Does the "Hard Problem" relate at all to people's existential struggles?

Philosophy of Mind
41

I don’t think I’m shrugging it off, though I am suggesting that perhaps it needs a bit more self-examination of the motives and expectations, that drive us to formula what seems to bar accepting the conception that biology alone can produce awareness.

I keep thinking of the analogy of a bunch of electronic junk that can be tinkered together to product a contraption that can send comprehensible radio transmissions across the ether.
Something utterly incomprehensible, impossible - if imaginable to a very few humans before 150 years ago.

Isn’t that an argument from incredulity?
There are good rational and natural reasons why sense of self, and degrees of consciousness can only be guessed at and never measured the way can material objects.

He was tough, I was being stupid.
Why do you reach for “weak”?

We people are good at finding what we want to find. :wink:

That was supposed to act as a sort of mirror, perhaps it simply flew over your head.

Because your words don’t relay the slightest understanding, but do convey a sense of being fully jacked up with cynicism.

That’s nice. Did God give you your mind, or where do you think it comes from?
Or are you claiming it doesn’t come from anywhere?
Please explain.

So we do have some common ground.
Hmmm, wait a minute, are you saying you don’t think your body creates your awareness?
Are you suggesting awareness comes from outside individual biological beings?

That seems a gratuitous empty question - and a very distasteful one, that indicates to me little awareness of what a person who has lost limb(s) or other important body parts goes through. It’s one of those ‘gives’, that makes me wonder if you are rather young and not that worldly experienced.

The Self is the cumulative total of your physical and mental being. If you go through a disfiguring catastrophe, what winds up at the other end remains your Self - No one has ever said the “Self” is an unchanging monolith.

Seems to me way over complicate it, but that’s human nature for ya.

Indeed and that’s the way it goes. Ain’t it. Although my opinion is supportable by substantive discuss that can point at substantive evidence. I do my best not to rely on cynicism and calculated quips.

That’s is your own assessment. As you put it, this is “@ages” opinion and belief only here.

And you seem to think not knowing anything about my background and parade of lived experiences, put you in a position to judge me. You are good, I stand corrected.

I haven’t a clue who you are, I see the words of, how should I put it, a poser that is out to belittle me and that actually seems like he could not care less about much beyond that. I image part of that is you find me distasteful, and in turn, I probably under rate you. We shall see how this plays out.

Silly boy. The reason WHY I do as I do is because I’m a human being and thus am driven to explore and learn.

I was very, very lucky to be born within one particular milieu, with two excellent dedicated intelligent, curious, supportive parents, who were still strict as hell, old world style, besides my airy little introspective mind, I was also breed with a healthy work ethic. Considering, that having someone breathing down my neck has always been detestable to me, I got into the habit of being a good worker who strives to be on it, and pretty much succeeded - mainly because I wanted to keep that boss off my ass. The strategy worked out well. (achieved a master in two trades along the way - culinary arts for the young wild years, and framing carpentry after that, and a wonderful spectrum of shorter term jobs while on the road, + + +)
So if you want to play a game of comparisons, I’m up for it. :face_with_monocle:

Because I also spent a lot of time on the road, dealing with new people all the time and learning some life’s lessons. Especially down around the Texas/Louisiana Gulf Coast where 3 out of 4 who stop to pick up a hitchhiker were on the make, one way or the other. It’s a survival strategy to learn to recognize the difference between predators (in all their different flavors) and parasites and good 'ol boys one could simply relax with, and how to go with the flow, while avoiding the many traps out there. (Mind you that’s back in '70s, '80s, wee bit of '90s - tragically that America is over, so I feel like I’m among the end of the line for pre-digital humanity. But that would get us into all sorts of different discussions.)

To be clear I’m taking about the confusion people experience in recognizing consciousness as a product of our biological body interacting with its insides and life outside .

Now if you could add something intelligent to that discussion -I would be pleased and surprised.

Do you. Then why the silly questions?

I’m glad we settle that.
I would disagree with your appraisal “completely open questions” - contrived and manipulative is my impression.

If you want to do linquistics - please add an introduction.

To me that is a word salad.
I agree that if I use the word 'my", it conveys a sense of “ownership” - after that you lost me.

I’m curious about your relationship with the biological reality unfolding within (and outside) your body?

Frame of reference is something that happens in our minds to compare this with that. ±

Well yes, that is why I make it clear I identify as an Earth-centrist. I find it curious how you pass judgement on me so easily. What’s ironic is that my “mindscape” packs a good understanding (for a nonscientist) of this planet’s and life’s evolution, so it encompasses billions of years in time, when it comes to that material world around me, my mindscape encompasses a fairly decent understanding of my body’s physiology, and with modern imagining techniques it’s easy to visualize interior systems, in a way that has been impossible previous, developing an even rich appreciation for the biology that creates my body. On top of that I am present to natural environments in a way I don’t witness in others, with a few wonderful exceptions.

My mindscape also encompasses a decent community college level exposure to the great thinkers of philosophy. Those that were relevant to my life, I studied a tad more.

