In a sense yes. perhaps this may clarify the thrust of the argument.
Typically, a hologram is a photographic recording of a light field, rather than an image formed by a lens. The holographic medium, i.e., the object produced by a holographic process (which itself may be referred to as a hologram) is usually unintelligible when viewed under diffuse ambient light.
It is an encoding of the light field as an interference pattern of variations in the opacity, density, or surface profile of the photographic medium. When suitably lit, the interference pattern diffracts the light into an accurate reproduction of the original light field, and the objects that were in it exhibit visual depth cues such as parallax and perspective that change realistically with the relative position of the observer. That is, the view of the image from different angles represents the subject viewed from similar angles.
I believe that such an arrangement exists within the brain. The continual electro-chemical stimulation of all the neurons at once, forming a continually changing message, perhaps similar to a billboard changing its message by selecting set patterns of light from among the colored light bulbes.
This phenomenon allows us to “envision” what we see or what we can imagine. The “human mindscape”.
I didn’t expect CC to bring in another term, but I don’t think it changes anything. As long as you are saying that there is a natural, real, physical world and we can imagine things that don’t exist in that world.
It’s still the same as I said before; the imaginations exists as some sort of explainable phenomenon, regardless of how well or how accurately we can explain it, but they aren’t real in any other way, shape or form.
Actually I hate the ‘super natural’ - and agree it doesn’t change anything to what I’m trying to say.
Second sentence sounds like you’re starting to get it.
“regardless of how well or how accurately we can explain it, but they aren’t real in any other way, shape or form.”
Isn’t that what I’m trying to explain?
The physical world the ‘mind’ exists within, that is real in every way, shape and form, no matter how well we think we understand it or not.
This phenomenon allows us to “envision” what we see or what we can imagine. The “human mindscape”.
I’m in a facebook group called “Real Atheology” they do super technical logic stuff about theology, but the “A” is against, just like a-theist. Here’s how they put it just recently:
The Mind-Body Problem
(1) The body is a physical entity.
(2) The mind is a non-physical entity.
(3) The mind and the body causally interact.
(4) Physical entities and non-physical entities cannot causally interact.
These 4 propositions cannot all be true. No one can consistently believe all 4 propositions. If any 3 are true, then the 4rth must be false.
The mind interacts with the body => The body is a physical thing => A physical thing cannot interact with a non-physical thing => The mind is a non-physical thing
I’m a little uncomfortable with it, but I think 2 is true and 4 is false.
But, I noticed it is proving that immaterial minds don’t exist. That’s a fine distinction. There is no such thing as a mind without a physical brain, so in that sense, “everything is physical”, but that’s different than saying the mind is the brain. They can’t be separated physically, but there is a distinction in what we are talking about it when we use the words.
As for that previous post and that discussion - it seems focused on the mind - while overlooking the universe we exist within.
Which brings me right back to the point I’m hammering on.
Okay, let me try to put it this way: It’s the mind that is the starting point for all their discussion.
Whereas I make a big deal about being an EARTH CENTRIST expressly because my starting point is the physical universe and I work back to the mind from that central perspective. I believe most other do it the other way around, which I believe leads to the thinking that the universe must fit into the mind and which leads to all the obsession for absolute knowledge, which in turn creates a need for gods.
Which leads to the endless talk for the sake of talking, not to mention a bunch of bellybutton gazing.
The most reasonable thing to do, I think, is to define “mind or mindscape” differently from “brain”. There is nothing that is supernatural or non-physical about the “mind”. Even tho it is not the same thing as the “brain”. And I think that the most concise and practical way of looking at the mind is that it is the composite of allof our covert mental behaviors.
But I am not expecting to have any converts to my way of thinking about this, today.
I believe most other do it the other way around, which I believe leads to the thinking that the universe must fit into the mind and which leads to all the obsession for absolute knowledge, which in turn creates a need for gods.
True, and of course that is the absolutel last solution to the Quasi-Intelligent mathematical values and functions of the Universe.
However. There is a third and ideally suited environment for guiding natural phenomena. Mathematics. It meets all requirements for dynamic regularities and completely replaces the necessity for a “sentient director”.
It is very simple. Spacetime is a physical mathematical construct and as such function mathematically.
TimB, that is a valid alternative to the problem. I was considering in the back of my, um, mind, but I can’t quite get on board with it. I don’t like that the mind is not aware of it being a result of activity in the brain. It feels like thoughts are swirling around my head somewhere and that some of them come from other parts of my body or just sneak up on me. I can travel across time and space with my mind. I only know I’m not really doing that because I’ve been told that no one has demonstrated that happening, ever.
