it's true if you can prove it and can recreate the results


. . .

Guided by whom?

A lucid dream is simply a dream where the dreamer realizes he/she is dreaming, and realizes that all he/she sees is his/her own creation.

Someone knows, or else it is unknowable. I seek the one who knows.

The whole idea that ideas are separate from brains is the problem and cannot be shown to be true.

Ideas are properties of brains. Brains are physical, ideas are the emergent nature of electro chemical responses to stimulus.

Anything else ends in dualism.

All things reference the physical.

Let me ask this Creative, do concepts exist without brains? If there was no mind to create the statement, could it be true?

Truth is a property of statements, statements are a property of thinking, thinking is a property of minds, minds are a property of brains, brains are physical things and all interactions that effect brains are also physical and can be explained via physical processes.

Truth is not extant without brains. "Things" are real, and exist independently from minds, but truth as you pointed out is dependent on a statement which is a thing only minds do . . .

So again I am correct, all "things" are physical and physical things can become complex enough to have emergent properties such as concepts.

Do concepts themselves exist, or are they only representational of things that CAN exist?

Concepts themselves do not have independent existence of physical things. So poor question, not well thought out . . . Im disappointed Creative.

Maybe that someone doesn't know either

I don't think any of that can be or has been proven for a fact but I respect your opinion.

How about this (spiritual) structure:

I believe:

Start with Spirit.

Consciousness (God) manifests Spirit.

Spirit manifests an individual conscious point of observation. (a Soul)

A Soul manifest a mind.

Minds manifest body and a brain.

Ideas and creativity originate from the prime source and is processed by spirit, soul, mind, brain and body.

All "things" are not physical. (Thoughts are things and they are not physical. You cannot read or interact with my thoughts.)

Physical things inhabit the "physical reality" of spacetime.

My dreams and thoughts are not physical reality.

Highly ordered structures give rise to complex phenomena.

Highly disordered things that lack structure tend to have less complex phenomena attached. A cloud of gas vs a star. A person vs a bunch of biological material randomly mixed up.

Minds require complex structures.

From the relationships of nature come fundamental properties of physical reality.

From these fundamental properties spring complexity of structure. The very basic idea that stable structures tend to not collapse is what starts the structures building. This single idea can account for most of the interactions between physical constants and how matter and energy order itself(s).

Chemistry essentially IS how the properties of particles interact given certain structural modification.

This is worth repeating.

Chemistry essentially IS how the properties of particles interact given certain structural modification.

Chemistry is what builds minds and every other highly ordered thing extant.

If you want to know magic, learn chemistry. If you want to wield dreadful power, learn chemistry. A wizard is one that knows many of the relationships of particles and how structures can be changed through reactions and of course has the resourcefulness to use it . . .

All phenomena can be explained based on structure, interaction and order/disorder/chaos even things we cannot imagine. This I believe.

I accept that science can allow us to demonstrate what is real vs imaginary.

I just feel like the ''THE TRUTH'' is love.Spirituality and Science really does work hand in hand.But for me i know that the truth is love.How can something soooo pure give birth to many sins,like jaelousy,anger,lust.Maybe love is just the root core of everything from which everything expands.Not to sound stupid lol.

Awww... don't be disappointed.

Name one physical property of 'truth'.

Edited to answer your question Jeremy...



No, concepts do not exist without brains.

If there is no brain there is no statement to even consider.

So then, I am genuinely curious here, what must follow - if anything?

You already know.

Interaction does not require the 'physical' existence of the thing which is interacting, only the thing which is physically affected by that interaction. This is especially true of thought.

Acceptance of this does not necessarily end in dualism, in the traditional sense. It does not invoke the need for a separate mind and brain. That has been proven to not be so. It does, however, necessitate the acknowledgement that the mind produces ideas, which are in no way 'physical' things, at least not in the sense that an idea has it's own physical properties, only physical effects on the body.

I agree that an idea is not a physical or tangible thing. You can copyright a work of art but you cannot copyright an idea.

Can you patent an idea? If you have an invention prototype with specs you could. But if someone took that idea and changed it around and renamed it, they could also patent their version of 'your idea.'

Many people have ideas. Those who manifest them and bring them into physical reality are the ones who can be counted.

Wow your so deep.It's amazing.Do you think out concious is related to the universe or multiple universe's out there?

