Shadows for Lifegazer

[Dancing David]

In another thread the Platonic ideal of mental monism is being discussed, that thread is seriously at risk for derailment, so I will start another thread here.

According to Plato, we are like prisoners chained to a wall who can only see the shadows on the wall to know what the world outside the cave is like. This is a common theme in mental monism and immaterialism, that we can have sensations, but that perception and thought occur within the mind. Therefore all that really exist is the products of mind. While there may be an external reality , we are only truely familiar with the products of the mind. Now that is according to mental monism, not me.

So in a discussion on this topic, C4TS I belive, mentioned that awareness as we commonly define it is yet another shadow on the wall. (Sorry if I haven't got that right)

Lifegazer responded:

There is an 'awareness' of things. So, the things are distinct from awareness. Awareness is not the shadow - the things it sees are the shadow.
Any idea which equates awareness to the shadow is incorrect.


I feel that this could generate some really fine philosophical debate.

Where does awareness fall into the scheme of things?
Is awareness just another shadow on the wall?
Is awareness transcendant?
What about substantialism, is awareness an epiphenomena?

As a materialist I will state the typical counter to immaterialism, awareness as such is just another brain process, it is encompased by the brain and the illusiory concept of the 'mind', it is just another thing in the material world with direct material coorelates.

So if all things are shadows upon the wall then 'awareness' is of course just another shadow.

or

Any idea which equates awareness to the shadow is incorrect.

[lifegazer]

"I actually like Plato's cave idea except Plato forgot to mention that our bodies themselves are part of the shadows on the cave wall... and that the light entering the cave actually enters from within ourselves. I.e., our Mind is the projector and audience of its own movie.".

Originally posted by Dancing David
Therefore all that really exist is the products of mind. While there may be an external reality , we are only truely familiar with the products of the mind. Now that is according to mental monism, not me.

That's according to reason squire. I promise you that there is no reason that can take you beyond your inner sensations or your knowledge of them. Science is the study of sensed existence, since science is the study of observed existence. Hence science is the study of internal events and seeks to find the cause of these events.
How stupid we have been not to see that the mind itself projects its own sensations. The nuts who think that strings existing through 11 simensions have created sensed existence must be on magic mushrooms or something, for in the history of the human endeavour to find the truth, this must be the greatest oversight to ever evade our reason, en masse. I'm staggered that we have been so dumb. The mind creates its own sensed existence - even as a response to external stimulae - and not a poxy 1 dimensional string which cannot even exist except as a concept within human awareness. A string with zero thickness or width? Gimme a break.

So if all things are shadows upon the wall then 'awareness' is of course just another shadow.

This is irrational. Things observed must be distinct from the observer who recognises them.

[c4ts]

So in a discussion on this topic, C4TS I belive, mentioned that awareness as we commonly define it is yet another shadow on the wall. (Sorry if I haven't got that right)

I said that the opinion that awareness belongs to the brain is a shadow, as is the opinion that it does not. What we do no is that the brain is a controller for the body, and that people seem to be rather unaware without it. However, to Plato, most people are unaware and go through life sleepwalking, hence they are chained down in the cave and they only think they are aware. But this is a different sort of awareness, concerning the way things are percieved rather than if they are detected by the senses. The kind of awareness which Plato talks about, the awareness of ideas, seems to come from outside the senses, and may exist independently from them. Or so he likes to think that it does.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
"I actually like Plato's cave idea except Plato forgot to mention that our bodies themselves are part of the shadows on the cave wall... and that the light entering the cave actually enters from within ourselves. I.e., our Mind is the projector and audience of its own movie.".


That's according to reason squire.
I grant you that is your reason, but would respectfuly counter that my reason is that there is an external world, even if we can only percieve it through our body. I'll make very clear that I believe that the mind is a dependant phenomena of the brain.

I promise you that there is no reason that can take you beyond your inner sensations or your knowledge of them.

I agree but there is the evidence presented by the senses.Again my reason says that if I test the evidence of my sense and perception then the external world behaves as though it exist external to my perception of it. It may disappear when I close my eyes, but it behaves as though it doesn't. I have my reason and reasons for that believe. I do not believe that my reason is superior to yous, I respect your reason, I just don't agree with it. There is no entity of 'absolute reason', it is another shadow on the wall.

