Experienc only happens in absence of existence

[Bahman]

Let me try again asking you some questions, and please respond to them in a consistent fashion:

1. Is it necessary for an effect and its cause to coexist?

That is not necessary, it is logically impossible.

1. Do statuses S and S’ coexist?

They cannot.

1. Based on your responses, can it me said that state S is the cause of state S’?

Yes. But what I am arguing is the direct causation is paradoxical hence it is logically impossible. We then can realize the importance of awareness in any change which help us to have a indirect causation.

Well, the statement in bold letters is the one you are trying to prove, right?

That is correct.

If the observer is within the “closed system”, it means that the “law of nature” L covers him too. So, the statuses S and S’ describe him as part of the whole closed system. He would not be a privileged part of it, so to say. The changes that take place in him would be parallel to the changes that occur in the rest of the system.

Quite contrary consciousness is the law maker tell us how S evolves to S’.

On the other hand, if you meant to say that everything is contained in the observer as a conscience (but I guess this is precisely what you wanted to prove) then you would need to face your “paradox” again, because you would need to explain how it is that such conscience can change from the status of awareness of S to the status of awareness of S´.

There is no direct line between awareness of S and awareness of S’ by which we mean that the former cause the later.

 

[Bahman]

Do you say that “Trying to change” objective reality shows that it does not exist independently of mind?

That is correct.

Sometimes we are successful trying to change it; some other times we fail. Which of this cases shows to you that “objective reality” depends on a mind? Which mind is that?

Other beings minds. Some of them objectively exist some not.

 

[Bahman]

What is the OP, Bahman?

Original post.

You say that there is a delay between the act of existence and the act of experience. Which one is first?

Experience always comes after existence.

Experiments have been conducted to measure the **delay **of our reactions to stimuli. A machine triggers a signal that affects a subject. The machine records the time when the signal was triggered. The subject has to react in a very specific way, for example, pressing a button on the table. The machine records the time when the subject issued his reaction. Also, it might record his brain activity. The delay between the triggering of the signal and the subject’s response is determined. Are you referring to this delay?

Yes.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

That is not necessary, it is logically impossible. What I am arguing is the direct causation is paradoxical hence it is logically impossible. We then can realize the importance of awareness in any change which help us to have a indirect causation.

As you have not said yet what you understand by “causality”, it is not possible to see the impossibility of coexistence of what you call “effect” and what you call its “cause”.

Do you know the aristotelian theory of the four causes (material, formal, efficient and final)? These four causes were described in such a way that they could coexist with their effect. Without any problem, an sculptor could carve a marble rock to transform it into a beautiful statue. Nothing has changed in that respect nowadays.

For some reason after the renaissance only the notion of efficient cause survived. It was this notion the one that David Hume discussed extensively. And thanks to his description of causality, he did not claim any impossibility on the coexistence of cause and effect. A ball X impacts a ball Y and changes its state of movement. Both of them remain existing in front of us. What he discussed was the source of our concept of causality.

What is your definition of causality?

Quite contrary consciousness is the law maker tell us how S evolves to S’.

Well, when a physicist, to put an example, observes certain phenomena, he can try to figure out how it proceeds. He can propose a mathematical model, evaluate it and test it through a series of experiments. He will always observe certain deviations, but he will feel satisfied with what he will call a good approximation. So, his model will be a good approximation of the phenomena, and some of his admirers will name it the Law of Mr. Sutan. But we know that new discoveries may lead to the development of a better mathematical model; or perhaps another different model with a similar predictive capacity can be developed by another physicist.

So, if you call such a model a “law of nature”, then I could agree with you that it was made -normally spending a lot of efforts- by a human being (or a “consciousness”, if you please), but you will agree that it is no more than an approximate description of what happens. There is always a disparity between the physical phenomena and the “law of nature”.

There is no direct line between awareness of S and awareness of S’ by which we mean that the former cause the later.

Oh, I should have underlined this in my previous message: “If you meant to say that that everything is contained in the observer as a conscience” etc… When I say that the observer plays no privileged role within the closed system I mean that the “law of nature” does not include any kind of remarks for the variables that represent his status within the system. Anyway!

