All matter is a cognitive ‘hallucination,’ even the brain itself

=-=-=

If you could define "emergence," then I would consider whether it is logical. Do the attributes of salt emerge from the combination of sodium and chlorine?

"Emergence" is basically a handwave, because it explains actually nothing about what is claimed to be happening. The explanation proper is implied without ever being explicitly explained in any detail.

The qualitative attributes of salt are entirely phenomenal. We cannot derive the known qualitative phenomena of salt from merely observing the physics and chemistry of it. So, no, nothing is "emerging".

Why would there necessarily be no external world without our experience of it? I would need some sort of proof of that claim.

Because it is conscious experience that defines reality, and decides the demarcation between internal and external.

All of our definitions and knowledge about reality come purely from conscious experience, and the sharing of information between individuals.

That's literally all we have.

I'm not sure why interpreting the noumenal is not the same as constructing an interface to it, but perhaps those are technical terms.

It is not an "interface" ~ you have interfaces between stuff of the same kind. When it comes to something of a different kind, we interpret and filter through a sensory lens. When we pass light through a prism, is that an "interface"? No.

You're thinking of a computer program ~ biology is not computer hardware nor software or anything akin to the metaphor.

Your last two paragraphs seem to agree with what I was saying. Although I do not understand why you think we filter sensory inputs but never distort them. Is there some sort of error correcting mechanism?

~~ Paul

There is no "mechanism". Distortions happen when our sensory filters become skewed ~ in the sense of hallucinations caused by dissociation or delirium.

We disagree on the accuracy and interpretation of the evidence. But, meanwhile, none of that evidence matters to the experiment with stimulating neurons. It does not come into play there. You say that the experiment does not generate the experience of an image, whereas it seems to me that it does. Just because it has to be self-reported does not mean it was not generated.

Again, you are confusing correlation with causation. And no, minds do not generate stuff from stimulation ~ minds recall memories and events with which those neurons are somehow correlated. Something is not being "generated" from nothing ~ there is only recollection of prior experience.

Whether you are begging the question depends on whether you claim that internal experience must be immaterial by definition.

~~ Paul

That is not what "begging the question" means. I am not presuming my conclusion in my premises. I draw on a combination of philosophy, spirituality, science and raw experience to draw my conclusions that there is logically something indeed extraordinarily unique about the mind. Though if there's one thing that's truly certain ~ the mind will probably always be the biggest mystery in reality.

Internal experience has no known or explicit physical or material qualities, therefore it is non-material, non-physical ~ internal experience is purely mental in nature, qualitatively.

I have even stronger personal, subjective evidence in the form of persistent, stable sensing of non-material, non-physical entities. Once I struggled to believe that it wasn't delusion, but now, 7 years later, there's more clarity to it than ever before. So there must be reality to it. What to believe? Claims from others that there is only matter, physics and chemistry and combinations thereof? Or trusting in my own raw, consistency of experiences that have also been similarly experienced by shamans and psychics and spiritually-sensitive people?

After all... anecdotes are anecdotes... but they are also data points. When you have many anecdotes, many data points, you have a pattern. And patterns must mean something. A Materialist like yourself may consider it mass shared delusion, but is that really logical or rational, when parapsychology has collected many data points pointing towards a reality where non-physical, non-material entities can exist?

And yet those interactions result in attributes that are not present in the individual components, even without our observation. Water is a liquid, whereas hydrogen and oxygen are gases. So it seems to me that this whole idea that you can't get attribute X in a combination of components without first having attribute X in the individual components is incorrect.

~~ Paul

What you entirely fail to understand is that these attributes do not exist in a purely physical or chemical sense. They are purely abstract qualities that we impose on these substances via sensory perception. They do not literally have these qualities in and of themselves.

When we study these molecules in a purely physical and chemical analysis, we do not find any of the qualities that sensory perception imposes on them. Therefore, the qualities are entirely phenomenal interpretations.

At a purely physical and chemical level, there are no "liquids" or "gases". There are merely increasing excitations of energy. Which then appear a certain way to our perceptions, which we then abstract with words and definitions.

In some sense, we create a reality bubble through language.

I guess I don't understand what "smuggling in" is, and your explanation does not enlighten me.

If a person talks about evolution and uses some language suggesting intentionality without clarifying what they mean, I'm not sure why you would say that they have smuggled in intention. They have simply done a confusing job of describing some aspect of evolution.

A pretense at explaining the origins of something, but then using language that is used to describe that something within descriptions of its supposed origin.

One dictionary definition:

To transport someone or something across (some place or border) in a surreptitious or hidden manner, especially when it is illegal to do so.