Science is the study of sensed existence, since science is the study of observed existence. Hence science is the study of internal events and seeks to find the cause of these events.

The study of science is also the study of the potential evidence that the sense bring to us. Just because we percieve does not mean that the external world doesn't exist. The limits of perception are actualy studied and partly known. part of that study is what you call awareness..

How stupid we have been not to see that the mind itself projects its own sensations.
this is a very old thought in my belief, older than the scientific method by far.

The nuts who think that strings existing through 11 simensions have created sensed existence must be on magic mushrooms or something, for in the history of the human endeavour to find the truth, this must be the greatest oversight to ever evade our reason, en masse. I'm staggered that we have been so dumb. The mind creates its own sensed existence - even as a response to external stimulae - and not a poxy 1 dimensional string which cannot even exist except as a concept within human awareness. A string with zero thickness or width? Gimme a break.

Thats a great opinion and I respect it. However there is a difference between a theory that models the behavior of the observed universe and saying that the model matches the universe. Science approxiamates the observable universe. To say that the theory is the universe is the finger and moon situation.
A string with no dimension is a theory, it creates the dimension that we percieve, in the theory. It is nonsense to you, reasonable to me, although I tend to think of the strings as vortices between the three fields of the universe.
At times what is reason to you is nonsense to me, that is why I claim there is no absolute reason.



This is irrational. Things observed must be distinct from the observer who recognises them.

Weeeell, irrational to you perhaps, you may be a substantialist or something. but as materialist i believe that the thing you call 'awareness' is actualy a number of seperate things and that they are all brain processes. Since they are products of the mind they are shadows on the wall.

Could you describe 'awareness'?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I grant you that is your reason, but would respectfuly counter that my reason is that there is an external world, even if we can only percieve it through our body.

What body? The body you can sense within your sensations? Let me be blunt: No human being has ever experienced any thing external to his own inner awareness. Ever.
Even when you look deep into the night sky, your gaze never escapes your inner awareness. Those distant stars you see are alive within your awareness. No distance from you are those inner sensations of light.

I'll make very clear that I believe that the mind is a dependant phenomena of the brain.

I'm fully aware of the established assertions frequenting materialists' forums. But let's be clear about something: no reason or science or observation (as if) exists which can support your claim. None whatsoever. Zilch. To be blunt, it's the sort of statement which reduces materialism to a religion, because it certainly isn't philosophy (reason).

I agree but there is the evidence presented by the senses.
Again my reason says that if I test the evidence of my sense and perception then the external world behaves as though it exist external to my perception of it.

One night you may have a dream where you see yourself stating this verse.
You only have knowledge of 'eyes' and 'skin', etc., because of the actual sensations themselves. Knowledge is of sensation, via reason.
You say you see with your eyes. True to say that the internal light you sense is 'collected' by the internal eye whereupon data/info is sent to the internal brain. But none of this tells us of any external realm.

Thats a great opinion and I respect it. However there is a difference between a theory that models the behavior of the observed universe and saying that the model matches the universe.

The observed universe is the universe. The mathematics of science apply to the observed universe.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What body? The body you can sense within your sensations? Let me be blunt: No human being has ever experienced any thing external to his own inner awareness. Ever.
Even when you look deep into the night sky, your gaze never escapes your inner awareness. Those distant stars you see are alive within your awareness. No distance from you are those inner sensations of light.


I understand your logic, and it is true that all perceptions are limited to the realm of the mind. I can not prove that the theories which explain how the sense receptors interact with the external world are not totaly dependant upon the illusion of the mind. However the esenses that lead to perception can be tested for error, in that there are repeatable experiences.

I grant (noticethe use of the word) credence to the verifiable nature of experience, and I would claim based upon that grant(which you would disagree with) that we can learn about the external world our senses interact with. So you are correct in saying that my perception of starlight is always within my brain, I agree with that. However i would state that it is a sensation based upon particles/waves that are approxiamted be a theory called 'photons'.

