Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Discussion of anything to do with the 'why' questions of life.

Moderator: William

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10483
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #1

Post by William »

[Rules Regarding Posting in this sub-forum]

David: There is always a degree of telepathy involved in Christianity and in other religions. And it is indeed their 'own conscience'. I know. I have talks with 'God' in my head all the time - but I know it's me.

William: I am interested in getting into a discussion [and potentially forming rapport with you] about your mention of the 'talks' you have with 'God' in your head all the time that you know is 'you' talking with yourself .

David: I see no point in discussing my discussions with myself because I effectively have me arguing with myself. It's how I can anticipate arguments before they happen. I don't think that is going to get you anywhere.

William: Well if you change your mind, you know where to find me.

Image

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #31

Post by bluegreenearth »

William wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:21 pm William: You may be correct about that, but the inference that in order to survive and prosper as the Human Animal [specie] this could not have been achieved without the invention of Mind as an immaterial illusion, also infers that nature itself made it that way, which infers that nature also has an immaterial illusion we call 'the mind'.

That is why I suggested we find some place of agreement re this, even if we also agree that it is a temporary fixture 'for the time being'.

The idea that the brain did all this unconsciously, only points to the bigger picture as to how brains evolved to the point where they could do this, and does not in itself answer if there is or isn't a mind behind creation. [MBC]

If we should then look for something in the universe itself which might act as a kind of brain in order for the illusion of self to become - something which had the potential to make something of itself in relation to the physical reality it would not even be experiencing if it did not first have that sense of self, then we find that what is referred to as an illusion is responsible for being the only way physical reality can be interacted with in any meaningful manner.

Therefore, it is evident that if an illusion [non-physical thing created by the physical thing] is the only way one can appreciate the existence of physical universe, it is best not to delegate the illusion as something which is not real because without it, what would be real?
First of all, I wouldn't use the word "invented" because that implies purpose where there is no evidence that the material brain's ability to have a concept of itself was deliberately created. Secondly, it doesn't logically follow that nature must also have a concept of itself just because naturally evolved brains have the capacity to have concepts of themselves. Your reasoning there appears to describe a composition/division fallacy.

Again, the "Mind" can be described as emergent physical activity occurring in a material brain. Consider the wetness of a puddle as an analogy. A puddle is a physical thing comprised entirely of water molecules, but no individual water molecule has the property we would describe as wet. However, a sufficiently large collection of individual water molecules (i.e. a puddle) does have the "wet" property. The fact that this property of "wet" can be described as emergent physical activity occurring within a sufficiently large collection of individual water molecules which do not have the "wet" property by themselves does not make the property immaterial. It is the concept of the "wet" property that is immaterial while the property itself is physical because it physically emerges from a material puddle. Without the concept of "wet", the puddle still has the physical property of "wet".

Similarly, the fact that the "Mind" property can be described as emergent physical activity occurring within a sufficiently evolved collection of neurons (i.e. a brain) which do not have the "Mind" property by themselves does not make the property immaterial. It is the concept of the "Mind" property that is immaterial while the the property itself is physical because it physically emerges from a material brain. Without the concept of "Mind", the brain still has the physical property of "Mind". It is this physical "Mind" property which emerges from a material brain to experience reality and is advantageous to the survival of a species. The concept of the physical "Mind" property is immaterial and, therefore, does not exist in reality to experience anything.

Of course, all of this is very confusing and difficult to keep organized. So, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that I've made a mistake somewhere in my reasoning.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10483
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #32

Post by William »

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #31]

William: There is no evidence either way that the material brain's ability to have a concept of itself was deliberately created.

And it does logically follow that nature may indeed also have a concept of itself because naturally evolved brains have the capacity to have concepts of themselves, given there is vastly more an amount of time for it to have done so, than the time it took for human brains to come into existence.

The "Mind" can be described as emergent physical activity occurring in a material brain, only it isn't.
It quite obviously isn't.
Do you see that red cube slowly spinning in mid-air between us?

You might say "No. I see no red cube slowly spinning in mid air and I do not even see 'us' let alone what is between us.

I might say - "Look it is now changed into a sphere and appears to have all the colors of the rainbow!"

And these are an exchange of words and words are symbols which represent sound. When you read my words and I read your words, this produces images in our minds and we can hear the words [in our minds] as we see [read the material] - and this produces the immaterial things we see and hear in the mind, and the immaterial is the mind.

Without this ability, we would be more like the other animals. We are not more like the other animals because the material created the immaterial, but because we use the immaterial to continue not being like the other animals, as we are able to create real things, which were first immaterial.

Without the concept of wet, the puddle still has the physical property of wet but there is nothing immaterial in which to verify the property is wet, or dry - or even for that matter - existing as something real.

Only consciousness is able to verify what exists as "real", and consciousness is not material - it is immaterial, so it is the immaterial which is the only thing which can say [acknowledge] what is real.