Possibly what makes me different is I find most of philosophy self-indulgent talk for talk. One-upmanship for people who had brains rather than brawn.

And yes you might think that is superior to the boring stuff of biology and life unfolding upon this planet - me I’ve read a bit and listened to a lot of people over the years, then I look at the world we collectively created.

Yeah, it’s the stuff and the rules that this world is made out of. It’s the stuff that makes up our body and that our bodies interacts with.

Knowing “exactly” isn’t in the cards for human animals! We do the best we can with what we have, same as it ever was!

Where did you pull that out of? The mind is the thing that your body produces as it lives, then when you stop living, it stops, not all that different from a spinning dynamos, once it slows down and stops, electrical emanations stop.
Don’t see why that is so difficult to visualize.

You know it’s not nice to put words in my mouth, where have I used the concept or word “exactly” - the freak’n point is we can’t know this stuff exactly, but we (well some) have pragmatic common sense enough to collect evidence and draw valid conclusions and inferences.

Always understanding our knowledge is provisional as more data coming in.

Seems to me Chalmers is the one guilt of “exactly-ism” when he states science will never be able to answer the sources of awareness challenge.

Mindscape? It’s your mind, the totality of your thoughts and lived experience. Mind is product of your entire body working in spectacularly exquisitely timed and coordinated chaos - folds within folds of harmonic, constructive complexity, all the way down.

Can you make another plausible suggestion as to where - besides the inside of our body - we should look for our awareness of the world?

That body (actually all current living bodies) being fine tuned organisms with half a billion years worth of research, development, and culling within our bodies.

What kind of mind fuk is that?
I’m bringing it up for discussion and pushback because I’m trying to find out how much weight it can handle.

Yes my lived experience and my proactive learning and pushing does give my words a bit more veracity than when I was a 20s and had it all figured out, we live and learn. How much depends on a lot of things.

If you can make a serious critique, or suggest a better than, I’m happy to hear it. Right now your end of this dialogue doesn’t feel like much beyond a bunch of browbeating.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, I’ve learned as much from insults as I have constructive discussion. Just say’n.

I do the best I can with what I have.
And, I also realize, we need each other to keep ourselves honest.

See, there you go again. I didn’t say anything like that. The sum total of our body and its interactions create the “self” that should not be that difficult to comprehend. What’s the issue with it, please spell it out.

My body is me, whether I’m fit as a fiddle, or obese and dogged by one infirmity after another, or mangled by some debilitating mishap.

What is your issue here??? Can you rationally spell it out? Why should a sudden missing limb change that. Because the happening would certainly change me, and force an entirely different lifestyle into my day by day. I could see that being a terror to live with and work through to back to some semblance of the balanced contented with self I am right now. So it would radically change me and challenge me. But, it is still me, myself, and I that have to deal with it, hopefully best as I can.

The distinction you are trying to draw is lost on me.

I can’t make any sense out of that.
Where’s that fit in? How does that fit in? What is your agenda here?

Well yeah. Because so much of it simply feels like a self indulgent trivial pursuits, that does not appreciate the stakes we have been playing for here on this physical planet with its nature that so many snuggly hold in contempt.

So yes, in my humble estimation looking at what we humans are doing to ourselves, while believing everything is just fine, with their library shelves full of self-important tomes.

Well try to do it constructively.
I’m ready to constructively defend my lived experience and the things its taught me.

Dang, have you even read my other comments,
how many times do I have to mention Earth-centrism
and Evolution’s central role and a lived experience of people, travel, jobs, experiences, observing, reading, thinking and writing.

And much mischief can be done with logical reasoned discussion.
Case in point, bring on Donald Hoffman.

Prof Donald Hoffman Playing Basketball In Zero-Gravity - the prelude.

Then why were you trying to bust my b…s?

It’s like you’ve created a straw man - absolute certainly went out with Heisenberg in the 1920s - didn’t it?

See here’s where I would say once we reconcile ourselves with our human condition as summarized by the Physical Realty ~ Human Mind divide, which I believe is helpful because it defines the objective/subjective situation, that is our human conundrum.

42

Because it can be seen as the opposite of ‘tough’.

Why do you believe you were ‘stupid’?

Make they just wanted you to believe that you were ‘stupid’, but were you really?

Is that how you found out that you were ‘stupid’?

A mirror to ‘what’, exactly?
Can you be more specific here instead of be so allusive?

‘you’ not being able to explain that the ‘self’ is something other than just a ‘human body’ comes across as ‘you’ do not have the slightest understanding. But then again, ‘you’ also come across as someone who is not open to anything other than what ‘you’ currently presume or believe to be true.

Once more, there is NO “your mind”. And, who and/or what even is this ‘God’ thing that you are going on about here?

There is NO such thing as “your mind”. Unless, of course, you can explain to ‘us’ WHAT this “your mind” thing is exactly, and/or present to ‘us’ WHERE this “your mind” thing is exactly.

So, ‘we’ wait to see what ‘you’ provide ‘us’ with here.

That will all depend on how you define the word ‘consciousness’, exactly?