There is plenty of evidence for false sensation, also called hallucination. And while I may not be correct i have reasons to believe that my viewing of starlight is not a hallucination, but an interaction from my sense organs that lead to a perception in my 'mind'.

So yes, the perception is in the brain, but is led by a sensation, which I have reason to believe comes about from a 'photon' interacting with a 'photopigment', leading to a 'neural cascade' leading to 'perception'.



I'm fully aware of the established assertions frequenting materialists' forums. But let's be clear about something: no reason or science or observation (as if) exists which can support your claim. None whatsoever. Zilch. To be blunt, it's the sort of statement which reduces materialism to a religion, because it certainly isn't philosophy (reason).

I have seen this claim on many a forum, if it is a belief that my material body exists, then I must ask you this, how do you differ in the two kinds of belief?

There is a belief which is a cognitive value judgement of 'abstract characteristics', such as I belive that as a social worker i nedd to know which service I provide to my client's to be able to have good boundaries. This is a highly cognitive statement inv9olving alomost totaly abstracted values about my personal relationship to people who I interact with at my place of employment. I call this belief one.

There is what you are calling a belief that is based upon the consequences of previous patterns of sensation. I have learned that as i believe i move around the belief world that I need to not have my path of belief interact with belief objects that I can define as believable solid. This leads to a belief inetaction which leads to the belief experience of pain. In other wordsd in the belief world of the external I have learned that I shouldn't walk into trees. I will call this belief two.

So how do you demarcate between the two, if you do?


One night you may have a dream where you see yourself stating this verse.

Perhaps you dream more about the external world than I do, i recognise what i would call extreme differences between the dream world and the 'external world'. Notably that the dream world obeys very different rules than the 'external world'. that is my observation, which I believe can be verified.

You only have knowledge of 'eyes' and 'skin', etc., because of the actual sensations themselves. Knowledge is of sensation, via reason.

Previously I made the comment that sensation does not involve knowledge, there are creatures, like babies, which sense and learn perception but are bereft of reason.

It seems that you believe that sensations exist?


You say you see with your eyes. True to say that the internal light you sense is 'collected' by the internal eye whereupon data/info is sent to the internal brain. But none of this tells us of any external realm.

No I say that i sense with my eyes, which leads to perception within my brain. I do not believe in desCartes internal theater. there is a neurological processes that i would call , preconsious, a process that is labeled unconsious(perception) and then the consious label placed upon the perception. But if you remove my eye, I will no longer jave the sensation from that organ to generate perceptions.

I can't force my beleif upon you, I have my reason, it is apparently different than yours. Equal, yet different.


The observed universe is the universe. The mathematics of science apply to the observed universe.

No non nononono, the observed universe merely is That Which Seem to Appear commonly and perhaps mistakenly called The Way Things Are.

You can say that the observed universe is the universe, that is a materialist viewpoint. The observed universe is the conclusion drawn through the repeated action of our sensations and perceptions.
There is the world that is sensed and there is the world that is percieved. And the coorelation to the two can be studied.

Science is merely a thought tool for approximating the observed universe. It is important to never forget the the LOP are just approxiamations of TWTA.

The mathematics of science do not apply to the observed universe, they apply to models that we use to approximate the observed universe.


BTW, can you describe awareness?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
BTW, can you describe awareness?
Essentially... fundamentally... it is God.

Too tired to say anything else.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Essentially... fundamentally... it is God.

Too tired to say anything else.

Hmmm, I shall await more explanation, this would tend to reinforce my animist beliefs that all is god.

Peace and good rest to you.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Essentially... fundamentally... it is God.

Too tired to say anything else.
Everything's God to you. You're just providing an explanation for awareness, which Dancing David didn't ask for.

[RussDill]

Science is the study of sensed existence, since science is the study of observed existence.


Science also studies conciousness, neural networks, and the human brain. We are already replacing portions of rat brain with silicon, emulating neural nets, etc. We are studying with science, awareness and conciousness.


