why? Because a case can be made - and admittedly I have not attempted to make such a case yet - that our current models of the brain do not give a proper account of consciousness and it is therefore not at all clear that consciousness "follows" from what we otherwise know about the brain. Do I believe that consciousness is generated by the physical brain? Yes I do. You may think I am contradicting myself but I don't think I am. While I believe that consciousness is produced by brain processes, I do not think that that consciousness is reducible to brain processes. That may not be clear but that is the best I can come up with for now.

I can be clear about one thing: I believe I have written nothing that would justify concluding that I embrace dualism in the usual sense - the idea that there is an immaterial "ghost in the machine". I instead embrace "propery dualism": Property dualism describes a category of positions in the philosophy of mind which hold that, although the world is composed of just one kind of substance—the physical kind—there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties

It seems to me that you think I am a "typical" dualist - I am not.

 

[SelfSim]

This is the paradigm difference and I think if we are to truely understand fundemental reality we need to be open to both parts of what constitutes reality. That being the quantitative and the qualitative aspects of reality. That is why many are looking at how consciousness may play a role beyond the material world whether in QM or in the macro world with things like well anything that can signify consciousness beyond brain (non local stuff beyond time and space).

What contsitutes reality is decided by us humans.
Your decision is different from the scientific thinker.

Besides what is wrong with belief. Phenomenal belief is not necessarily unwarrented as a measurable and real source of knowledge about the world and reality. In some ways our direct experience that causes us to believe something even if its not measurable scientifically is more real than what can be tested by science.

I can see after many pages in this thread, your beliefs about the reality of ethereal, disembodied consciousness, are not convincing anyone.
This is frequently, observably the case, when beliefs are the sole basis of argument.

I find it dismissing and lacking any arguement that our conscious experience and belief is just some secondary phenomena caused by naturalistic physical processes and thus unreal and not a source of true knowledge itself about reality. It goes against everything we are, our agency, our sense of self and our place in the world and how we look beyond for truth.

Perhaps you should reconsider your view of what we really are, then?

 

[SelfSim]

While I believe that consciousness is produced by brain processes, I do not think that that consciousness is reducible to brain processes. That may not be clear but that is the best I can come up with for now.

Interesting.
Begs the question of what to do with the evidence of where full consciousness is reduced, by varying degrees, via impaired brain processes though(?)

 

[expos4ever]

Interesting.
Begs the question of what to do with the evidence of where full consciousness is reduced, by varying degrees, via impaired brain processes though(?)

The fact that you raised this question shows that, for whatever reason, there is a communication muddle between us. I have tried to be clear that I believe that, in fact, brain processes generate (produce) consciousness. Hence when the brain is impaired, consciousness is impaired.

Here is a definition for something called "property dualism: Property dualism describes a category of positions in the philosophy of mind which hold that, although the world is composed of just one kind of substance—the physical kind—there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties.

I lean in the direction of property dualism - I think consciousness, while in fact arising from physical processes, is something that cannot itself be categorized as "physical" - there is no purely "mechanistic / physicalist" explanation of our subjective mental states - all we know is that brain state X corresponds to conscious experience Y and we do not have any kind of explanation of how that happens.

The issues here are subtle and I suspect I am not explaining myself as well as I should be.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not sure what your point is. It seems to me that you are begging the question in a rather obvious way - you appear to simply assume that next morning this guy still has subjective experiences.

How do you know that there's anyone there to have any experiences? Maybe it worked, and that body is now a soulless automaton that merely acts as if there was someone in there.

It seems to me that you think I am a "typical" dualist - I am not.

I never really thought about what kind (if any) you might be. A very wise person once wrote that the mind is not merely an epiphenomenon of the brain. But perhaps that's one of the things it is. If so, we aren't that far apart.

 

[SelfSim]

How do you know that there's anyone there to have any experiences? Maybe it worked, and that body is now a soulless automaton that merely acts as if there was someone in there.

I never really thought about what kind (if any) you might be. A very wise person once wrote that the mind is not merely an epiphenomenon of the brain. But perhaps that's one of the things it is. If so, we aren't that far apart.

