(2024-01-07, 04:10 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]I guess I just can't follow you here. It seems to me that subjective experience by its very nature is completely private and inner, and simply has no objective aspect, it has absolutely no "looks like from outside", no quality of being an "external representation" of any objective physical thing. You simply can't physically separate yourself from a perception (composed of mind-stuff) and draw a representation of it. You fundamentally can't see or feel tactilely a thought, which is composed of mind.
The ultimate inner nature of mind or a subjective experience composed of mind, is a mystery, but it is definitely of a different fundamental nature, a different existential category, than an objective fact of the world. Example: the subjective experiencing of the color red is not physical, whereas the objective reality of the red colored object is a physical reality in the physical world whose different aspects include mass, dimensions, and wavelengths of reflected light subjectively perceived as the color red.
The objectively physically real object is composed of matter and energy which are in an entirely different existential category than whatever subjective perception is composed of, and therefore the objectively physically real object cannot be an "external representation" of the subjective perception or thought. Like the fact that the mass of an object is fundamentally not an external representation of its perceived color. Its mass has little or no relation to its color.
The subjective experiencing of the perception of the color red is an ineffable "thing" with absolutely no weight or physical dimensions, and therefore this subjective state of consciousness and perception simply has no physical aspect or quality. Any more than the subjective perception of the weight of a piece of steel when held in the hand has any actual objective reality of mass or dimensions.
I'm trying to say it in different ways, but basically the ineffable essence of the subjective perception itself is for a fact somehow completely composed of an immaterial "something" we term consciousness or mind, that cannot be objectively and physically seen, felt or smelled. Therefore, subjective perception simply has no objective physical aspect or quality.
A little belatedly, because I've had to think about this, and have also had visitors:
I'm not asserting that the proposed objective aspect of subjective experience that I've termed "mental energy" has such physical properties as mass, although it would certainly have dimensions. I don't know whether or not wavelength would be a potentially applicable property, but I expect not. The nature of mental energy in this respect is simply to have
substantive form, with the form correlating perfectly with the inner experience.
You've got me thinking though about
what that form would look like (how to describe it), and it's quite difficult to imagine. Some aspects of experience are easier to "formalise" than others: for example, the form (as mental energy) of a visual experience could conceivably be something
like a three-dimensional reflection of the actual visual field, but what form would an emotional state take, and how would its form cohere and integrate with the form of the concurrent visual experience?
I think we'd have to posit a multidimensional space of more than three dimensions, which could be an interesting realm to explore. Mental energy's being multidimensional over more than three dimensions would, though, make it harder to identify with (as) the spiritual/astral/etheric body which separates from the physical body during OBEs, because that spiritual body
seems to be three-dimensional. It also seems to be able to take on different forms, including a point (invisible) form, and if it was a direct correlate of inner experience, one would expect experience to become non-existent during the period that the spiritual body took on point (invisible) form, but it doesn't.
In any case, as I mentioned earlier, I borrowed this idea from my interpretation of Analytic Idealism, and maybe it's a bad fit for dualism. It should probably be discarded if it is neither necessary nor has explanatory power, or if it really is impossible to imagine its form, or if there is a better alternative.
"Mental energy" seems to be necessary for Analytic Idealism on my interpretation given that the process of "dissociation" of personal psyches from the universal mind is said to be due to certain dimensional structures which develop in that universal mind, which to me implies that the universal mind consists in some sort of
substance which takes form - a substance which, of course, I've ended up referring to as "mental energy".
Given that dualism does not entail dissociation, it does not have
that same need for mind to take on an objective substantive form, but that leaves open the possibility of some other need, or of it providing enhanced explanatory power.
Let's start with exploring the first possibility: that "mental energy" - the substantive "outer" form of inner experience - is a
necessary concept even on dualism's premises.
In this respect, I think there's a clue in your saying that
'the subjective perception itself is for a fact somehow completely composed of an immaterial "something" we term consciousness or mind':
composition - even if of consciousness or mind - seems to imply or at least be consistent with some sort of (objective) substantive form. Could this (inevitable?) language of yours - albeit qualified by "immaterial" - hint at the necessity of this concept?
Consider also that it is an
objective fact that you and I subjectively experience (assuming you're not simply an advanced AI). I get that it's not a straightforward deduction from subjective experience being an objective fact to subjective experience having an objective substantive form, but it is suggestive, and we also know that our experience is at least differentiated, and thus also suggestive of form.
Regarding the second possibility, that of explanatory power:
Consider that as you yourself acknowledge, consciousness is (objectively) causally efficacious, not just internally, but externally too. Is this causal efficacy best explained by positing that inner, intangible experience is the correlate of an objective substance to which it gives form? It seems easier to understand the causal efficacy of a formal substance than of something
ineffable.
Consider, too, the subconscious in its various guises and functions. Consider more specifically the example of "zoning out" - thinking about something else - while driving, and then later returning one's attention to the road, and
sometimes being able to recall the last few seconds of driving despite one's awareness having been elsewhere. It seems difficult to explain that subconscious activity as
merely "ineffable experience", because it literally was
not experienced (it was
subconscious), leaving only "ineffability" - and yet, it is in all other respects the same
as an experience. This suggests that it is, in some sense, not "ineffable" but in fact "effable", having some
objective substantive form which "functions" within (as) the mind though not as a
conscious experience.
None of this is rigorous nor, perhaps, especially compelling argumentation; I'm just putting out some ideas for consideration. I'm interested to know what you think, and in what anybody else who sees fit to chime in thinks.
Incidentally, in an earlier post, you lamented the unpopularity of mysterianism, but
according to Wikipedia, mysterianism is "a form of nonreductive physicalism", for which I wouldn't have expected you to advocate...