How do you define the ‘consciousness’ word exactly?

I never ever even thought this, let alone would have said it anywhere.

I also never thought this as well, let alone suggested it anywhere.

Where, exactly, are ‘you’ hearing and perceiving these presumptions of yours here, exactly?

But it was very clearly not even ‘a question’, let alone any ‘type of question’.

This has to be about one of the ‘weakest’ or ‘stupidest’ attempts to ‘try to’ counter what I very clearly pointed out and demonstrated.

LOL So, ‘it’ is, supposedly, ‘distasteful’ to “citizenchallenge”, therefore ‘it’ must be wrong.

Do you not have any other comeback that could actually counter or refute what I just said and pointed out?

How do you imagine ‘your give’ comes across?
What do you think others imagine when they look at and see ‘your give’, exactly?

  1. ‘you’ have STILL missed the whole point I keep pointing out and presenting here.
  2. ‘I’ have already acknowledged and said “okay” to ‘your claim’ here.
  3. Why do ‘you’ keep missing and/or misunderstanding these two things here?

Therefore, contradicting ‘your claim’ here.

Okay.

Is ‘this’ WHY you are ‘trying to’ overcomplicate what is essentially Truly NOT?

Why then are you ‘trying to’ claim that it is a Fact that applies to everyone?

Although I just demonstrated and explained HOW and WHY ‘your belief and claim’ is Wrong or could NOT work.

‘What’ is 'my own assessment, exactly?

Before you claimed ‘my question’ was something, when there was NO question, and now when I just ask you ‘a question’, you claim that ‘it’ is ‘an assessment’.

It is A question and NOT an assessement.

Again, ‘it’ is ‘a question’, and NOT ‘an assessment’. So, ‘it’ is NOT an opinion NOR a belief.

Look, if you do not want to just answer ‘the question’, then so be it. you have your reasons for not just being open and honest here.

WHY have you now jumped to the conclusion that ‘I’ am judging ‘you’?

What did you judge and believe or say prior ‘about me’, which you now stand corrected about, exactly?

Okay, this is another area where ‘we’ differ. ‘you’ are literally the invisible ‘thoughts and emotions’ within a ‘human body’. The word ‘you’ refers to the ‘self’ or the ‘person’, which again are the invisible parts of the ‘human being’.

‘We’ are in a ‘philosophy forum’, where, well, to some people anyway, Truth and finding out how to find Truth is what is important. So, when people express things which do not align with the Truth of things, then it is appropriate to express this. Again, especially since ‘we’ are in a philosophy forum of all places. Now, if you do not like being questioned and/or challenged over ‘your beliefs and claims’ here, then I will suggest NO one is making ‘you’ stay here, or if you want to, then I will again suggest that ‘you’ obtain the irrefutable proof and/or facts for ‘your belief and/or claims’ before you present them here in a publicly visible philosophy forum. Where beliefs, claims, views, and ideas are designed to be critiqued, questioned, and challenged.

Because ‘you’ find things ‘distasteful’ here NEVER EVER means that ‘I’ do. ‘I’ certainly do NOT and NEVER would find ‘you’ distasteful at all “citizenchallenge”.

I was referring to a very specific thing, which you obviously have, also, missed or misunderstood.

Again, who cares? ‘We’ are in a ‘philosophy’ forum and not a ‘pyschology’ or ‘self help’ forum.

Look, you believe and claimed that the ‘self’ is the ‘human body’. I showed and demonstrated how, to me, the ‘self’ is NOT the ‘human body’. you have also MISSED the point I was making about the word ‘my’.

What environment ‘you’ were raised ‘I’ do not really care. Obviously, ‘the environment’ ‘you’ experienced effected ‘the way’ ‘you’ ‘look at’ and ‘see’ things, but ‘I’ KNEW this ALREADY.

Who cares?

‘you’ have STILL MISSED ‘the point’ I was making above.

So ‘you’ are aware, ‘I’ do NOT want to play a game of comparisions.

So, you believe what you do here based on nothing at all other than Assumptions from your Past Experiences only.

So, “citizenchallenge” believes that my open questions asked for clarification is a so-called ‘cynical interrogation’ BECAUSE some people in some little insignificant states in some little insignificant country were on “the make” (whatever that is exactly).

‘you’ seem to be drifting off here maybe more than ‘you’ were drifting in the so-called '70s and '80s.

Okay. Thank you for now clearing that up clarifying.

So, to “citizenschallenge” anyway, ‘consciousness’ is a product of ‘our’ biological body interacting with itself and other things outside of it.

Therefore, ‘consciousness’ is a product of the ‘human body’ interacting with other things. Well, to “citizenschallenge” anyway.

And, it stands and appears “citizenschallenge” believes that ‘this interpretaion and version’ it the One and only true one.

Okay. And, by ‘intelligent’ you mean only adding something that aligns with ‘your beliefs’ and ‘your claims’ here only correct?

See, if anyone says anything that does not agree with “citizenschallenge” then ‘that’ will classed and classified as ‘unintelligent’ to “citizenschallenge”.