Hmm .. so the mind might be more than just a single 'thing'?
(I'm just curious here .. I'm sort of groping around here ..)

 

[SelfSim]

The fact that you raised this question shows that, for whatever reason, there is a communication muddle between us. I have tried to be clear that I believe that, in fact, brain processes generate (produce) consciousness. Hence when the brain is impaired, consciousness is impaired.

Here is a definition for something called "property dualism: Property dualism describes a category of positions in the philosophy of mind which hold that, although the world is composed of just one kind of substance—the physical kind—there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties.

I lean in the direction of property dualism - I think consciousness, while in fact arising from physical processes, is something that cannot itself be categorized as "physical" - there is no purely "mechanistic / physicalist" explanation of our subjective mental states - all we know is that brain state X corresponds to conscious experience Y and we do not have any kind of explanation of how that happens.

The issues here are subtle and I suspect I am not explaining myself as well as I should be.

All ok .. thanks for the clarification.

I suppose all I have to say is that no matter what a mind is, there's abundant evidence supporting the need for at least one, in order to distinguish what's real/exists (and what isn't/doesn't).

 

[expos4ever]

How do you know that there's anyone there to have any experiences? Maybe it worked, and that body is now a soulless automaton that merely acts as if there was someone in there.

Again, I am confused by your reply. In your post 216, what point are you trying to make? As to your statement here that "Maybe it worked, and that body is now a soulless automaton that merely acts as if there was someone in there", I think I agree in the sense that I think it is conceptually possible for a "zombie" to exist that acts just like a human and yet there is no subjective experience "inside" that zombie.

 

[stevevw]

Agree - people often appeal to science in this way.

I doubt it - I see nothing in the scientific method, as expressed by people who actually understand what science is, that precludes the possible existence of something that cannot be demonstrated scientifically. On the other hand, I do agree that the "man in the street" - who does not really understand what the scientific method entails - may believe that if something cannot be scientifically verified, then it cannot be "real".

I mean the science method (how we measure the world and reality is designed to only measure quantities and mechanistic behaviour. It cannot measure the supernatural. So as the science method is designed not to measure the supernatural because the supernatural doesn't behave in naturalistic processes or exists as quantities its designed to exclude the supernatural before a measurement or test is done. It excludes the supernatural as a priori.

Can you support this statement? I know what epiphenomenalism means but I am skeptical that there is a scientific consensus that consciousness is epiphenomenal. Isn't this really an open question at the present time (among scientists, that is)?

I think its logical. As science cannot measure stuff beyond the physical naturalistic behaviour and processes it cannot be open to consciousness being something real beyond the brain. So it has to restrict the cause of consciouness to the physical brain.

As neurons and brain activity itself cannot explain conscious experience then the only alternative is to say that consciousness is an epiphenomena of the physical brain. A secondary activity or state caused by the brain. Like say steam is a secondary outcome of boiling water.

Again, I understand what epiphenomenal means, but I just do not believe that there is a consensus among scientists that consciousness is epiphenomenal. For example, from wikipedia:

A number of scientists and philosophers, including William James, Karl Popper, John C. Eccles and Donald Symons, dismiss epiphenomenalism from an evolutionary perspective.[21][22][23][24][25] They point out that the view that mind is an epiphenomenon of brain activity is not consistent with evolutionary theory, because if mind were functionless, it would have disappeared long ago, as it would not have been favoured by evolution.

Yes most of those scientists support Mind and consciousness as being something fundemental and real beyond brain. But I think these are the exceptions as far as mainstream science goes because the idea that there is something real beyond the naturalism goes against the core paradigm of science which is it has to be testable and verifiable.

You cannot test and verify something that is beyond naturalism such as supernatuiralism as theres nothing to test, nothing they can measure quantitatively, nothing they can put in a test tube or see directly in the first place. But there is a growing area that is looking outside the box at other ways we can understand consciousness such as through direct experience, NDE, remote viewing ect.

