God and physics

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I’m reminded of a Zen koan:

Q. What is moving, the wind or the flag?
A. Neither, it is the mind that moves.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *I suppose that, at this point, I could point you to Stanford University’s excellent essays on theories of truth, but that would be rather like pointing them out to Jethro Clampett, so I’ll refrain.

I quite understand. That’s exactly why I don’t bother directing you to translations of the Tao Te Ching.

Having a theory of truth is secondary; first, you must offer a definition of the concept. Having a theory of ‘nithwaeldr’ is useless if no one knows what I mean when I use the word.

[Liberal]

Vorlon

Define these terms as you mean them, please: understand, exactly, truth, definition, concept, theory, useless, and knowledge.

Thanks.

[Liberal]

Vorlon

I’m bringing this over here from the Love thread, since your contributions seem more pertinent here than there.

There, you said that the universe is consistent but incomplete, and I asked:

Could you explain how the emission of a photon is “consistent”? And could you describe what the universe is missing? Thanks.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
Define these terms as you mean them, please: understand, exactly, truth, definition, concept, theory, useless, and knowledge.
**

Understand: to possess a working simulation that corresponds with a particular system;

Exactly: precisely, without excess or dearth, a complete summation;

I’ll finish explaining the other terms when I return.

[Liberal]

Okay, great! If you don’t mind, those definitions open new questions. For “understand” how does the possession work? Does my brain “possess” a working simulation? And is it the simulation that I understand as opposed to the corresponding system itself?

With respect to “exactly”, is something that is exact inconsistent since it is complete? Can exactness be deduced?

[Iamthat]

** other-wise**

wrote

Whether these assignments are sound or warranted is, I suppose, an open question. But this conventional assignment is how I’m using the words for the purposes of this conversation.

I understand, but a lot is riding on your definitions, as everything follows from them.

The property of redness requires four things: An object that reflects/re-emits photons with a wavelength of around 650-700 nanometers, which are subsequently absorbed by cone receptors, converted to a electrical signals, and sent to the brain for processing.

This is a dualist perspective and requires the believe in the existence of an object from which the photons reflect off its surface.

Only the “properties” of the object are ever perceived, consequently it posits two worlds: one which we always encounter as perceptions or “properties” and another of matter which we never encounter.

The signals arrive at the brain and the world appears. So what we actually perceive is an idea or thought in our mind/brain and not an object “out there” although it appears to be “out there”

If the “redness” is an idea in one’s mind how can it be ‘out there”? How can a thought be disembrained?

The experience of redness is the result (or memory) of that processing.

If the “experience” is where the “redness” is then the “experience” is on the surface of the apple, not in the body/brain. If so, where are you?

We are not talking about memory. We are talking about the immediacy of the experience at the moment it is happening, if that is possible.

[Iamthat]

There is a statement in Vedanta texts about understanding:

To understand one’s own understanding is not true understanding
rather
Not to understand that one understands, that is, the nonunderstanding of understanding is true understanding.

[Ramanujan]

*Originally posted by Iamthat *
This is a dualist perspective and requires the believe in the existence of an object from which the photons reflect off its surface.

Only the properties of the object are ever perceived, consequently it posits two worlds: one which we always encounter as perceptions or properties and another of matter which we never encounter.

to me, it seems to posit one world in which we encounter data and represent it in a way that is not equivalent to the data we encounter.

The signals arrive at the brain and the world appears. So what we actually perceive is an idea or thought in our mind/brain and not an object out there although it appears to be out there

we don’t actually perceive the thought, or the part of the mind. the mental processes are the perception.

If the redness is an idea in one s mind how can it be out there ? How can a thought be disembrained?

If the experience is where the redness is then the experience is on the surface of the apple, not in the body/brain. If so, where are you?

in this world view, there is no qualia of “what it is like to see red”. there is the redness, the tendency of the apple to reflect “red” light, there is the mental representation of “red” or the data organization that corresponds to “seeing red”, and there is the process of observing the “redness” of the apple. each of these things is physical, and all exist in the same world. all three considered can be conveniently represented by considering them “the perception of the red apple”, but that thing is quite misleading, in my opinion.

my interpretation is that the “qualia” is the mapping of the property of redness to the brain’s data representation. there need be no dualism here.

also, it seems that this view is consistent if we believe that the one world exists in our mind, rather than our mind existing in the one world.

[other-wise]

Iamthat wrote:

“… So what we actually perceive is an idea or thought in our mind/brain and not an object “out there” although it appears to be “out there”
If the “redness” is an idea in one’s mind how can it be ‘out there”? How can a thought be disembrained?”

Crimeny, Dude… I don’t mean to get snarky about this, but I request you re-read my posts. Please note the italics.

I’ve already said perception is an active process, and that our experience of redness is the result of that processing. We can’t “perceive” anything in “our mind/brain” anymore than we can swallow our throats. “Redness” is neither a thought nor an idea, it is our experience of the results of perception… in this case, from interrelating with an apple that (presumably) is external to us.

“If the “experience” is where the “redness” is then the “experience” is on the surface of the apple, not in the body/brain. If so, where are you?”

See above

“We are not talking about memory. We are talking about the immediacy of the experience at the moment it is happening, if that is possible.”

Why exclude memory? The experience of redness can result from immediate perceptual processing, or from the immediate experience of memory of perceptual processing.