Consciousness also verifies that even that it is immaterial, it is nonetheless real. Just not 'real' in the sense that wet is wet [re phisically real things] but real as in just as real as anything physical that it acknowledges as being real.

Why argue that only physical things are 'real' when the very act of being able to argue comes from a non-physical aspect of a physical brain, and thus must be argued as equally real as any physical object.

Obviously the mind is an immaterial thing, and it is faulty to argue that a material brain can only produce material things, and therefore claim that the mind is a material thing.

The brain itself can only produce immaterial things, such as thoughts, idea, hypothesis, and these are seen as material when a brain is being scanned - as the brain reacts to the immaterial reality it is involved with, in said thinking processes.
The sparking neurons can be seen as the result of the immaterial activity happening in the brain, not necessarily the cause of the immaterial activity happening in the brain.

I see no essential difference and currently consider both to be true as the immaterial effects the material and the material effects the immaterial and as such it describes one system rather than two seemingly unrelated and distinctly incompatible systems.

Which is why I offered in a prior post that we approach it together in that manner, as a mutually shared position of understanding, that we might move on into examining the Cases I have and want to continue to offer as evidence, in that light.

Yes - we both acknowledge the subject is difficult. I am offering you a way in which to think about emergent theory as I do not see how it actually conflicts with the MBC hypothesis, and am attempting to convey that information to you, best I currently am able...always room for improvement I know....
...oh look! now the Sphere has changed into a Tetrahedral spinning in mid-air, and has a reflective surface!

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #33

Post by bluegreenearth »

William wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:09 pm [Replying to bluegreenearth in post #31]

William: There is no evidence either way that the material brain's ability to have a concept of itself was deliberately created.

And it does logically follow that nature may indeed also have a concept of itself because naturally evolved brains have the capacity to have concepts of themselves, given there is vastly more an amount of time for it to have done so, than the time it took for human brains to come into existence.


If that were the case, then wouldn't you expect all of nature to be systematically arranged and interconnected in such a way to allow for the same type physio-chemical activity responsible for producing the concept of self in a material brain? I don't observe such activity occurring anywhere apart from within material brains at this time.

William wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:09 pm The "Mind" can be described as emergent physical activity occurring in a material brain, only it isn't.
It quite obviously isn't.
Do you see that red cube slowly spinning in mid-air between us?

You might say "No. I see no red cube slowly spinning in mid air and I do not even see 'us' let alone what is between us.

I might say - "Look it is now changed into a sphere and appears to have all the colors of the rainbow!"

And these are an exchange of words and words are symbols which represent sound. When you read my words and I read your words, this produces images in our minds and we can hear the words [in our minds] as we see [read the material] - and this produces the immaterial things we see and hear in the mind, and the immaterial is the mind.


Why couldn't immaterial "concepts" and "abstract ideas" be initiated as a combination of deterministic and random physio-chemical reactions occurring in a material brain? It seems to me that this could reasonably be the case.

William wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:09 pm Without this ability, we would be more like the other animals. We are not more like the other animals because the material created the immaterial, but because we use the immaterial to continue not being like the other animals, as we are able to create real things, which were first immaterial.


Why couldn't the immaterial ideas for things which are subsequently created in realty be initiated as a combination of deterministic and random physio-chemical reactions occurring in a material brain? It seems to me that this could reasonably be the case.

William wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:09 pm Without the concept of wet, the puddle still has the physical property of wet but there is nothing immaterial in which to verify the property is wet, or dry - or even for that matter - existing as something real.

Only consciousness is able to verify what exists as "real", and consciousness is not material - it is immaterial, so it is the immaterial which is the only thing which can say [acknowledge] what is real.


If consciousness can be the combination of deterministic and random physio-chemical reactions occurring in a material brain, then how is it not the material brain which is acknowledging what is real? It seems to me that the material brain is acknowledging what is real.

William wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:09 pm Consciousness also verifies that even that it is immaterial, it is nonetheless real. Just not 'real' in the sense that wet is wet [re phisically real things] but real as in just as real as anything physical that it acknowledges as being real.


If consciousness can be the combination of deterministic and random physio-chemical reactions occurring in a material brain, then how is it that the material brain cannot acknowledge this possibility? It seems to me that the material brain is acknowledging this possibility.

William wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:09 pm Why argue that only physical things are 'real' when the very act of being able to argue comes from a non-physical aspect of a physical brain, and thus must be argued as equally real as any physical object.


I'm not arguing that only physical things are real. I'm asking you to demonstrate that immaterial things exist in reality because I've only ever observed physical things existing in reality.

Why couldn't the ability to argue come from a combination of deterministic and random physio-chemical reactions occurring in a material brain? It seems to me that the ability to argue is nothing more than a combination of deterministic and random physio-chemical reactions occurring in a material brain.

William wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:09 pm Obviously the mind is an immaterial thing, and it is faulty to argue that a material brain can only produce material things, and therefore claim that the mind is a material thing.


