Date: 3/07/2017 22:58:21
From: transition
ID: 1086047
Subject: physicalism, and zombie arguments

Most of my internal world stays in my head, it’s a good place to keep it, in my cranium, some leaks out.

I’m tempted to go with thinking the majority of my mind’s activity doesn’t have much physical expression (it’s limited), meaning a lot of my mind’s work is inhibitory. Contained, and restraining. A lot’s noise too, that resolves to nothing, or very little.

I question the extent I am my outward behaviours (mostly, or only). Nothing to learn in that.

I’m wondering if physicalism can explain what doesn’t happen, given it’s such a big space, that vast territory of the unhappened.

Maybe 99+% of my mental activity is without consequence. Probably necessary to maintaining an equilibrium state (mental, and physical).

Shortly i’ll be going to bed, i’ll sleep. I won’t be outside busy, risking the dark and cold, and waking others with my activities.
I’ll be sleeping, which is an activity (a mental state, characterized by less physical activity) that excludes many activities.
My senses are going to fold back, a retreat.

How might physicalism explain all that might happen that wont happen as a consequence of me sleeping? Or, the importance of all that didn’t happen, some of which may have otherwise happened that I take into my wakeful tomorrow?

Physicalism may not be an entirely safe retreat.

Reply Quote

Date: 4/07/2017 09:47:27
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1086086
Subject: re: physicalism, and zombie arguments

I think I have a reasonably good idea what you mean by “physicalism”.

But maybe I don’t. Maybe what I think you mean is completely different to what you really mean.

So, what is “physicalism”?

Reply Quote

Date: 4/07/2017 09:54:11
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 1086089
Subject: re: physicalism, and zombie arguments

The Rev Dodgson said:


I think I have a reasonably good idea what you mean by “physicalism”.

But maybe I don’t. Maybe what I think you mean is completely different to what you really mean.

So, what is “physicalism”?

If you don’t get a satisfactory answer or you feel the answer is unfulfilling just let me know and I’ll explain it to you Rev.

Reply Quote

Date: 4/07/2017 09:56:11
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1086091
Subject: re: physicalism, and zombie arguments

Peak Warming Man said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

I think I have a reasonably good idea what you mean by “physicalism”.

But maybe I don’t. Maybe what I think you mean is completely different to what you really mean.

So, what is “physicalism”?

If you don’t get a satisfactory answer or you feel the answer is unfulfilling just let me know and I’ll explain it to you Rev.

Thanks.

But of greater moment, how the heck did you shrink roughie’s picture?

Reply Quote

Date: 4/07/2017 10:11:20
From: Cymek
ID: 1086095
Subject: re: physicalism, and zombie arguments

<<I’m tempted="" to="" go="" with="" thinking="" the="" majority="" of="" my="" mind’s="" activity="" doesn’t="" have="" much="" physical="" expression="" (it’s="" limited),="" meaning="" a="" lot="" of="" my="" mind’s="" work="" is="" inhibitory.="" Contained,="" and="" restraining.="" A="" lot’s="" noise="" too,="" that="" resolves="" to="" nothing,="" or="" very="" little.="">>

Isn’t that why its called thinking as it doesn’t have much of a physical manifestation apart from trying to put some of what you think into some creative outlet.

<<I question="" the="" extent="" I="" am="" my="" outward="" behaviours="" (mostly,="" or="" only).="" Nothing="" to="" learn="" in="" that.="">>

I tend to think of myself as my mind and my outward behaviours as a social expectation and the need to by part of society as you don’t always have a choice, most relationships are superficial apart from one or two people I can closely relate to

Reply Quote

Date: 4/07/2017 10:12:31
From: Cymek
ID: 1086096
Subject: re: physicalism, and zombie arguments

Cymek said:


I’m tempted to go with thinking the majority of my mind’s activity doesn’t have much physical expression (it’s limited), meaning a lot of my mind’s work is inhibitory. Contained, and restraining. A lot’s noise too, that resolves to nothing, or very little.

Isn’t that why its called thinking as it doesn’t have much of a physical manifestation apart from trying to put some of what you think into some creative outlet.

I question the extent I am my outward behaviours (mostly, or only). Nothing to learn in that.

I tend to think of myself as my mind and my outward behaviours as a social expectation and the need to by part of society as you don’t always have a choice, most relationships are superficial apart from one or two people I can closely relate to

Reply Quote

Date: 4/07/2017 10:54:36
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1086101
Subject: re: physicalism, and zombie arguments

>I’m wondering if physicalism can explain what doesn’t happen, given it’s such a big space, that vast territory of the unhappened.

I’m wondering why you think things that don’t happen need explaining.

Reply Quote

Date: 4/07/2017 10:58:24
From: Cymek
ID: 1086104
Subject: re: physicalism, and zombie arguments

Bubblecar said:


>I’m wondering if physicalism can explain what doesn’t happen, given it’s such a big space, that vast territory of the unhappened.

I’m wondering why you think things that don’t happen need explaining.

Perhaps in a parallel universe they do, but yeah.
Also maybe sleeping allows humanities creativity to flourish as our brains get down time to process information and our dreams give us ideas

Reply Quote

Date: 4/07/2017 11:06:23
From: Cymek
ID: 1086105
Subject: re: physicalism, and zombie arguments

Cymek said:


Bubblecar said:

>I’m wondering if physicalism can explain what doesn’t happen, given it’s such a big space, that vast territory of the unhappened.

I’m wondering why you think things that don’t happen need explaining.