If you pay attention just to the succession of states within the system that encloses the observer too, you will not see a direct line anywhere. You will only notice that the values of the variables change over the time. For each value of T (time), you will get the values of the set of variables that describe the closed system (the observer included). No direct nor indirect line at all, Bahman!

Based on one of your responses (“Experience always comes after existence”) I guess you might be thinking that an object in front of the observer is in state S (while the observer is in a correlative state of awareness A), and then the object appears to be in a state S’ (while the observer’s state of awareness becomes A’). Then you could imagine a kind of path of events like this: S–A–S’–A’, and you could say: There is no direct line between A and A’. Though a ramified path could be proposed too:

S–A; S–S’
S’–A’

I think Leibniz would say:

S–S’
A–A’

And I guess Hume would say:

S; A (";" would mean "no causality, just simultaneity -whatever you understand by “simultaneity”)
S’; A’

And if he would have known about the “delays”, he would probably have proposed this:

S
A
S’
A’

Regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Dear Bahman:

Now that I know what you mean by the “delays”, I can comment this:

When the experimenter is observing the reactions of the subject, he does not observe any “experience” that the subject might have. He is just observing stimuli and reactions, and a delay between them. In the laboratory the subject is a thing among other things. There is no “experience” and no “awareness” among the data that is being collected.

But let’s do a mental experiment using our physical models. Let’s suppose that the closed system is a subject, a lamp and a liquid contained in a glass. Let’s imagine that a chemical reaction is taking place within the liquid, such that the color of the liquid gradually changes. Part of the light incident on the liquid will be reflected and reach the subject’s eyes. Many physical and chemical processes will take place there. Then, a stream of molecules or ions will move to the optic nerves and from them another stream of corpuscles will move following certain paths within the brain. In a certain moment the subject will experience the presence of the liquid and its color S (as you say, he will become aware of what is in front of him). The color will change, and the light which is being reflected to the eyes of the observer will change as well (different wavelength). Then, the streams of corpuscles within the body of the subject will change too, and a different state of awareness will emerge “in the subject”. Another set of phenomena is taking place simultaneously, because the subject would not experience any change at all if there wasn’t what we call “memory”. So there must be other parallel processes that promote this “memory” phenomenon.

Then, I think you say (you can confirm or deny it) that when the brain of the subject is in a state of awareness A, the liquid is no more in the correlative state S, but in a sligtly modified state S’. And I would agree with that. So, there is a delay. If the state of awareness A arises from a state of the brain B, which responds to a state of the liquid S, then we could conclude too that there is a delay between the appearance of the liquid and the awareness of the subject.

Now, I have to confess that even though I know the aristotelian philosophy, I do not like to use the notion of causality. I prefer to talk about interactions, because in the physical world it always happens that the thing X that affects the thing Y is simultaneously affected by it. So, it is an interaction (it is not so clear that one of the elements of the interaction is the cause and the other is the effect; one could say the opposite too). Then, I say that it is the interaction that** is** taking place in the liquid the ocassion of the other interactions that take place with the light, with the eyes of the observer and so on. But I would never say that the state of awareness of the subject will affect the state of the liquid. In this case (the first phase of cognition), we are not before an interaction, but before an action. The cause of our awareness is a complex system comprising the liquid, the light, our eyes, our brain…; but our awareness does not produce anything in the world.

I know that what we call “memory” plays a role in the development of awareness, so that any given state of awareness acquires a peculiar significance in the context of “our past”. I accept that an aspect of memory is this modification of awareness, but I deny that it can affect the state of the liquid. If that were the case, a multitude of observers would affect the rate of the process within the liquid. But it does not happen (don’t try to remind me of quantum physics, because that is quite a different thing!).
My conclusión is that the path of events that takes place is this:

S–A; S–S’
S’–A’

And not this:

S–A–S’–A’

What do you think, Bahman?