[Iamthat]

Ramanujan

to me, it seems to posit one world in which we encounter data and represent it in a way that is not equivalent to the data we encounter.

Yes, I agree. It’s incongruent.

we don’t actually perceive the thought, or the part of the mind. the mental processes are the perception.

I agree. We don’t “perceive” the thought, more correctly, we are “aware” of it.

But we are unaware of the functions of our own brains so I do not think the mental processes are the perception, as you say.

but that thing is quite misleading, in my opinion.

Yes, dualism doesn’t add up.

my interpretation is that the “qualia” is the mapping of the property of redness to the brain’s data representation. there need be no dualism here.

The only apparent dualism is the awareness that we experience as distinct from what it is aware of, i.e. an idea. But that may be a deception.

[Iamthat]

** other-wise**

I request you re-read my posts. Please note the italics.

I did read your posts.

I said we “perceive” an idea or thought in our brain/mind because it appears as a perception occurring “out there” It is in fact not a perception but an awareness. There is no perception per say there is just an awareness.

So to clear that up, thoughts and ideas are not “perceived” but rather one has awareness of them

“Redness” is neither a thought nor an idea, it is our experience of the results of perception… in this case, from interrelating with an apple that (presumably) is external to us.

If “redness” is not a thought or an idea you would not know of its existence, since all we are ever aware of are ideas or thoughts or images that can only arise in a brain/mind.

If you don’t “think it” you don’t know it.

Why exclude memory? The experience of redness can result from immediate perceptual processing, or from the immediate experience of memory of perceptual processing

Yes, but the memory of the apple is different from the immediate experience of it.

At the moment of perceiving this monitor, there is only one monitor. There isn’t a monitor in my brain and a monitor “out there”

[Ramanujan]

*Originally posted by Iamthat *
We don t perceive the thought, more correctly, we are aware of it.

But we are unaware of the functions of our own brains so I do not think the mental processes are the perception, as you say.

so, what exactly is it that we are aware of, and what do we mean when we say we are “aware”?

i have a hard time finding the place where the leap from unconscious processes are taking place to the processes of which one is aware. is there such a place? need there be?

why must it be that the sum of all the processes is not the perception itself?

[Polycarp]

to me, it seems to posit one world in which we encounter data and represent it in a way that is not equivalent to the data we encounter.

One problem arises – the testimony of persons who have experienced something “supernatural” (a theophany, memories of a previous life, transport to the Elysian Fields of the I.P.U., whatever) which is rejected as being incongruent with a matter-and-energy universe.

This view strikes me as being quite as dogmatic as the reverse.

[Ramanujan]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
One problem arises – the testimony of persons who have experienced something “supernatural” (a theophany, memories of a previous life, transport to the Elysian Fields of the I.P.U., whatever) which is rejected as being incongruent with a matter-and-energy universe.

This view strikes me as being quite as dogmatic as the reverse.

one thing i discovered as a child was that there could be no such thing as “supernatural.” that is, it is impossible for something “not of this world” to be a part of this world. keeping that in mind, it must be noted that matter and energy are just convenient concepts that go a long way toward explaining the things we see, and do not imply inconsistent things. if you’ve ever studied the quantum model in depth, all the ideas of particles seems quite arbitrary. consider superstring theory, for example. no one actually believes that we are made up of tiny string-particles, but the math works out a lot better that way.

i see nothing inconsistent about the people you describe, just as i see nothing inconsistent about dreamscapes.

[other-wise]

Iamthat:

Sorry, but I’m not willing to pursue this any further. You asked me a question that didn’t make sense to me, so I tried to clarify the question and answer it to the best of my ability. I have nothing to add that would not be a rehash of my previous posts.

I sincerely wish you well… may you find out “Who am I?” and realize that which is already realized.

other-wise

[Iamthat]

other-wise

Okay, best to you as well.

[Iamthat]

** Ramanujan**

so, what exactly is it that we are aware of, and what do we mean when we say we are “aware”?

Through a subject—object relationship we are aware thoughts and images.

The subject is the “awareness” or “consciousness” And the object is any thoughts/ideas or images, feelings, bodily sensations etc. internal/external.

What is a thought and what is an idea? Who knows, they seem to just appear out of no where.

i have a hard time finding the place where the leap from unconscious processes are taking place to the processes of which one is aware. is there such a place? need there be?

But we are not aware of the any processes. We are only aware of what appears as the end result of brain processes, ideas, thoughts and/or images in the mind/brain.

why must it be that the sum of all the processes is not the perception itself?

I guess it’s a distinction between cause and effect. All the processes might produce the percept, but we are only ever aware of the percept, the end result.

[TVAA]

I’m back!

understand, exactly, truth, definition, concept, theory, useless, and knowledge.

truth: the essential nature of a category or concept; an accurate emulation of the category or concept

definition: a concatenation of elemental distinctions that expresses the nature of a category; the embodied form of conceptual truth

concept: a distinction or superposition of distinctions

theory: an association of distinctions thought to correspond with a particular category

useless: failing to make a distinction

knowledge: a map that imitates a territory

[Liberal]

Oh, dear. I’m afraid I’m going to need definitions for the following:

essential
nature
category
accurate
emulation
elemental
embodied
form
conceptual
distinction
superposition
association
failing
map
imitates
territory

Thanks! Glad to see you’re back!