Which is another prime example of how ‘these people’, back when this was being written, were so blind and deaf that only things said and written that matched what they were already presuming and believed were true, could be the only so-called ‘intelligent’ things

Are ‘we’ supposed to know which ones are the “silly” ones to ‘you’?

43

Ages, I started down your comment, then a feeling started coming over me, that you demonstrate the rhetorical skill and awareness of an AI protocol.

I think I’ve spent enough time on you. Lacking some future comment that sounds like a real thinking/feeling human being, rather than this weird p-zombie dialogue you got going here - we’re probably done.

Good day.

1 Like
44

Thank you for the clarification here.

‘you’ keep missing ‘the point’ here. WHO is ‘the one’ that the words ‘my’ and ‘your’ are referring to, EXACTLY, when ‘you’ use those words?

Obviously, saying the word ‘my’ refers to the ‘self’ and ‘the self’ refers to ‘the body’, but then still go on and say things like “myself”, “my body”, and/or “your body”.

Until ‘you’ can be more specific and clarify precisely what you are talking about and referring to, ‘you’ will never be able to comprehend and understand here. Which is WHY ‘you’ are still not.

ONCE MORE, there are NO such things as “our minds”. And, this is not even including that Fact that ‘you’ still have not yet successfuly explained who and/or what the ‘our’ is even referring to, exactly.

When have you done this exactly?

Was it in this thread, for example?

Maybe because ‘you’ are still quite a ways behind.

So, once more, why do you believe, absolutely, that ‘this body’ has not lost a limb?

LOL ‘you’ are ‘the one’ here ‘trying to’ claim that it is ‘the body’ that is ‘the self’.

What is ‘the issue’ with what ‘you’ are ‘trying to’ say and claim here that in one part ‘you’ are claiming that the ‘self’ is ‘The sum total of “our” body and ‘the body’s’ interactions’. In other words, the ‘self’ is created from the sum total of “our” body and its interactions.

Which ‘you’ OBVIOUSLY are STILL MISSING what the word “our” references, exactly.

‘you’ even demonstrate and reveal HOW ‘you’ are STILL MISSING and MISUNDERSTANDING here by your very first two words in your next quote.

Besides the Falsehood of the claim itself, the first two words show and prove ‘you’ are STILL NO closer to understanding things here.

The words “my body” is AGAIN ‘an oxymoron’ and ‘a contradiction’ in and of itself.

For the reasons that I have ALREADY explained.

Even the first four words are self-contradictory and a contradiction in terms. Once more, HOW can ‘you’ be what ‘you own’, exactly?

Can ‘you’ be ‘your car’?

If no, then HOW can ‘you’ be ‘your body’, exactly?

your contradictions and oxymorons.

Yes. I have done it previously, and again just now.

Because, and as I explained previously, if a ‘self’ or a ‘person’ were ‘the body’, then when parts of ‘the body’ are removed, then the ‘self’ and/or the ‘person’ would also HAVE TO BE less, clearly.

Obviously.

If ‘you’ can’t make sense of that and cannot see how it fits in, then ‘I’ am not suprised at all.

With what ‘I’ am doing here.

Exactly, and/or perfectly.

To learn how to communicate better, and in the process show and reveal examples of what I say and claim.

Once again, what ‘we’ can very clearly see here is that “citizenschallenge” believes, absolutely, that what its own little life experiences has taught it is the absolute truth.

This reply is the first time you have answered and clarified this, so obviously I have only read ‘your comments’ relating to this in this post. How come you did not realise and consider this before you said and wrote this here?

Now, so the ‘frame of reference’ ‘you’ are talking about and coming from is the EXACT SAME ‘frame of reference’ for every other human being.

Obviously, a Truly proper ‘logically reasoned’ discussion would remove what you call ‘mischief’.

‘I’ have, essentially, just been asking ‘you’ some clarifying questions. Now, if ‘you’ feel challenged or as though “your balls are busting”, then just maybe ‘your beliefs and claims’ here need some readjusting.

However, from ‘the way’ ‘you’ are carrying on now, it may well be the case that you believe, absolutely, that ‘your claims’ here are the absolute truth.

Are ‘you’ here implying or meaning that ‘your claim’ that ‘you’ the ‘self’ and ‘person’ is a ‘human body’ is known by ‘you’ with absolute certainty?

If no, then what are ‘you’ meaning here, exactly?

But there is NO conundrum here AT ALL. Well, for me anyway.

45

If that is what ‘you’ started ‘feeling’, then okay.

Okay. So, ONCE MORE, ‘another one’ wants “run away” and ‘try to’ hide when they are just questioned over their beliefs and claims.

Which obviously reveasl far more then ‘they’ would prefer.

46

So, what ‘we’ have ascertained here is that “citizenschallenge” believes, absolutely, that ‘you’, the ‘self’, is ‘the body’, which laughably “citizenschallenge” still manages to call, ’ “our” body '.

Therefore, ‘you’ are ‘your body’.