I'm not claiming the material brain can only produce material things. I'm challenging you to demonstrate that immaterial concepts are more than just a combination of deterministic and random physio-chemical reactions occurring in a material brain.

William wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:09 pm The brain itself can only produce immaterial things, such as thoughts, idea, hypothesis, and these are seen as material when a brain is being scanned - as the brain reacts to the immaterial reality it is involved with, in said thinking processes.
The sparking neurons can be seen as the result of the immaterial activity happening in the brain, not necessarily the cause of the immaterial activity happening in the brain.

I see no essential difference and currently consider both to be true as the immaterial effects the material and the material effects the immaterial and as such it describes one system rather than two seemingly unrelated and distinctly incompatible systems.


This is your personal interpretation of the data which has yet to be justified. You've not supplied me with a logical justification to reject the possibility that a combination of deterministic and random physio-chemical reactions in a material brain is the source of immaterial concepts.

William wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:09 pm Which is why I offered in a prior post that we approach it together in that manner, as a mutually shared position of understanding, that we might move on into examining the Cases I have and want to continue to offer as evidence, in that light.

Yes - we both acknowledge the subject is difficult. I am offering you a way in which to think about emergent theory as I do not see how it actually conflicts with the MBC hypothesis, and am attempting to convey that information to you, best I currently am able...always room for improvement I know....
...oh look! now the Sphere has changed into a Tetrahedral spinning in mid-air, and has a reflective surface!
I can only agree that neither of us appear to be trained and qualified experts in the field of neurology, psychology, or even philosophy. Therefore, it is my recommendation that we default to the tentatively accepted explanations provided by the consensus of experts in the field. To do otherwise, could potentially transform us into victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and/or confirmation bias. Are you even aware of what the experts have tentatively concluded at this point because I've not done the research myself?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10483
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #34

Post by William »

William: It is hard to know what to expect in nature if it were the case that the Universe developed a mind. Perhaps - like the universe - that mind is still developing. Perhaps we existing on this planet has something to do with that. Perhaps the planet itself has a mind, is self-aware and this is why life as we know it, developed from the planet.

We do not even know that brains and biological processes such as our own carbon based bodies are the only way in which a mind may develop.

There is no reason that I know of as to why you cannot think of everyone as nothing more than a combination of deterministic and random physio-chemical reactions occurring in a material brain.

Is that what you believe?

Is there any reason why believing this would not in itself constitute confirmation bias?

If you used the ideomotor effect re the communications device and asked if what you were was nothing more than a combination of deterministic and random physio-chemical reactions occurring in a material brain, and were told "yes." - would that settle it for you?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10483
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #35

Post by William »

What confirmation bias might be derived from this case?

https://historyofyesterday.com/the-man- ... 2149e8783d

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10483
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #36

Post by William »

A case of having ones unconfirmed beliefs identified through use of ideomotor effect specific to communication technique.

William: One morning many years ago, I was using the communications device as usual - and had just stared into a session when I got the message;

UICDevice: Warning!

William: What? Is something happening I need to be aware of?

UICDevice: Yes! Waring! Go now!

William: Is someone coming here?

[My thoughts were on 'the powers that be' and my mind at the time was into conspiracy theories to do with the world being controlled by 'anti-god' folk - something I picked up from Christians and still carried about with me in my "belief kit".]

UICDevice: Yes! Go!

This created in me a kind of calm-but-panicky feeling. I picked up the device and wondered where I should go to. I lived in the countryside on the top of a hill. There were only a handful of houses and no more than 20 other folk living in that area.
In my minds eye I imagined a few black vehicles filled with 'spooks' racing up the hill to pounce on me so I had to quickly find a hiding place.
I choose a decrepit old building which was once the town pub but had long since become a storage facility for old farm implements.

After securing my position, I got out the communications device continued with the conversation.



William: What now? Do I wait? Will they find me?

UICDevice: Ha ha! Joke! We win!"

Needless to say, I was not amused. I felt I had been building up a good relationship with my communicators, to the point where I was beginning to trust their words of wisdom etc.
Now that trust had been shattered because of the joke which had been played on me.
I refused to use the device for over a month after this event, because of this.

Eventually I stopped sulking and started to think about things which I had been told through the device prior to this incident, which helped me to eventually see the funny side and realize that what had happened was to help me see the power of belief how confirmation bias could be used against me.




Self Organizing.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #37

Post by bluegreenearth »

[Replying to William in post #34]

My apologies for the delayed response, but I've just been informed that I'm advancing into a new role at my job which will allow me and my family to move to another State. So, all my free time is now being dedicated to preparing my house for the market and buying a new home. I'll check back with you after while. Take care.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10483
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #38

Post by William »

[Replying to William in post #7]

This is mentioned in a Generated Message.

Evidence:
[LINK]

Post Reply