Per this, when Evolutionists use the language of intent in talking about Evolution ~ even in the very phrase "natural selection" ~ they are causing confusion through the implicit stating that Evolution is actively "selecting" or "choosing" or "deciding". Same with "selfish genes", implying some kind of intelligence.

What is truly telling is that the Evolutionist only ever admits to it when directly questioned, in a sort of motte-and-bailey manner, agreeing that there is no intent, intelligence or design in Evolution, but then they go straight back to using the language of intent without any desire to correct confusion it insights in the minds of those not strongly familiar with Evolutionary theory and the language surrounding it.

It's almost like the confusion is intended, that the idea of intent is smuggled in to make it more appealing than it really is. It is deceptive and dishonest.

But meanwhile, if you are going to posit consciousness as the basis of knowledge and assume that consciousness is immaterial, it seems to me that some smuggling is going on. I suppose the smuggling is alleviated if you make it clear what you are assuming.

~~ Paul

Consciousness being the basis of knowledge, and being immaterial, is not at all akin to "smuggling in" anything. Nothing is being appropriated from some other field to explain something else. Consciousness stands on its own two legs here, and doesn't require deception or manipulation through the use of unclear language.

To the average, ignorant layperson, it is obvious ~ they learn about the world through their senses, with their mind not obviously being the same as matter. You can't see, smell, taste, touch or hear consciousness or thoughts. So it is not obviously physical.

People have to be gaslit into thinking correlation is causation to believe in such an irrational idea.

For example, when I go on holiday and return home, the trees in my yard are in the same place. That has nothing to do with my being conscious of them.

Well my last post got no traction... so an alternative approach - that leads to the same outcome - is to question the assumptions in your simple thought experiment above...

1. What does it mean to say 'the trees in my yard are in the same place'

The continents are drifting, the planet is spinning on it's axis, the planet is orbiting the sun, the solar system is moving within the galaxy, the galaxy is moving in the universe. The trees roots are growing and shrinking, it's branches are thickening and lengthening, leaves or needles may be forming, or falling onto the ground etc.

What is meant by your words in the same place, for clearly, the trees in your yard are not contained in the same shape from observation to observation, nor are they in the same space from observation to observation.

2. You seem to ascribe some significance to the words 'when I go on holiday and return', as if you find there is something important in that statement, but I'm struggling to understand what it is?

3. I struggle to understand the final sentence, that the claims in your prior sentence (above) 'That has nothing to do with my being conscious of them'. If you did not observe your home, the yard, the trees, how could you ever learn about them to make any claim about them at all. If a stranger was to observe, and learn about your home, your yard, your trees, for the first time, they still could not even make the claim you have made.

That's your own bias. Mathematics only describes the shared relationships of the architecture upon which Experience arises/emerges. Maths is not the architecture, it is a way we can describe something which is hidden.

I only took you at your word in the quotes from your posts #24 and #26 in which you are saying that Experience (that is, consciousness) arises or emerges from aspects or relationships of mathematical abstractions. Again, immaterial consciousness and its various properties and aspects like Experience and qualia are entirely extistentially  separated by an unbridgeable gulf from abstractions mathematical or not. Therefore consciousness cannot "emerge" from abstractions.

In fact, the notion of "emergence" is essentially invalid since it proposes that a highly organized something can arise from something entirely fundamentally else (in another realm of existence), a sort of magic. "Emergence" is an invalid ploy often used by materialists in claiming that mind or consciousness is somehow generated by the interactions of billions of neurons in the brain like bile is secreted by the liver.

I only took you at your word...

...you are saying that Experience (that is, consciousness) arises or emerges from aspects or relationships of mathematical abstractions.

Nope, I didn't say Experience arises/emerges from mathematical abstractions.

I said that Experience emerges from some hidden architecture. And that mathematics only describes the shared relationships of the architecture. And also that Maths is not the architecture.

I would never be so stupid to replace the word Experience, with the word consciousness. Neither would I be so stupid as to claim Experience is formed out of Maths.

What you entirely fail to understand is that these attributes do not exist in a purely physical or chemical sense. They are purely abstract qualities that we impose on these substances via sensory perception. They do not literally have these qualities in and of themselves.

When we study these molecules in a purely physical and chemical analysis, we do not find any of the qualities that sensory perception imposes on them. Therefore, the qualities are entirely phenomenal interpretations.

At a purely physical and chemical level, there are no "liquids" or "gases". There are merely increasing excitations of energy. Which then appear a certain way to our perceptions, which we then abstract with words and definitions.

In some sense, we create a reality bubble through language.

Water is not a liquid in and of itself? Wasn't there water on the Earth before conscious entities began to inhabit it?

~~ Paul