Lausten, When you said “…I don’t like that the mind is not aware of it being a result of activity in the brain…”, I don’t understand what you mean. What were you referencing by “it”.
I think, is to define “mind or mindscape” differently from “brain”.
Hasn't that been done? The Brain is the mass of flesh. The Mind is what that mass of neurons and whatnot produces.
I don’t like that the mind is not aware of it being a result of activity in the brain.
Seems to me that's where the wonder of the human invention of Science comes in. It is only through science that our mind can get a sense of being produced by the brain.
some of them come from other parts of my body or just sneak up on me.
Hasn't it been show that our brain neurons extend far beyond the mind and into our bodies and guts. Particularly guts if I'm remembering correctly.
Lausten, When you said “…I don’t like that the mind is not aware of it being a result of activity in the brain…”, I don’t understand what you mean. What were you referencing by “it“. -- TimB
To answer that, I’d need to answer just what self-awareness is and I don’t think anyone has that answer. When I say “aware”, what do you think I’m talking about? I’m talking about the stuff that happens in the mind, thinking about what happened before now and what might happen next. That which does that thinking did not become aware of where the thinking came from just by thinking about it. It took experimentation and gathering of evidence over many years to determine it is centered in the brain. The science on that is still pretty new.
I see. So it bothers you that we did not naturally have a meta-understanding of our thinking, perceiving, remembering, dreaming, picturing, planning, etc., etc., etc. mental behaviors?
Whereas I make a big deal about being an EARTH CENTRIST expressly because my starting point is the physical universe and I work back to the mind from that central perspective. I believe most other do it the other way around, which I believe leads to the thinking that the universe must fit into the mind and which leads to all the obsession for absolute knowledge, which in turn creates a need for gods.
Which leads to the endless talk for the sake of talking, not to mention a bunch of bellybutton gazing.
I guess I am not understanding exactly what you r doing when you (with the physical universe being your starting point) “work back to the mind from that central perspective”.
And then doing the opposite of that, you assume leads ppl to obsess after absolute knowledge and thus need gods. That is some big-time assuming.
For me, the universe is the right place to start because it’s the incubator for everything else. Without the billions of years of cooking up elements and forming ecosystems, there would be no mind. So you need that big picture to know what a mind is. But, since those minds didn’t come to consciousness until all of that already happened, and weren’t formed with that in their memories, the minds tried to fit what they found into themselves. Survival doesn’t require an understanding of why things are the way they are, so mechanisms and adaptations were geared to over assuming agency and to rituals that passed on practices that just worked without needing to know why. Curiosity has its place, but repeating what worked before is safer. I don’t think this an assumption, I think there is data to support it.
Hasn’t it been show that our brain neurons extend far beyond the mind
I'm sorry, but that sentence does not make any sense.
Brain neurons are the “specialized” neurons of the brain. However, humans also have a complete neural network throughout the body. All neurons are connected to sensory organs and transmit sensory messages to the brain. The body doesn’t think, it senses and transmits data to the brain. The brain processes the data and forms an internal image of the composite.
The mind is the internal holographic representation of perceived internal and external data. Thoughts can extend beyond the confinement of the brain, but all thought is truly imaginary, a brain’s best guess of what data the senses are transmitting and fashioning an “internal picture” of the sensory input.
The mind is the internal holographic representation of perceived internal and external data. Thoughts can extend beyond the confinement of the brain, but all thought is truly imaginary, a brain’s best guess of what data the senses are transmitting and fashioning an “internal picture” of the sensory input.
That's a good picture of how I think about what "mind" is. I didn't catch the bad wording on the first read. I auto-corrected in it my head to say "don't neurons extend beyond the brain".
I am imagining what my imagining behavior actually looks like. It is a colorful complex interconnected network of neurons firing.
To a lay person, that networked pattern of neurons firing would probably look similar to when I was imagining something else, let’s say a duck.
When I stop imagining the duck or the neurons firing, the picture of those things is no more, until imagined again. (Now the pictured duck never existed. The pictured neurons firing, did exist, but probably was vastly different than as pictured.)
Any behavior (including any mental behavior) exists at the moment that it occurs and not else when.
To a lay person, that networked pattern of neurons firing would probably look similar to when I was imagining something else, let’s say a duck.
I know this is changing rapidly, but last time I checked, we can only see general areas of the brain lighting up. We can't map out an image by looking at neurons firing. Lay person or otherwise. Controlling a cursor with your mind is a lot different than reading people's thoughts.