How stupid we have been not to see that the mind itself projects its own sensations.


aka, the world is an illusion...sigh:

An unreal image presented to the bodily or mental vision; a deceptive appearance; a false show; mockery; hallucination.

so tell me about this "real" world lifegazer. Lets go about studying it, ok?


The nuts who think that strings existing through 11 simensions have created sensed existence must be on magic mushrooms or something, for in the history of the human endeavour to find the truth, this must be the greatest oversight to ever evade our reason, en masse. I'm staggered that we have been so dumb.


These aren't nuts, and they certainly aren't reasoning on the same level as you. These "nuts" are actually generating massive energies by smashing particles together at near the speed of light. They then study data from billions of such interactions, create theories, and make predictions. They did not come up with "11 dimensions strings" out of their ass, it was through decades of research and mathematical study. Because the mathmatics behind string theory is so complex, it is not yet complete, it may eventually be tossed out once its hammered down a bit more.




The mind creates its own sensed existence - even as a response to external stimulae - and not a poxy 1 dimensional string which cannot even exist except as a concept within human awareness. A string with zero thickness or width? Gimme a break.

This is irrational. Things observed must be distinct from the observer who recognises them.

Really? Are you very familiar with chemistry? What about atomic structure? Or more importantly, do you know what electron shells look like? ie, something like these:

http://finkbeiner.com/Scientific/shell.html

Its because of the shapes of these shells, that molecules, like water, form as they do. Basically, we go through like this:

take the wave function for an electron (oh, way, btw, at the subatomic level, electrons can best be described with a wave function, a function that shows the probability of finding that electron in any one place at a given time, by finding, I mean colapsing its wave function, aka, hitting it with something).

Ok, now, you take this function and impose some limits on it, IE, lets say a spherical well (its near a proton). We solve the equation. The equation has many (an infinate) number of solutions, however, the solutions have different energy levels. The levels are quantitized. These solutions create the 3d probability maps that look kinda like baloon animals.

Solving these equations for hydrogen using diff eq is fairly straightforward (but definately a large task). For oxygen its immensly more difficult. However, when all is said and done, a simple diff eq equation describes why water is shaped the way it is, and why it reacts the way it does.

Now, your argument is that its silly that reality be described by vibrating 11 dimensional strings. The reality of an electron is already described as a wave function of probability. Hey Toto, you aren't in kansas anymore.

String/M-theory may reduce this even further. Solving the equations for these 11 dimension strings would give you the standard model and higgs physics (if string theory is correct).

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
These aren't nuts, and they certainly aren't reasoning on the same level as you. These "nuts" are actually generating massive energies by smashing particles together at near the speed of light. They then study data from billions of such interactions, create theories, and make predictions. They did not come up with "11 dimensions strings" out of their ass, it was through decades of research and mathematical study. Because the mathmatics behind string theory is so complex, it is not yet complete, it may eventually be tossed out once its hammered down a bit more.

The light show in your awareness is generated by the mind itself. So, everything in sensed existence (being a part of the light show of colour and shade), is created by the Mind.
Not a string.

Monistic-Idealism or Monism (as I believe my/this philosophy is technically-labelled) finally makes sense of the processes occuring when 'an observer' collapses ~the wave~ of any potential state-of-being (particles). So this philosophy makes sense of QM.
Apparently, a thing is only 'a thing' when we say that it is. Until that moment, that thing (particle) exists purely as a potential to exist - a wave of existence. The vast majority of these 'things' behave in a way that is "probablistic", infering that there is an order being imposed upon the unpredictable-energy of existence, but also infering that it is imposed by that very energy of existence, to itself: Self-order.
Energy which is potentially free to go wherever it wants, but which generally conforms to a specific order (probability), must be self-conforming to that order. I.e., doing what it decides to do.
And I am not advocating that particles have intelligence, since there is no such thing as a particle until seen in the subjective-awareness of a material-reality. I am, however, advocating that the potential-energy to have being anywhere within your perception, is The Mind exercising its own intelligence and will through awareness - placing itself [as particles, etc.) where it decides they shall go.