Perhaps in a parallel universe they do, but yeah.
Also maybe sleeping allows humanities creativity to flourish as our brains get down time to process information and our dreams give us ideas

Some things that don’t happen may happen but are extremely rare and aren’t observed due to time constraints

Reply Quote

Date: 4/07/2017 11:47:38
From: transition
ID: 1086123
Subject: re: physicalism, and zombie arguments

Bubblecar said:


>I’m wondering if physicalism can explain what doesn’t happen, given it’s such a big space, that vast territory of the unhappened.

I’m wondering why you think things that don’t happen need explaining.

I don’t, necessarily, the proposition is a device. An idea.

I sleep at night (in a warm bed), senses folded back, and inhabit the inside of my mind (lesser so the external environment), so i’m not outside in the dark and cold. It’s safer in bed. Importantly my reduced physical activity allows others to sleep.

Safer means less is going to happen. What didn’t happen is the unhappened. The unhappened is important.

The unhappened are (or were) possibilities, the likelihood of them happening was reduced by sleeping.

The thread’s about the tricks of consciousness (and of, if mental states) can be explained by just physical things and their properties (forces too). Or, more shortcomings about it as if it self-explains.

Structures exclude other structures (exclude the absence of structure too), which is true of physical things around us, and the structure of minds. That excluded is (the possibilities are) not entirely unknown to conscious creatures. Some of, not all that excluded can be known. It can however be known that the extent of it is unknown.

Reply Quote

Date: 4/07/2017 15:47:09
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1086227
Subject: re: physicalism, and zombie arguments

transition said:


Bubblecar said:

>I’m wondering if physicalism can explain what doesn’t happen, given it’s such a big space, that vast territory of the unhappened.

I’m wondering why you think things that don’t happen need explaining.

I don’t, necessarily, the proposition is a device. An idea.

I sleep at night (in a warm bed), senses folded back, and inhabit the inside of my mind (lesser so the external environment), so i’m not outside in the dark and cold. It’s safer in bed. Importantly my reduced physical activity allows others to sleep.

Safer means less is going to happen. What didn’t happen is the unhappened. The unhappened is important.

The unhappened are (or were) possibilities, the likelihood of them happening was reduced by sleeping.

The thread’s about the tricks of consciousness (and of, if mental states) can be explained by just physical things and their properties (forces too). Or, more shortcomings about it as if it self-explains.

Structures exclude other structures (exclude the absence of structure too), which is true of physical things around us, and the structure of minds. That excluded is (the possibilities are) not entirely unknown to conscious creatures. Some of, not all that excluded can be known. It can however be known that the extent of it is unknown.

Damn Zombie lover!

Reply Quote

Date: 19/07/2017 03:43:16
From: transition
ID: 1091764
Subject: re: physicalism, and zombie arguments

When asleep the more immediate environment is the internal environment. It’s always more immediate in a sense, but when wakeful one is more immediately responsive to the external environment (from the senses).

The sleep retreat, and twilight retreat interests me (and brain wave changes), too the twilight from sleep to wakeful.

It’s tempting to think the more awake one is the more conscious, which maybe true, but this may not reveal some trick of consciousness generated by the retreat into the less wakeful. It’s no great stretch, it fits with sleeping so not so tired when awake.

Less of this while asleep, can mean more of that while awake. This and that can be quite different things, not just lowered vigilance of sleep makes sustained heightened vigilance of wakefulness more effective/possible. The two may be differentiation of sorts, not necessarily from each other. Probably not from each other. Divergent in ways, not necessarily from each other, but may happen to be (if all the details were, or could be seen, from external).

Brain wave changes may indicate a different modulation, changed global operation, a cyclic reconfiguration. Any present configuration (the now) is unlikely to be mostly only what generates reality (consciousness, the self-awareness thing). To do the self-awareness thing probably memory of previous configurations is required, or feelings related of internal past.

If wakeful consciousness (that includes self-awareness) is somehow or in some part generated over time by senses folding back, the trip into the retreat through the twilight, then efforts of wakeful consciousness may not easily reveal the thing that generated it. You know I might stagger out of bed in the morning, then over to the kettle to make a coffee, light my smoke and hope for a revelation about what generates self-awareness while the lights all turn on in my head, but the truth is something that came nearer explaining it happened as my senses faded and lights out the night before. As I wake, become more wakeful, i’m further from it, looking in the wrong place.

During wakefulness the impositions of the physical external world can’t be so easily ignored, or turned off (senses folding back). Of course there is much control during wakefulness, adjustment.

But is the retreating, are the retreats physical things? Mental states, inhabiting the internal environment more so.

A neural modulation, a configuration of six hours ago has stopped (it, or something similar will return, likely – the future), but it’s passed and past.

Seems absurd maybe that the trajectory of less awareness (cyclic, temporary) might be critical to generating self-aware consciousness, but why not? You shut your eyes then the wetware processing is left to do what (for vision, but consider the folding back of all senses with sleep)?
The usual presence/proximity detectors (too) for the sensory array (radar if you like) is getting pings back from the wetware. So near it needs to put them through delays to make use of. Slow the clock down, route it through something extra, try and test. It’s got time, and surplus resources.

The (re)configuration possibilities, the resource recombination possibilities are just that, possibilities, from which something may be happened upon. Are the range of possibilities a physical thing, as physicalism might have it?

Or, put more directly perhaps, can there be any retreat into something that’s not physical?

There can be a retreat to something where less of the external environment imposes (less immediate, for some period anyway), which is a more practical consideration of the proposition, or idea.

So fading the external environment, willed, or otherwise, proximately, or directly for, might be necessary to self-aware type consciousness.

Reply Quote