But that brings us back to the first point that many will then use science to dispute any claim about consciousness beyond physical brain. For example by claiming any stories of people having a NDE is in their imagination, its the physical brain playing tricks, its delusion, toxins, Anesthesia, made up stories, bias ect. Thats because they believe consciousness is caused by the physical brain only and cannot accept these ideas.

 

[BeyondET]

What contsitutes reality is decided by us humans.
Your decision is different from the scientific thinker.

I can see after many pages in this thread, your beliefs about the reality of ethereal, disembodied consciousness, are not convincing anyone.
This is frequently, observably the case, when beliefs are the sole basis of argument.

Perhaps you should reconsider your view of what we really are, then?

Until something like a haunting decides to make its presents known. Plenty of people never have experienced such things or will and dont believe. But once people do, their reality changes quite a bit.

 

[SelfSim]

Until something like a haunting decides to make its presents known. Plenty of people never have experienced such things or will and dont believe. But once people do, their reality changes quite a bit.

Changes yes .. and yet the technologies those very people accept and frequently rely on for their everyday existence, was produced by deliberately putting aside notions of such belief based reality.
By way of (a false) comparison there, do 'hauntings' really matter? Why shouldn't they be ignored when such belief-bases basically lead nowhere?

 

[stevevw]

What contsitutes reality is decided by us humans.

Exactly. Its not decided by the truth about what is actually real but what humans conscieve is real, a conception of the Mind and not anything real outside the Mind.

Your decision is different from the scientific thinker.

I am not sure what you mean.

I can see after many pages in this thread, your beliefs about the reality of ethereal, disembodied consciousness, are not convincing anyone.
This is frequently, observably the case, when beliefs are the sole basis of argument.

Perhaps you should reconsider your view of what we really are, then?

How is what I said not convincing. Are you saying that the majority of people in the world believe and the many scientists who study consciousness beyond mind are just deluding themselves. They are all wrong except for a special small group of enlightened minds.

 

[expos4ever]

I mean the science method (how we measure the world and reality is designed to only measure quantities and mechanistic behaviour. It cannot measure the supernatural. So as the science method is designed not to measure the supernatural because the supernatural doesn't behave in naturalistic processes or exists as quantities its designed to exclude the supernatural before a measurement or test is done. It excludes the supernatural as a priori.

Let's focus on your last sentence - "It excludes the supernatural as a priori". Do you mean that the scientific method excludes the supernatural from being evaluated / assessed by the scientific method? Or do you mean that the scientific method says that supernatural phenomena do not even exist in reality?

If you are saying the former, I agree. If you are saying the latter, I would ask you to provide evidence that the scientific method does not allow for the possibility that supernatural "things" can be real.

Do you see the difference? I suggest that the scientific method is simply silent on some issues, for example the existence of some types of "gods".

 

[expos4ever]

I think its logical. As science cannot measure stuff beyond the physical naturalistic behaviour and processes it cannot be open to consciousness being something real beyond the brain. So it has to restrict the cause of consciouness to the physical brain.

I think you are making a fundamental error - you appear to believe that because the scientific method can only investigate physical naturalistic behaviour and processes, it therefore denies that the things that it cannot investigate could possibly exist in reality.

This would be like a blind person declaring "because I cannot access the subjective experience of vision, vision as a subjective experience does not even exist."

 

[The Barbarian]

Again, I am confused by your reply. In your post 216, what point are you trying to make? As to your statement here that "Maybe it worked, and that body is now a soulless automaton that merely acts as if there was someone in there", I think I agree in the sense that I think it is conceptually possible for a "zombie" to exist that acts just like a human and yet there is no subjective experience "inside" that zombie.

So, if we can't tell the difference, how do we know there's a difference? We certainly have digital entities that can pass the Turing test for congnition:

Computing Machinery and Intelligence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think most of us would now say that the Turing test is too low a bar for cognition. But how much do we need before we conclude there's someone in there? I think that we need more than a mere epiphenomenon of a physical process. But what more and how much more?