God (and its energy) are essentially free - indeterminable - but this energy has conformed, generally, to impose perceived order upon awareness.
I.e., my philosophy makes sense of quanta.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The light show in your awareness is generated by the mind itself. So, everything in sensed existence (being a part of the light show of colour and shade), is created by the Mind.
Not a string.


I'm still waiting for proof of this from you, like I said, I call, so stop bluffing.


Monistic-Idealism or Monism (as I believe my/this philosophy is technically-labelled) finally makes sense of the processes occuring when 'an observer' collapses ~the wave~ of any potential state-of-being (particles). So this philosophy makes sense of QM.


You don't understand QM. An observer is not a conciousness. "Observing" a particle implies bouncing another particle off of it. This misunderstanding of QM pisses me off to no end.


Apparently, a thing is only 'a thing' when we say that it is. Until that moment, that thing (particle) exists purely as a potential to exist - a wave of existence.


Again, a complete misunderstanding. Its actually quite the opposite. The particle does more than simply exist, it exists in many states at once.


The vast majority of these 'things' behave in a way that is "probablistic", infering that there is an order being imposed upon the unpredictable-energy of existence, but also infering that it is imposed by that very energy of existence, to itself: Self-order.


You are really overstepping your bounds here. *All* particles and interactions interact in probablistic way. Given a particle particle interaction, you can say with great certainty what the probability of each outcome will be. This is not "being" imposed by anything. It doesn't need to be imposed. Just as the way atoms come together to form molecules is not imposed by some greater inteligence (although I'm sure before QM was understood, there are many who would say that the arrangements of atoms are due to an intelligence) the interaction of particles is set by their properties (ie, energy, spin, charge, color, etc). These properties can be calculated through the help of feynman diagrams. Energy is certainly not unpredictable. We can make very accurate predictions of probability.


Energy which is potentially free to go wherever it wants,


certainly not. The energy that make up an electron can not suddenly turn into pure energy and then into a photon.


but which generally conforms to a specific order (probability), must be self-conforming to that order. I.e., doing what it decides to do.


A decision infers that the particle could make "the wrong decision". Particles *never* make the wrong decision. Also, "decision" infers a lot of randomness, particles *do not* make random decisions. Take enough interactions and the "decisions" that particles make quickly approach the calculated probability.


And I am not advocating that particles have intelligence, since there is no such thing as a particle until seen in the subjective-awareness of a material-reality.


Decision certainly infers inteligence:

The act of deciding; act of settling or terminating, as a controversy, by giving judgment on the matter at issue; determination, as of a question or doubt; settlement; conclusion.

so...A particle doesn't exist until we "see it". What does that mean? The only way we "see" is through photons. So..a star billions of miles away doesn't exist, but the photons reaching our eyes do?


I am, however, advocating that the potential-energy to have being anywhere within your perception, is The Mind exercising its own intelligence and will through awareness - placing itself [as particles, etc.) where it decides they shall go.


The mind simply seems to be a sit of little equations and laws then. That is not an intelligence. PROVE OTHERWISE


God (and its energy) are essentially free - indeterminable - but this energy has conformed, generally, to impose perceived order upon awareness.
I.e., my philosophy makes sense of quanta.

no, your philosophy doesn't. Mathemetians and physics have worked for over a century to make sense of quanta, and have done a *very* good job of it. Make its time you look at the work of a certain Max Planck. Without any proofs, predictions, etc, your philosophy means nothing.

I can *easily* come up with my own philosophy for quanta and argue it just as well as you, but it would be just as meaningless (I throw in the claim that it will bring world peace, for free)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
You don't understand QM. An observer is not a conciousness. "Observing" a particle implies bouncing another particle off of it. This misunderstanding of QM pisses me off to no end.

Russ, a particle only exists as a particle in the awareness of an observer. Until that moment, it behaves as a wave. I can cite an experiment as proof if you want.

Again, a complete misunderstanding. Its actually quite the opposite. The particle does more than simply exist, it exists in many states at once.

Then it is not a particle, by default.

no, your philosophy doesn't. Mathemetians and physics have worked for over a century to make sense of quanta, and have done a *very* good job of it. Make its time you look at the work of a certain Max Planck. Without any proofs, predictions, etc, your philosophy means nothing.