Now, if anyone can make sense of this and explain it, successfully, ‘I’, for One, would love to hear that explanation.

47

@Ages, this has been a great example of what Playing Basketball in Zero Gravity, looks like to me.

Here you are “absolutely” misunderstanding -
because of some idealistic thinking, removed from the reality of living - trapped within your mindscape and personal agenda, . . .

I’m not playing your game - you might be the perfect philosopher, but why should that impress me if you can’t relate to yourself as being an evolved biological animal. Nor explain, but only question, and question in a manipulative, cynical, if not dishonest manner.

It’s this sort of disconnect that is at the roots of people building this path to self-cannibalization we are on societally, and unfortunately physical, geologically.

But, I suppose you’ll tell me everything is just fine out there, and I just don’t get it.

Good day.

48

‘I’ am, supposedly, misunderstanding ‘what’, exactly?

you have claimed that ‘you’, ‘the self’, is ‘the body’ (and its interactions). So, what, exactly, am I supposedly misunderstanding here?

you can allude to absolutely anything you like. However, until you are specific and/or explain “yourself” what you are talking about and referring to, exactly, no one else will know.

Once more, “yourself” is an oxymoron, misnomer, and literal ‘self-contradiction’.
Obviously, there is an evolving biological animal, but that is certainly NOT what a ‘person’ is NOT who and what ‘I’ am.
But, as always, ‘you’ are absolutely free to believe whatever ‘you’ absolutely want to.

Again, ‘this one’ how it is ‘looking at’ and ‘seeing’ things here based upon its own made-up assumptions from its own personal Past Experiences only.

Well, ‘you’ are obviously still completely lost and confused about what I have been pointing out and showing. Which is WHY ‘you’ still do not yet understand HOW ‘your version’ of ‘self’ is partly WHY human beings are still creating and living in this very greedy, selfish, stressful, pollution-riddled and war-torn world, in the days when this is being written.

49

@ages
The universe has been good to me. As I seem to be reminded of on nearly a daily basis. Most recently, the serendipity of having Wittgenstein planted right in from of me in a way that had me looking into his ideas (he’s one I’ve never looked into before). Lo and behold, I found something that very much resembled what, I perceive as, your word salad.

Wittgenstein has given me a better frame of reference (I’m pleased since I suspected you weren’t a total crank, simply by virtue of being here.)

I now believe you are into that sort of philosophy of linguistics. I am not, I barely know what it means, let alone any of its details. Though Ironically I used to house sit a big shot in that field. He literally has a row of big fat hard cover tomes that he told me no body read. Topic linguistics something or other. I was fascinated, what could fill all those books plus actually being in the home and friends with someone that accomplished such a life long task - and asked him if he could explain what it was about, he just laughed. (Honestly, he lives outside Bayfield, Colorado and wife loved horses, that he put up with, although could be passed away by now, it’s about 15 years ago, and he was a good deal older than me. But I digress, love them memory flashes).

Back to the point I’m trying to make.

I am an Earth-centrist, my perspective embodies an Evolutionary bottom-up understanding of myself, my origins. I am a naturalist driven by human curiosity. I fully inhabit the fact of being an evolved product of half a billion years worth of 100% successful generations under my belt.

And frankly, responsible for the physical part of who I am. Then the mind starts developing as lived experience start happening and adding up. It is as simple as that. I am, me, myself, and I - an evolved biological sensing animal. Who are you?

My mind?
That is the inside reflection of my body/brain communicating with itself as it’s navigating me through life.

Does the “Physical Reality ~ Human Mindscape divide” concept ring any bells for you?

I am sensual and empathetic someone who always longed to experience life and come out the other end feeling really good about the memories good, bad, in between, and where they took me in their wake.
I am viscerally aware of the difference between looking into the eyes of a portrait and looking into the eyes of living breathing human being, or animal for that matter. But none of that could fit into words and symbols, because it’s happening at a biological radar/pheromone/vibs/circumstancial/experiencial level.

My world is a physical reality, and I’ve spent my entire life puzzling over the difference between my mind, and this body/brain I inhabit and that has taken better care of me, than I have of it. Although then again, I did a decent job of respecting the signals it shared with me through the decades. My current continued fit reality, convinces me to trust my perspective and the evolving ways I’ve learned to interact with the world around me.

Near as I can reckon, you are into the philosophy of linguistics, cynicism, and perhaps a feeling of irritation towards me (sorry my very existence does that to some, can’t help that, I can only help how I react and interact.). I don’t have the mental horsepower to even begin to study the philosophy of linguistic, it’s beyond me. So we have no shared language.

That’s why I don’t see anything constructive in continuing the above dialogue - which I’m suspecting is intended to paint me into some corner of your own fabrication.

50

Do you have any other examples of how ‘you’ have been singled out, and how the Universe has ‘chosen you’ and been so-called ‘good to you’?

Fancy that.

I would NOT rely on that.

And, as always, you’ are absolutely free to believe absolutely anything of your choosing.