 

[Bahman]

As you have not said yet what you understand by “causality”, it is not possible to see the impossibility of coexistence of what you call “effect” and what you call its “cause”.

We have to first agree with what a close system is. A close system is a system that it cannot be influenced by any external entity. I mean the whole (for example two balls in your example) when I say that system is in state of S (two balls together have a specific configuration). This state however changes, we call that S causes S’ (two balls get closer together for example) by which S’=L(S). L is the causality operate and act on S, given S we can know what would be the outcome, S’.

Do you know the aristotelian theory of the four causes (material, formal, efficient and final)? These four causes were described in such a way that they could coexist with their effect. Without any problem, an sculptor could carve a marble rock to transform it into a beautiful statue. Nothing has changed in that respect nowadays.

I think we are talking about two different causality. If you divide a system by two s1 and s2 (two balls in your example) then we can say that s1 hit s2 and cause it to move. This is not a definition of close system and to see the importance of consciousness you have to look at the whole because consciousness act on whole.

For some reason after the renaissance only the notion of efficient cause survived. It was this notion the one that David Hume discussed extensively. And thanks to his description of causality, he did not claim any impossibility on the coexistence of cause and effect. A ball X impacts a ball Y and changes its state of movement. Both of them remain existing in front of us. What he discussed was the source of our concept of causality.

I think the situation clear now.

What is your definition of causality?

We say that S causes S’ if there exist an operator L which uniquely determine S’ given S.

Well, when a physicist, to put an example, observes certain phenomena, he can try to figure out how it proceeds. He can propose a mathematical model, evaluate it and test it through a series of experiments. He will always observe certain deviations, but he will feel satisfied with what he will call a good approximation. So, his model will be a good approximation of the phenomena, and some of his admirers will name it the Law of Mr. Sutan. But we know that new discoveries may lead to the development of a better mathematical model; or perhaps another different model with a similar predictive capacity can be developed by another physicist.

The duty of a physics is to find L which is in agreement with what you said.

So, if you call such a model a “law of nature”, then I could agree with you that it was made -normally spending a lot of efforts- by a human being (or a “consciousness”, if you please), but you will agree that it is no more than an approximate description of what happens. There is always a disparity between the physical phenomena and the “law of nature”.

That is correct, unless we eventually find the law of nature.

Oh, I should have underlined this in my previous message: “If you meant to say that that everything is contained in the observer as a conscience” etc… When I say that the observer plays no privileged role within the closed system I mean that the “law of nature” does not include any kind of remarks for the variables that represent his status within the system. Anyway!

That is opposite of my claim. There exist a conscious being within a close system otherwise no change is possible.

If you pay attention just to the succession of states within the system that encloses the observer too, you will not see a direct line anywhere. You will only notice that the values of the variables change over the time. For each value of T (time), you will get the values of the set of variables that describe the closed system (the observer included). No direct nor indirect line at all, Bahman!

You cannot include the observer in the close system because there is nothing such as a set of variables that could explain the behavior a conscious being, otherwise you are correct,

Based on one of your responses (“Experience always comes after existence”) I guess you might be thinking that an object in front of the observer is in state S (while the observer is in a correlative state of awareness A), and then the object appears to be in a state S’ (while the observer’s state of awareness becomes A’). Then you could imagine a kind of path of events like this: S–A–S’–A’, and you could say: There is no direct line between A and A’.

That is correct.

Though a ramified path could be proposed too:

S–A; S–S’
S’–A’

Did you mean A–S’ instead of S–S’? I agree if your answer is yes.

I think Leibniz would say:

S–S’
A–A’

He has to resolve the paradox we discussed then.

And I guess Hume would say:
S; A (";" would mean "no causality, just simultaneity -whatever you understand by “simultaneity”)
S’; A’

Total nonsense. What is the point of having mental state if physical state can proceed?

And if he would have known about the “delays”, he would probably have proposed this:

S
A
S’
A’

Regards
JuanFlorencio

Hmmm.

