Ȿŧӷ₳ţѻşⱣⱨ€Ɽḗȿ ŏϝ ⱶḫ ⱻ ₥ǐﬨɗ

[Amorphos]

Ȿŧӷ₳ţѻşⱣⱨ€Ɽḗȿ ŏϝ ⱶḫ ⱻ ₥ǐﬨɗ

we may consider there to be mental qualia ~ that there is something other than physics occurring in the mind. I don’t mean the conscious experiencer/observer, as here I want to focus upon what aspects of mind are ‘more likely’ to be physical, as opposed to there being a respective quality of mind or mental qualia ~ which is not physical.

The usual suspects

lets imagine that the mind is although very complex, is actually not much different to a Tv or computer. If mental qualia are physical, then colours, sounds, smells and what have you, appear in the mind in a similar sense to how they occur on TV screens. That is except for the notion that there is no TV or view screen in the mind.

Photons and electrons we know can jump in and out of superposition, and may be converted to a given other electromagnetic property when bisected at any point. We can either take the position that no such thing is occurring in the mind, and there are instead some mystical elements known as ‘mental qualia’, or we can ‘expect’ there to be some physical occurrences instead of that.

I am going to go with the idea that the brain IS putting EM particles into superposition, where they interact with the mind which is also in superposition. Ergo the minds monitor does exist in superposition, and all the colours we see are as physically real as those on the pixels of a TV or computer. Equally everything we experience from emotions to tactile sensations, ideas and visualisations, are also physical and connect with the consciousness in metaposition.

All of which leads me to the question; where there are the mass of sensory types and informational inputs being fed into superposition [not all of them are of course], then there is perhaps a further third party which is fully connecting with them all. If we equally note that sound and colour for example are not interchangeable ~ you can’t turn colour into sound, though you can change their physical medium. It appears to me that the thing receiving all the sensory input, IS capable of reading them all without any bother et al.

So now we have ‘stratosphere’s of the mind’; where physical things are put into metaposition via the given particles in superposition [and those which are not [the brain]], where they ‘meet’ the mind which is in some sense in another level, position or stratosphere beyond even that? Remembering that the mind equally relates to the physics i.e. not in metaposition, ergo it is clearly an interrelating 3rd party factor deriving its conscious experience across the myriad of informational fields or sources.

Going further out on a limb, I am going to state that that 3rd party, the mind, is also physical! It may take unusual [in terms of universe/usual physics] form, but for one party to connect and correlate with physical info it must itself be of similar ilk, otherwise there would be no way for it to connect with the physical world.

This doesn’t mean that there is necessarily nothing spiritual about the mind, as I see it, if you sever the above connection e.g. in death, the mind in metaposition may still exist and simply connect to another world or realm which is equally as real. Equally though, the mind may be generated by or be the product of the said process.

Thoughts< ladies and gentlemen?

_

[zinnat]

Forget about spirituality (religions, gods, the God), you can never explain the functioning of the mind and the feeling or sensations even by simple logic if you do not hypothesize that three are different entities involved to get the job done.

You need one such multitasking entity which can observe ambient (brain).
You need one such multitasking entity which can analyze those observations (mind).
You need one such non-multitasking entity which can feel those observations once at a time (consciousness).

If you eliminate anyone of these three from the equation, the working of the brain/mind becomes unexplainable.

The whole process of the mind acts like a computer. Organs and brain are the multitasking hardware and mind is the multitasking software of the computer. But, you need one more non-multitasking final authority to get things going, and that is the computer oprator, which is consciousness.

Our outer sense organs (skin, eyes, nose etc) act as a mediator between brain and outside world. Brain acts as a mediator between sense organs and mind. And, mind acts a mediator between consciousness and brain, that completes the circle as the observations of the ambient and derived deductions reach to the actual party (consciousness). Now, consciousness feel (not think) those deductions and the reverse process starts. Mind again observe those feeling of consciousness, make some decisions based on those and pass on the same to the brain, which again pass on the same directions to the physical sense organs ( outer body) to act accordingly in the given circumstances. Thus, this process moves back and forth continuously and enable organisms to live, observe and adjust according to the circumstances in the world.

The point to note here is that the final authority (consciousness) cannot be a multitasker like mind or brain, otherwise organisms would not be able to survive and evolve. And, that is the philosophical proof that something like consciousness exists in each and every organism. Mind use to manifest many thoughts all the time, but, being a non-multitasker, consciousness feels only the most prominent thought at any given time, then it feels the next most prominent one and so on.

Though, it is not pertinent with the thread, but this methodology also proves that life cannot be possible without being objective ( choosy ) from the very beginning. If the consciousness becomes subjective, and unable to grade thoughts, everything would becomes a mess, which ultimately would lead to the destruction of the organism always. The same applies to the society as well.

With love,
sanjay

[Amorphos]

Your words ring very true and relate to similar things i’ve been wondering about. There is something about the multitasking combination of things which amount to a composition. This perhaps similar to an orchestra, composing and performing a constantly changing symphony.

Upon reflection my opening post was a bit gloomy. if what we are is physical then we should look at what that means very differently. I don’t like how atheists and scientist appear to be stating that we are not what we think we are, and that the thing that is you can be described by >other< physics, if you know what I mean.

This mind thing whatever it is, combines into and is this entity!

I think e.g. that light is amazing, but if I describe a sunset as a bunch of chemicals reflecting light, that makes it sound unastonishing and indeed is not describing what the event fully is.

The whole process of the mind acts like a computer. Organs and brain are the multitasking hardware and mind is the multitasking software of the computer. But, you need one more non-multitasking final authority to get things going, and that is the computer operator, which is consciousness.

I am not so sure. mind is in metaposition but consciousness and hence any authority is in the composition. These words seem to loose the universal and compositional nature of your former most salient sentiment, for a top down authoritism which there is no spiritual need for [consider the candle flames going out and being lit]. If we also consider that it may be possible in the near future to build machines which will produce their own consciousness, and that we could build an organic machines humanoid from scratch. Then that that is little different to what nature is doing when we grow, except that’s not building in blocks but in one continuous flow of course. At conception we still have to pluck a mind out of the void – so to say, so it seems to me that mind ‘arrives’ [like the flame of the candles] where it is manifestly determined to exist?

I agree about the cyclicity of mind-body relationships. We have to remember that absolutely all information in the consciousness and elsewhere is physical. There is a relationship when information is experienced, so the question concerning your top down theory is why isn’t that equivalent? The mind and physical info at root can only know one another if there is an exchange. If the mind dictated at that level ~ the one you are not experiencing, that would simply interfere with information retrieval, and we wouldn’t be able to know anything.

So a symbiotic relationship is surely what’s occurring?

The front of the equation is where we could say that thought IS info being experienced by mind, and that like observation is in relativity, the act of observing does change that. I don’t think it has directives though, but instead it is more looking at info that telling it what to do. That’s what the mind does, it observes/perceives info, but if it directed it then that be measurable information or effect thereof – but there is no such info occurring.