"No Trurl, a sufferer is not one who hands you his suffering, that you may touch it, weigh it, bite it like a coin; a sufferer is one who behaves like a sufferer!"
Klapaucious in The Seventh Sally or How Trurl's Own Perfection Led to No Good by Stanislav Lem

The Seventh Sally

home.sandiego.edu

Worth reading the entire short story.

 

[SelfSim]

So, if we can't tell the difference, how do we know there's a difference?

Model (or Mind) dependent reality.
Until a difference shows up, there is no difference.

I think most of us would now say that the Turing test is too low a bar for congnition. But how much do we need before we conclude there's someone in there? I think that we need more than a mere epiphenomenon of a physical process. But what more and how much more?

The mind is continually exploring its own perceptions, (and in this case), of itself.
Minds create models including the one we call 'reality', which is based on perceptions and observations. There is no need for the supposed external 'thing itself'.
As with all our models, the reality model is incomplete and subject to change.
The same applies to its self awareness model.

Logic is part of the model of the mind too.

"No Trurl, a sufferer is not one who hands you his suffering, that you may touch it, weigh it, bite it like a coin; a sufferer is one who behaves like a sufferer!"
Klapaucious in The Seventh Sally or How Trurl's Own Perfection Led to No Good by Stanislav Lem

The Seventh Sally

home.sandiego.edu

Worth reading the entire short story.

Interesting read .. thank you for posting .. very Star Trek looking. I'm sure I've seen all this covered in multiple episodes(?)

 

[partinobodycular]

So as the science method is designed not to measure the supernatural because the supernatural doesn't behave in naturalistic processes or exists as quantities its designed to exclude the supernatural before a measurement or test is done. It excludes the supernatural as a priori.

Personally, I think that the idea that there are 'supernatural' causes is complete hoohah, and not worth considering, and I'm a pretty darn open minded person. The problem is that you're labeling anything that science can't measure or test as 'supernatural' and that I believe to be a very poor definition. First, it's a lousy paradigm, because it means that what's supernatural changes over time as science learns to measure what had previously been considered unmeasurable. Either that, or you're assuming that there are things which are by their very nature unmeasurable and untestable... like the multiverse supposedly is, but that doesn't make the multiverse supernatural. In the same sense that any 'other dimensional' realities may be unmeasurable, but that doesn't make them supernatural either... just unmeasurable.

So what is it that actually makes something supernatural? Without a clear definition it's just a meaningless term for the hoohah that you can't explain.

You're right though, there may be angels, and demons, and miracles, and such, but calling them supernatural would seem to be nothing more than a catchall for things that you believe in but have absolutely no rational way of explaining. And I'm afraid that there's a whole lot of stuff in there. So you're gonna need something more than calling them "supernatural" to wrest them out of the realm of hoohah.

I don't care whether they're measurable or testable... but logical, and reasonable, those are things that I'm really fond of. So if you've got none of those four things... then I'm sorry, but you've got hoohah. And hoohah, while not necessarily wrong, is still hoohah.

 

[The Barbarian]

Interesting read .. thank you for posting .. very Star Trek looking. I'm sure I've seen all this covered in multiple episodes(?)

Lem is a very interesting guy. A Czech scientist, who wrote science fiction that contained lots of humorous anti-regime content that few bureaucrats would detect ( a Marxist bureaucrat with a sense of humor is living on borrowed time). One story involved a mysterious but vaguely threatening object suddenly appearing. When nothing seemed to work against it, the protagonist resorted to sending all sorts of forms, inspections. requests for information, notices of violations, etc. until the object, overwhelmed by the bureaucracy, gave up and left.

 

[SelfSim]

Lem is a very interesting guy. A Czech scientist, who wrote science fiction that contained lots of humorous anti-regime content that few bureaucrats would detect ( a Marxist bureaucrat with a sense of humor is living on borrowed time). One story involved a mysterious but vaguely threatening object suddenly appearing. When nothing seemed to work against it, the protagonist resorted to sending all sorts of forms, inspections. requests for information, notices of violations, etc. until the object, overwhelmed by the bureaucracy, gave up and left.

Chuckle .. chuckle!
Sounds like my kinda dude.
Cheers