So, you barely know what something means, but you are adamant that ‘you’ are not ‘it’. Oh, and by the way, ‘you’ might barely know what ‘it’ means, ‘I’ do not even know what your ‘it’ is referring to, exactly, let alone what ‘it’ could mean or any of ‘its’ details at all.

Do you think people in a philosophy forum love hearing your memories, especially like things about the wife of someone loved horses?

Okay, that would be better, well, to me anyway.

‘you’ have said and claimed more or less this same thing previously.

I do not know any human being who was not born this way.

‘you’ have said and claimed this more than a few times already.

Why only this limited number of years?

So, ‘now’ ‘you’ have changed from ‘self’ is ‘the body’ to ‘the body’ is part of ‘the self’.

The invisible ‘thoughts’ and ‘emotions’ within the visible ‘human body’.

Here ‘we’ have another statement, with a question mark at the end.

“citicizenschallenge” is “my” ‘body/brain’, and not ‘the body/brain’.
And, it is the 'inside reflection that has control over and is navigating “citizenschallenge”, through life.

‘you’ have said this a couple of times already.

What exists is the visible ‘human body’, and, the invisible ‘thoughts and emotions’ within the ‘physical human body’.

What one ‘longs for’ can blind them to other things, and then they can all too easily and simply MISS the other things along the way.

‘you’ keep telling ‘me’ ‘about you’, here.

So, essentially, as you just now claimed, none of what ‘you’ just said ‘could fit into words and symbols’.

So, ‘now’ “citizenschallenge” has ‘a mind’ and instead of being ‘the body’ ‘it’ inhabits ‘the body and the brain’.

So, ‘now’ there is a ‘you/self’, which is separated from ‘the body/brain’, but still has ‘a mind’, but ‘the body/brain’ takes care of “citizenschallenge” better than “citizenschallenge” takes care of ‘the body’ although previously “citizenschallenge” was ‘the body’, itself.

Okay, but ‘you’ really do like to talk ‘about you’, right?

So, although previously ‘you’ were ‘the body’ ‘now’ ‘the body’ shared signals ‘with you’.

As long as ‘you’ trust ‘your perspective’, then all should be well and good, right?

As long as ‘you’ trust ‘your perspective’, that is what really matters, correct?

Okay. So, ‘this one’ introduces some ‘thing’ that has absolutely nothing at all to do with absolutely anything here, and then says, “they do not have the mental horsepower to even begin to study its own introduced off-topic topic”, as ‘it’ is beyond them.

If ‘this’ is what ‘you’ want to believe here, then okay.

Some, however, notice the same “english” language being shared here between ‘you’ and ‘I’.

Just as ‘you’ are free to believe absolutely anything, so ‘you’ are free to suspect absolutely anything as well.

51

If you insist on scrambling what I wrote - you are simply underscoring the pointlessness of me trying to have a constructive rational and civil discussion with you.

As they say apparently you just don’t get it.

Good day.

52

‘you’ have obviously MISSED and MISUNDERSTOOD here.

53

I am that I am.

Problem not so “hard” anymore.

It is a statement of presence: consciousness is not something to be explained. It is something to be acknowledged and experienced as “self”.
The problem is “hard” only if we assume that consciousness must be explained in terms of something else. If consciousness is fundamental, the problem dissolves.

54

entry deleted by poster made in error

55

Obvious I misunderstand you.
And from what you’ve chosen to share - such as trimmed quotes of mine that ignore their context, instead filling in your context for me - makes me believe you have no interest in understanding me.

That’s not the basis for a discussion.
That is an interrogation.
I’m looking for a little constructive, down to Earth, discussion and exchange of ideas.

1 Like
56

I can totally relate to consciousness being a statement of presence. It’s my life long fascination with how and why I perceived the world the way I do that has me still wrestling with this in my 70s - although it’s shift to why do people think the way they do.

Self studying the seasons of my moods, how I react to people and situations, how they react to me, the same sorts of patterns keep showing up and the dealing with that, and so and so forth. Living the introspective life - before I knew philosophy existed.

My most recent reboot leaves me with;
Being is fundamental,
Consciousness is recognizing our Being,
that is the evolved “product” of a spectrum of the competence with increasingly complex biological systems & creatures and environments,
interacting with the exterior and our interior physical reality.

1 Like
57

I am slightly younger - but not significantly so. :slight_smile:

There are a myriad of reasons for why people think the way they do. My focus is on knowing why I think the way I do.

As one example, I used to react angrily to certain situations.
At one point I came to realise this as a triggering event and in that, I could then examine and pinpoint what was being triggered within the scope of my being.
This in turn assisted me with disarming, which allowed for me to be less reactive - through thinking before reacting and thus changing the way I reacted.

Is that philosophy? Yes - perhaps “of the mind”…

I think, therefore I am therefore who or what am I?
There was I was where I ought - examining my conscious thought.
Being without consciousness is not being.
So, consciousness is the fundamental.