 

[davidv]

We have to first agree with what a close system is. A close system is a system that it cannot be influenced by any external entity. I mean the whole (for example two balls in your example) when I say that system is in state of S (two balls together have a specific configuration). This state however changes, we call that S causes S’ (two balls get closer together for example) by which S’=L(S). L is the causality operate and act on S, given S we can know what would be the outcome, S’.

I think we are talking about two different causality. If you divide a system by two s1 and s2 (two balls in your example) then we can say that s1 hit s2 and cause it to move. This is not a definition of close system and to see the importance of consciousness you have to look at the whole because consciousness act on whole.

I think the situation clear now.

We say that S causes S’ if there exist an operator L which uniquely determine S’ given S.

The duty of a physics is to find L which is in agreement with what you said.

That is correct, unless we eventually find the law of nature.

That is opposite of my claim. There exist a conscious being within a close system otherwise no change is possible.

You cannot include the observer in the close system because there is nothing such as a set of variables that could explain the behavior a conscious being, otherwise you are correct,

That is correct.

Did you mean A–S’ instead of S–S’? I agree if your answer is yes.

He has to resolve the paradox we discussed then.

Total nonsense. What is the point of having mental state if physical state can proceed?

Hmmm.

Does our life exist in a closed system? How do you know?

Our universe is an open system since can be influenced by an external enttiy, namely God.

Given that we are in an open system, none of your analyse applies and your conclusion is not applicable.

 

[Bahman]

Dear Bahman:

Now that I know what you mean by the “delays”, I can comment this:

When the experimenter is observing the reactions of the subject, he does not observe any “experience” that the subject might have. He is just observing stimuli and reactions, and a delay between them. In the laboratory the subject is a thing among other things. There is no “experience” and no “awareness” among the data that is being collected.

But let’s do a mental experiment using our physical models. Let’s suppose that the closed system is a subject, a lamp and a liquid contained in a glass. Let’s imagine that a chemical reaction is taking place within the liquid, such that the color of the liquid gradually changes. Part of the light incident on the liquid will be reflected and reach the subject’s eyes. Many physical and chemical processes will take place there. Then, a stream of molecules or ions will move to the optic nerves and from them another stream of corpuscles will move following certain paths within the brain. In a certain moment the subject will experience the presence of the liquid and its color S (as you say, he will become aware of what is in front of him). The color will change, and the light which is being reflected to the eyes of the observer will change as well (different wavelength). Then, the streams of corpuscles within the body of the subject will change too, and a different state of awareness will emerge “in the subject”. Another set of phenomena is taking place simultaneously, because the subject would not experience any change at all if there wasn’t what we call “memory”. So there must be other parallel processes that promote this “memory” phenomenon.

Then, I think you say (you can confirm or deny it) that when the brain of the subject is in a state of awareness A, the liquid is no more in the correlative state S, but in a sligtly modified state S’. And I would agree with that. So, there is a delay. If the state of awareness A arises from a state of the brain B, which responds to a state of the liquid S, then we could conclude too that there is a delay between the appearance of the liquid and the awareness of the subject.

Now, I have to confess that even though I know the aristotelian philosophy, I do not like to use the notion of causality. I prefer to talk about interactions, because in the physical world it always happens that the thing X that affects the thing Y is simultaneously affected by it. So, it is an interaction (it is not so clear that one of the elements of the interaction is the cause and the other is the effect; one could say the opposite too). Then, I say that it is the interaction that** is** taking place in the liquid the ocassion of the other interactions that take place with the light, with the eyes of the observer and so on. But I would never say that the state of awareness of the subject will affect the state of the liquid. In this case (the first phase of cognition), we are not before an interaction, but before an action. The cause of our awareness is a complex system comprising the liquid, the light, our eyes, our brain…; but our awareness does not produce anything in the world.

I know that what we call “memory” plays a role in the development of awareness, so that any given state of awareness acquires a peculiar significance in the context of “our past”. I accept that an aspect of memory is this modification of awareness, but I deny that it can affect the state of the liquid. If that were the case, a multitude of observers would affect the rate of the process within the liquid. But it does not happen (don’t try to remind me of quantum physics, because that is quite a different thing!).
My conclusión is that the path of events that takes place is this:

S–A; S–S’
S’–A’

And not this:

S–A–S’–A’

What do you think, Bahman?