That energy exists within our awareness (the "light show") is not in doubt. That we can define the mechanism of that light show is self-evident by the success of physics. But light (energy) is not the origin of light. The Mind is the origin of the light that is perceived.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Monistic-Idealism or Monism (as I believe my/this philosophy is technically-labelled) finally makes sense of the processes occuring when 'an observer' collapses ~the wave~ of any potential state-of-being (particles). So this philosophy makes sense of QM..

No non no, nein, nyet nyebil, niente mai, never more

The 'thinsg' that act like wave/particles are wave paticles. they are not wave of probability they are waces. Some particles have very small wavelengths , some are very long.

All particles are waves all the time, an observer can never collapse the wave function, the wave function intersects the obsevation. It remains a wave throughout.

There is nothing to make sense of in the first place, QM is a very accurate approximation of the way things appears, IT ALREADY MAKES SENSE.

The last thing QNM demonstrates in monism.

I sear it is just like when electricity was invented, it can do anthing, now the one trick pony of QM is made to jump through whatever hoop.

[Dancing David]

So awareness is god, thats great! can you describe your experience of awareness?

[lifegazer]

All things existing at definite points within space and time, do so in awareness. They are part of the mind's own "light show", existing within awareness. Such things as are seen within the light show are seen within awareness. Please note that this includes, by default, space & time also, as well as the light that is seen there.

The "light show" are Plato's shadows. We - the awareness - are the cave walls. And the source of this light? The Mind itself.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer
All things existing at definite points within space and time, do so in awareness. They are part of the mind's own "light show", existing within awareness. Such things as are seen within the light show are seen within awareness. Please note that this includes, by default, space & time also, as well as the light that is seen there.

The "light show" are Plato's shadows. We - the awareness - are the cave walls. And the source of this light? The Mind itself.

Read the Republic again. Socrates says the source of the light is the truth.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by c4ts


Read the Republic again. Socrates says the source of the light is the truth.
1. I do not aim to narrate Plato's philosophy - rather, to qualify what I know of it (in this case) with my own thoughts.
2. I posit that The Mind is "the truth".

[Dancing David]

so are you saying Lifegazer that when you see a red leaf that in terms of experience you ssee a shadow on a wall?

I am asking for the details of this thing called awareness, because I think it is actualy many seperate things.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Russ, a particle only exists as a particle in the awareness of an observer. Until that moment, it behaves as a wave. I can cite an experiment as proof if you want.


again, I think you miss the definition of observer. Observer by no means implies intelligence or conciousness.


Then it is not a particle, by default.


definately not a classic particle. But a particle non the less.


That energy exists within our awareness (the "light show") is not in doubt.


what energy exists within our awareness? You are starting to sound like the writers of the matrix. Please describe this energy potential (bonus points for methods of imprisoning the human mind in a simulated prison to extract that energy)


That we can define the mechanism of that light show is self-evident by the success of physics.


make a special note here that physics does all of this without any need for a mind. There is no such imcompleteness that would require that.


But light (energy) is not the origin of light. The Mind is the origin of the light that is perceived.

Thats a completely baseless assertion. Provide some proof right here, right now, or go and live in a cabin somewhere in the woods and never return. C'mon lifegazer, you say you have then, you even say general relativity proves your point. Whip it out boy! Or is all going to come down to you asking us to believe on blind faith caus it will save the world all over again.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer

1. I do not aim to narrate Plato's philosophy - rather, to qualify what I know of it (in this case) with my own thoughts.
2. I posit that The Mind is "the truth".


I find that your interpetations of the Republic and of the truth lack sense.

[Yahweh]

Another thread garbled with lifegazer vs. everyone else debate...

I'd be happy to participate, but I'm not in the mood this even'n.

[uruk]

What a waste of time.
First he says reality exists in the mind, then he feebly tries to argue his points with his poor understanding of physics. when he gets cornered he then runs back to "but reality doesn't exist but in the mind" excuse again.

How can your philosophy be logicly consistent if you are not?

Please stop wasting our time.