1 Like
58

Actually partly yes. There is what we call the gut-brain-microbiota axis which have been shown to be a major player in psychophysiology. It was discovered by Pavlov in 1904 (Filaretova et al., 2016), long time ago, but have gained increasing attention in the recent 10 years or so. The gut is actually an unsuspected titan, overcoming even sometimes the brain in terms of etiological significance in some aspects. People has call it “the second brain” and it’s euphemistic at best. 80–90% of the connections of the vagus nerve goes from the gut towards the brain (Breit et al., 2018), 90% of the serotonin and 50% of the dopamine in the body is produced by the gut (Chen et al., 2021) and about 70-80% of the immune cells are located in the gut in humans (Wiertsema et al., 2021). Its alteration can produce dramatic changes on the conscious experience.

Interestingly on this aspect, you can plant specific strains of microbiota in someone’s gut to impact specific brain areas activity and networks connectivity (Mulder et al., 2023; Brendan et al., 2023) and, more surprisingly, you can even do a behavioral phenotype transfer trough gut microbiome transplants (Collins et al., 2013) which basically means that you can transfer the personnality of someone to another person by transplanting the microbiome strain from a gut to another. You can alter significantly cognitive capabilities, mood, anxiety propension and social behaviors of a person by modifying his microbiota (Mayneris-Perxachs et al., 2022; Tooley, 2020; Smith et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2022). All of this operates due to a complex enteric[1]-gut-microbiota interaction with the brain via different bi-directional pathways of communication, namely nervous[2] hormonal and immunological. I suggest you check out this monster! :slight_smile:

  1. Alejandro Borrego-Ruiz, Juan J. Borrego. The Role of the Gut Microbiome on Borderline Personality Disorder. Behav. Psychol. 2025, 33(1).

  2. Braniste V, Al-Asmakh M, Kowal C, Anuar F, Abbaspour A, Tóth M, Korecka A, Bakocevic N, Ng LG, Kundu P, Gulyás B, Halldin C, Hultenby K, Nilsson H, Hebert H, Volpe BT, Diamond B, Pettersson S. The gut microbiota influences blood-brain barrier permeability in mice. Sci Transl Med. 2014 Nov 19;6(263):263ra158. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3009759. Erratum in: Sci Transl Med. 2014 Dec 10;6(266):266er7. Guan, Ng Lai [corrected to Ng, Lai Guan]. PMID: 25411471; PMCID: PMC4396848.

  3. Breit S, Kupferberg A, Rogler G, Hasler G. Vagus Nerve as Modulator of the Brain-Gut Axis in Psychiatric and Inflammatory Disorders. Front Psychiatry. 2018 Mar 13;9:44. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00044. PMID: 29593576; PMCID: PMC5859128.

  4. Brendan L. Sharvin, Maria Rodriguez Aburto, John F. Cryan, Decoding the neurocircuitry of gut feelings: Region-specific microbiome-mediated brain alterations, Neurobiology of Disease, Volume 179, 2023, 106033, ISSN 0969-9961.

  5. Chang L, Wei Y, Hashimoto K. Brain-gut-microbiota axis in depression: A historical overview and future directions. Brain Res Bull. 2022 May;182:44-56. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2022.02.004. Epub 2022 Feb 11. PMID: 35151796.

  6. Chen Y, Xu J, Chen Y. Regulation of Neurotransmitters by the Gut Microbiota and Effects on Cognition in Neurological Disorders. Nutrients. 2021 Jun 19;13(6):2099. doi: 10.3390/nu13062099. PMID: 34205336; PMCID: PMC8234057.

  7. Filaretova L, Bagaeva T. The Realization of the Brain-Gut Interactions with Corticotropin-Releasing Factor and Glucocorticoids. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2016;14(8):876-881. doi: 10.2174/1570159x14666160614094234. PMID: 27306034; PMCID: PMC5333583.

  8. Hu M, Zhang P, Wang R, Zhou M, Pang N, Cui X, Ge X, Liu X, Huang X-F and Yu Y (2022) Three Different Types of β-Glucans Enhance Cognition: The Role of the Gut-Brain Axis. Front. Nutr. 9:848930. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.848930

  9. Mayneris-Perxachs J, Castells-Nobau A, Arnoriaga-Rodríguez M, Garre-Olmo J, Puig J, Ramos R, Martínez-Hernández F, Burokas A, Coll C, Moreno-Navarrete JM, Zapata-Tona C, Pedraza S, Pérez-Brocal V, Ramió-Torrentà L, Ricart W, Moya A, Martínez-García M, Maldonado R, Fernández-Real JM. Caudovirales bacteriophages are associated with improved executive function and memory in flies, mice, and humans. Cell Host Microbe. 2022 Mar 9;30(3):340-356.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2022.01.013. Epub 2022 Feb 16. PMID: 35176247.

  10. Mulder, D., Aarts, E., Arias Vasquez, A. et al. A systematic review exploring the association between the human gut microbiota and brain connectivity in health and disease. Mol Psychiatry 28, 5037–5061 (2023).

  11. Nemani K, Hosseini Ghomi R, McCormick B, Fan X. Schizophrenia and the gut-brain axis. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2015 Jan 2;56:155-60. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2014.08.018. Epub 2014 Sep 19. PMID: 25240858.