I see what you mean with your mental experiment. But first thing first, how possibly S undergoes a change and reach a final state without presence of awareness. S–S’ is paradoxical.

As you clearly understood the correct chain is S–A–S’–A’ which can be read as (existence,absence of experience)–(non-existence, experience)–etc. This means that experience happens only in absence existence the second bracket (this is my delay) and existence happens only in absence of experience (this is your delay).

 

[Bahman]

Does our life exist in a closed system?

Yes.

How do you know?

Because of logic does not tell me otherwise.

Our universe is an open system since can be influenced by an external enttiy, namely God.

Well the very fact that there exist changes that we are not cause of them open a door to notion of God as a possibility. Hence I am align with you in accepting a God which causes all those changes that we don’t intervene. I have some strange idea about a universe without God but I cannot verbalize them, I am constantly thinking through. I however don’t agree with your concept of God.

Given that we are in an open system, none of your analyze applies and your conclusion is not applicable.

God is consciousness, and it doesn’t have any part, hence the set of God and universe is a close system, otherwise you cannot explain the changes that you observe.

 

[davidv]

Yes.

Because of logic does not tell me otherwise.

What logic is this? It is not self evident. No valid argument has been presented with this conclusion.

Well the very fact that there exist changes that we are not cause of them open a door to notion of God as a possibility. Hence I am align with you in accepting a God which causes all those changes that we don’t intervene. I have some strange idea about a universe without God but I cannot verbalize them, I am constantly thinking through. I however don’t agree with your concept of God.

God is not a concept. He is a personal being.

God is consciousness, and it doesn’t have any part, hence the set of God and universe is a close system, otherwise you cannot explain the changes that you observe.

See bold. This has yet to be demonstrated to be true.

 

[Bahman]

What logic is this? It is not self evident. No valid argument has been presented with this conclusion.

Well, to make the long story short, just consider Sun and Earth and living being within. We take energy from sun and survive. That the definition of a close system. We could survive if there was not any other stars in universe for what concerned life.

God is not a concept. He is a personal being.

It is a concept unless you meet it in person.

See bold. This has yet to be demonstrated to be true.

That is the minimal essence of every being given the definition of consciousness which is a primary thing with the ability to experience and affect mental states. This grant self-awareness when it is joined to intellect which is very very necessary since everything else is aligned to satisfy this self.

 

[davidv]

Well, to make the long story short, just consider Sun and Earth and living being within. We take energy from sun and survive. That the definition of a close system. We could survive if there was not any other stars in universe for what concerned life.

This is not a logical argument and fails to address my questions. Are you purposedly avoiding a direct answer to the question.

It is a concept unless you meet it in person.

Nonsense. I have not met you. Does that make you a concept and not a person?

That is the minimal essence of every being given the definition of consciousness which is a primary thing with the ability to experience and affect mental states. This grant self-awareness when it is joined to intellect which is very very necessary since everything else is aligned to satisfy this self.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.

 

[Bahman]

This is not a logical argument and fails to address my questions. Are you purposedly avoiding a direct answer to the question.

This is a logical argument with a few prepositions (which defines all things which are necessary for life) and one conclusion (hence there is life).

Nonsense. I have not met you. Does that make you a concept and not a person?

Do you have any real connection with God? Yes, I rest my case. No, God is a concept.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.

I said “God is consciousness.” and you said “This has yet to be demonstrated to be true.”. I then claim that consciousness is primary and necessary for any being as it was illustrated. One is nothing without ability to experience and affect mental state.

 

[davidv]

This is a logical argument with a few prepositions (which defines all things which are necessary for life) and one conclusion (hence there is life).

Do you have any real connection with God? Yes, I rest my case. No, God is a concept.

I said “God is consciousness.” and you said “This has yet to be demonstrated to be true.”. I then claim that consciousness is primary and necessary for any being as it was illustrated. One is nothing without ability to experience and affect mental state.

