What is Evidence?

[PearlSeeker]

So if I am to show you how I understand something in my thinking I can't show you that as physical. because it is mental and in the mind.

Anything which can be measured either directly or indirectly.
Basically the fact of it being measurable makes it physical.
For example your thoughts produce brainwaves which can be measured. Therefore your thoughts are physical.

Some view mind or consciousness as physical some as non-physical. What about emergent property of body/brain?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Some view mind or consciousness as physical some as non-physical. What about emergent property of body/brain?

It's a very good working hypothesis. But as of now, we have no evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Some view mind or consciousness as physical some as non-physical. What about emergent property of body/brain?

We are playing philosophy. In the end it boils down to what is believed about the world as such.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We are playing philosophy. In the end it boils down to what is believed about the world as such.

I agree that right now, when it comes to understanding consciousness, we are still in the dark ages. But that is because scientific investigation has only just begun. Come back in a hundred years and see what we have figured out.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I agree that right now, when it comes to understanding consciousness, we are still in the dark ages. But that is because scientific investigation has only just begun. Come back in a hundred years and see what we have figured out.

That would be interesting. And if I thought I’d be around to collect, I’d put money on it being the materialists who got the biggest shock.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree that right now, when it comes to understanding consciousness, we are still in the dark ages. But that is because scientific investigation has only just begun. Come back in a hundred years and see what we have figured out.

It still requires that science can solve the fundamental questions in epistemology and metaphysics. So far it hasn't solved those, but are using a version of philosophy.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It still requires that science can solve the fundamental questions in epistemology and metaphysics. So far it hasn't solved those, but are using a version of philosophy.

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[Nakosis]

Some view mind or consciousness as physical some as non-physical. What about emergent property of body/brain?

IOW, how reality gets interpreted to consciousness?

The exact mechanics, I don't think anyone knows yet. However, we have physical examples of how information gets interpreted into a usable format. Take your computer system for example. It takes information that you wouldn't be able to make sense of if you were to view directly the information signals themselves and converts them into sound, colors, beautiful images, music, creates AI personalities etc...

All this occurs through a purely physical process which is 100% known and understood by a few. Even though a majority of folks don't understand how this works, they still experience the reality of it.

So there is no reason to think consciousness is not a physical process. Just that we have yet to learn the mechanics of it.

 

[1213]

You'll have to explain "level up", that's a term I'm not familiar with.

Sorry, I should have checked that before writing it. I meant, flattening. Similarly as material flattens for example in concrete slump test.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

IOW, how reality gets interpreted to consciousness?

The exact mechanics, I don't think anyone knows yet. However, we have physical examples of how information gets interpreted into a usable format. Take your computer system for example. It takes information that you wouldn't be able to make sense of if you were to view directly the information signals themselves and converts them into sound, colors, beautiful images, music, creates AI personalities etc...

All this occurs through a purely physical process which is 100% known and understood by a few. Even though a majority of folks don't understand how this works, they still experience the reality of it.

So there is no reason to think consciousness is not a physical process. Just that we have yet to learn the mechanics of it.

Well, we are now playing epistemology so what you say is correct, if you have solved the problem of the evil demon or any other such variant.
You are using a base axiomatic system for physical, where you have no evidence for your axioms, unless you have solved the above problem in epistemology.

 

[1213]

Ask the oil companies, who pay big bucks to geologists who use modern geology to tell them where to drill.
Ask them why they don't waste money on bible flood believers instead.

I think Bible could be used as well to predict where oil should be.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think Bible could be used as well to predict where oil should be.

Yes, you can think that. Now do it beyound just thinking it.

 

[Nakosis]

Well a more pertinent question might be, is it possible for such a reality to exist, and if so, is it possible to access it?

"We" do. Our brains receive all of the information generated by our senses. However, the conscious process which most people only identify as, only receives an interpretation of this direct information.

For example colors don't actually exist. They are an interpretation of a small spectrum of wave energy.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, we are now playing epistemology so what you say is correct, if you have solved the problem of the evil demon or any other such variant.
You are using a base axiomatic system for physical, where you have no evidence for your axioms, unless you have solved the above problem in epistemology.

We have known examples of how such interpretation physically works.
There are no known examples of this being a non-physical process. Therefore no reason to think a non-physical process is necessary.
Your only argument otherwise is ignorance.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"We" do. Our brains receive all of the information generated by our senses. However, the conscious process which most people only identify as, only receives an interpretation of this direct information.

For example colors don't actually exist. They are an interpretation of a small spectrum of wave energy.

Naive empericism claims that all experinces are of the external sensory kind. That is false, becuase you experince more than just external sensory input.
As for evidence and true, they are like No!. They require humans and wouldn't be there without humans.
Now a part of the world for the referents of words are external to you, but not all referents.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We have known examples of how such interpretation physically works.
There are no known examples of this being a non-physical process. Therefore no reason to think a non-physical process is necessary.
Your only argument otherwise is ignorance.

Yeah, you don't understand that the way you use know is non-physical in some cases. You are incapable of understanding when you do something non-physical.
What is physical?
And what does all the words and the meaning of the sentence in bold refer to in a physical sense for all the referents and the meaning?

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, you don't understand that the way you use know is non-physical in some cases. You are incapable of understanding when you do something non-physical.
What is physical?
And what does all the words and the meaning of the sentence in bold refer to in a physical sense for all the referents and the meaning?

And you do?
It is an invitation for you to explain it to me.

I've already explained several times what physical means and how the reality we experience is dependent on it.
However you never really get around to explaining how reality is dependent on the non-physical.

 

[Yerda]

I think Bible could be used as well to predict where oil should be.

If we used the Bible we would surely predict that the world has not had time enough to produce reservoirs of crude oil.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And you do?
It is an invitation for you to explain it to me.

I've already explained several times what physical means and how the reality we experience is dependent on it.
However you never really get around to explaining how reality is dependent on the non-physical.

It’s a reasonable assumption that conscious experience is dependent on physical correlates in the material world. It may also be that the reverse is equally true. There is as yet no empirical evidence to confirm or deny either proposition, not may either be upheld by logic alone.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And you do?
It is an invitation for you to explain it to me.

I've already explained several times what physical means and how the reality we experience is dependent on it.
However you never really get around to explaining how reality is dependent on the non-physical.

Well, the problem is that you believe you know something about reality. And you assume I also know something about reality. I don't, since I am a strong skeptic.
You really don't understand that sicence as an epistemological system is axiomatic and what that means.