  12. Parker A, Fonseca S, Carding SR. Gut microbes and metabolites as modulators of blood-brain barrier integrity and brain health. Gut Microbes. 2020;11(2):135-157. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2019.1638722. Epub 2019 Aug 1. PMID: 31368397; PMCID: PMC7053956.

  13. Saniotis A, Grantham JP, Kumaratilake J, Henneberg M. Neuro-hormonal Regulation Is a Better Indicator of Human Cognitive Abilities Than Brain Anatomy: The Need for a New Paradigm. Front Neuroanat. 2020 Jan 9;13:101. doi: 10.3389/fnana.2019.00101. PMID: 31998082; PMCID: PMC6962128.

  14. Saurman V, Margolis KG, Luna RA. Autism Spectrum Disorder as a Brain-Gut-Microbiome Axis Disorder. Dig Dis Sci. 2020 Mar;65(3):818-828. doi: 10.1007/s10620-020-06133-5. PMID: 32056091; PMCID: PMC7580230.

  15. Smith, L. K., & Wissel, E. F. (2019). Microbes and the Mind: How Bacteria Shape Affect, Neurological Processes, Cognition, Social Relationships, Development, and Pathology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 397-418.

  16. Stephen M Collins, Zain Kassam, Premysl Bercik, The adoptive transfer of behavioral phenotype via the intestinal microbiota: experimental evidence and clinical implications, Current Opinion in Microbiology, Volume 16, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 240-245, ISSN 1369-5274.

  17. Tooley KL. Effects of the Human Gut Microbiota on Cognitive Performance, Brain Structure and Function: A Narrative Review. Nutrients. 2020 Sep 30;12(10):3009. doi: 10.3390/nu12103009. PMID: 33007941; PMCID: PMC7601389.

  18. Wiertsema SP, van Bergenhenegouwen J, Garssen J, Knippels LMJ. The Interplay between the Gut Microbiome and the Immune System in the Context of Infectious Diseases throughout Life and the Role of Nutrition in Optimizing Treatment Strategies. Nutrients. 2021 Mar 9;13(3):886. doi: 10.3390/nu13030886. PMID: 33803407; PMCID: PMC8001875.

  1. enteric means the nervous system of the gut that have hundreds of millions of neurons, a “second brain” literally ↩︎

  2. via neurotransmitters and the vagus nerve ↩︎

1 Like
59

Why thanks! A mountain of references there! And intuitively, none of that comes as a surprise to me. But it is rather tangential to the point I was making in the post you quoted. The context is that we are discussing David Chalmers’ ‘Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness’ and the status of qualia (a term which neither Chalmers nor I like to use.) ‘Citizenschallenge’ had said:

So my response was along the lines that the kind of self-knowledge that has preoccupied philosophers since time immemorial is not something that is going to be understood through the objective sciences. Not that there’s anything the matter with the objective sciences! In a more philosophical register, consider this excerpt from an interview with idealist philosopher Bernardo Kastrup:

Bernardo: There is only one reality, and it is right here. But it has more sides than what we think it has. Let me give you an example. If you are sad – very sad inside, to the point of despair – and you look at yourself in the mirror, you may be crying. So you will see tears flowing down your face and contorted muscles, but not for a moment would you think that those tears and contorted muscles are the whole story. You know that behind those tears, there is the thing in itself – the real thing – which is your sadness. So the tears and the muscles are the extrinsic appearance, the representation of an inner reality.

But that reality is not in another world. It’s right here. From a first-person point of view, it is the thing in itself – the sadness in itself – but it presents itself to observation as what we call ‘tears’.

Jane: So the difference is the point of view from which we consider reality?

Bernardo: Yes. I suspect that some of the world’s mystical traditions are referring to something like this when they talk about ‘the real world’ or ‘the afterlife’ or whatever. What we call the physical world – this planet, the moon, the sun, the galaxies, the black holes and quasars and galaxy clusters – are like the tears and the ‘real world’ is like the sadness when it is experienced from a first-person perspective. It is the difference between my looking at you while you’re crying, and my being you and knowing the sadness. These are experientially very distinct things, but they are not in different universes. Rather, they are differences in perspective which render the world completely differently. You could say that it is the difference between an internal perspective and an external perspective. Schopenhauer called it the difference between the representations and the will ~ ref

The “difference between my looking at you while you’re crying, and my being you and knowing the sadness” is basically the distinction at issue. David Chalmer’s point is that this is what is invariably left out by a purely objective account of the nature of consciousness.

In respect of those citations you provide: very interesting indeed! I’ve been exploring phenomenology of biology, which is concerned with accomodating the first-person or felt nature of existence even in simple organisms. But again, I think the kind of discoveries reported there are complementary to that approach and indeed those studies must take a phenomenological approach to their subjects in order to ascertain the nature of their experiences.

60

But I think you will find that I have understood ‘you’, and what ‘you’ were saying better than you imagine I have.

What is ‘your idea’ that you claim you would like to discuss, exactly?