Why the diversion?

 

[Bahman]

Why the diversion?

What diversion? Could you please use the quote method so we can discuss something?

 

[davidv]

What diversion?

I asked for a logical argument. No logical argument was presented.

Could you please use the quote method so we can discuss something?

Discussion implies a mutual agreements on the terms and definitions. This has not been forthcoming. I see monologue not dialog.

Note the use of the quote function.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You are contracting yourself if you are 100% sure that there exist an objective reality independent of any mind! The simple test to show that objective reality does not exist independent of mind is to try to change it.

I am talking about my mind, not the mind of God. No reality can exist without the mind/power of God sustaining it’s existence. But the whole universe will continue to exist when I pass from the scene, as it existed before I arrived in this world.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I asked for a logical argument. No logical argument was presented.

Discussion implies a mutual agreements on the terms and definitions. This has not been forthcoming. I see monologue not dialog.

Note the use of the quote function.

It’s like trying to corral a herd of cats isn’t it .

Linus2nd

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Dear Bahman:

I understand that this is a pretty complex topic. Still, it is not a good signal to be going to and fro. In my post #11 I wrote:

“As a system is defined arbitrarily I want to ask you to include your observer within your closed system, and please let me know if your paradox is resolved as you thought.”

You answered in post #13:

“The observer is withing system. It is called awareness without that no change is posible.”

I responded to this in post #18:

“If the observer is within the “closed system”, it means that the “law of nature” L covers him too. So, the statuses S and S’ describe him as part of the whole closed system. He would not be a privileged part of it, so to say. The changes that take place in him would be parallel to the changes that occur in the rest of the system.

On the other hand, if you meant to say that everything is contained in the observer as a conscience (but I guess this is precisely what you wanted to prove) then you would need to face your “paradox” again, because you would need to explain how it is that such conscience can change from the status of awareness of S to the status of awareness of S´.”

Then you came back in #21:

“Quite contrary consciousness is the law maker tell us how S evolves to S’.

And.

“There is no direct line between awareness of S and awareness of S’ by which we mean that the former cause the later”

This seemed to imply to me that you were putting the observer outside the closed system again. Then I insisted in #24:

PI: “Oh, I should have underlined this in my previous message: “If you meant to say that that everything is contained in the observer as a conscience” etc… When I say that the observer plays no privileged role within the closed system I mean that the “law of nature” does not include any kind of remarks for the variables that represent his status within the system. Anyway!

And

PII: If you pay attention just to the succession of states within the system that encloses the observer too, you will not see a direct line anywhere. You will only notice that the values of the variables change over the time. For each value of T (time), you will get the values of the set of variables that describe the closed system (the observer included). No direct nor indirect line at all, Bahman!”

Then you responded with this two contradictory statements in #26 :

PI’: “That is opposite of my claim. There exist a conscious being within a close system otherwise no change is possible.”

And then:

PII´: “You cannot include the observer in the close system because there is nothing such as a set of variables that could explain the behavior a conscious being, otherwise you are correct,”

But besides this, when I said:

“My conclusion is that the path of events that takes place is this:

S–A; S–S’
S’–A’

And not this:

S–A–S’–A’

You responded:

“**As you clearly understood the correct chain is S–A–S’–A’ **which can be read as (existence,absence of experience)–(non-existence, experience)—etc”

Which seems rather strange to me.

Where are you from, Bahman?

Best regards
Juan Florencio

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Well the very fact that there exist changes that we are not cause of them open a door to notion of God as a possibility. Hence I am align with you in accepting a God which causes all those changes that we don’t intervene. I have some strange idea about a universe without God but I cannot verbalize them, I am constantly thinking through. I however don’t agree with your concept of God.

Dear Bahman:

So when you find yourself unable to explain certain changes, because we are not causing them you introduce your concept of God. Is this how you conceive the task of a physicist and of a philosopher? Such infamous resource is known as the “Deus ex machina”. Of course, you have to design your God as well, so that it can resolve your problem.

Regards
JuanFlorencio