Jeremy,

I am intending on re-addressing this in a slightly diferent manner, because I think that I now have a 'better' idea of where your thoughts are on the matter at hand. Given this, perhaps you feel like I have not directly addressed what it is that you mean. I am actually reminded of having been accused of having a 'slipperiness' about the way that I use language, and feel like that may be the case in this thread as well.

My intent is to alter my own attempts at communication to avoid and eliminate the possibility of any perceived 'slipperiness'.

I want to explain my thoughts in the most complete manner possible, and the possibility that another may have perceived the fact that I purposefully held back(with good intention, none-the-less) may indeed be at the root of that earlier descriptive... 'slipperiness'.

You wrote, once again...



I would concur, however, could it be that only the interaction itself and it's affects are physical? What constitutes that physicality? It can be measured, but exactly what are we measuring, the idea itself, or the physical effects of that idea upon the body?

If you would rather just eliminate the term 'mind' we can. It makes no difference to my own thinking.



I cannot agree with the implications of this part...



Some things(knowledge and belief) are an emergent thing stemming from physical observation and can only exist within thought. Thought itself is an emergent property of a brain with memory. These things are known to exist, none-the-less, without possessing independent physical characteristics, because they affect the physical brain. The effects of this interaction are what is measured, not the representational understanding itself.

A concept reflects a human's representational understanding of 'the world'.

Truth, the term and it's meaning within language, is not 'extant' without brains, however, we must not be so short-sighted to the point that we fail to address the fact that the relevent correlation/corroboration of the things which we apply this tool of the brain to - our observations - are indeed extant without us. Therefore, the objects of our observations provide the substance of our thought which, in an attempt to gain understanding, files these perceived correlations within our memory. Memory possesses no physical existence either, yet it does indeed affect our bodies in a physically measurable way.

Affects are not properties of the thing(thought) which is responsible for them, they are but the results of the interaction itself.



These are not the only possible choices.

Concepts exist within thought. Thoughts exist as an emerging 'property' of a brain capable of such things, however, a concept is not at all dependent upon the viability of it's own possibility for existence. In other words, I fail to recognize the relevency of that particular question.

So - without brains, thoughts(defined as we both agree, I hope) about observation cannot exist. Without thought a concept - itself - cannot be born, because a concept is only a reflection of one's representational understanding about the perceived correlation of different the different objects within observation.

Only the content of observation has physical characteristics.

Therefore, things do exist without possessing physicality.

Not independent of, and without reference to things with physical characteristics.

Take away the physical, do these things exist? That single question answers it all . . .

Hey all, it's been a while. Saw this thread and couldn't resist jumping in.



But neither can it be shown to be any more true that ideas are dependent upon brain activity. To do that one would have to show that ideas cannot exist without a brain.

Unless of course you define "idea" as a "specific type of brain activity". (Which you seem to be trying to do.) But that doesn't prove/show/demonstrate anything. It only makes it impossible to communicate about a non-physical concept, that's all. ("You're wrong because you're not allowed to attach this definition to that word.")

The same holds true for "That which interacts is physical"...

Well ok, you've defined "existence" as "that which interacts".

Thus, your definition simply makes it impossible to communicate about anything non-interactive (i.e. non-physical).

(Besides implying that it is impossible for you to conceive of something non-physical that interacts - which, I believe, is the very essence of what is commonly thought of as "spirit".)

And so on and so on.

I think it all boils down to this...

If you cannot conceive of "a non-physical thing that can cause physical effects", then you cannot understand (what I mean when I say) "spirit".

That is the ontolgy of "spirit" as far as I'm concerned.

P.S. Just so I don't get flamed for being off-topic here, to me, the concept of "truth" is nothing more than "what the 'spirit' decides".

Need to keep up on modern research, this statement is incorrect.

Regardless of our knowledge of this, its an appeal to ignorance.

As is the entirety of dualism which Skyhook is so fond and Creative is headed down the path of . . .


Lets go a head and assume that minds are elsewhere from brains. That minds are not a part of this reality and that is why science cannot objectively measure or observe minds, but only brains. (which is not true, our research is fast discovering the keys to the language)

Where does that lead you?

I can tell you, it leads to absurdities.

If minds are not physical and brains are, how do minds interact with brains?


If minds are not physical, then what differences can be said to exist from one mind to another?

The problem with dualism is that it ignores the fact that structure and interactions are at the heart of identity.


Sky, how does a component of reality that does not interact with any other component of reality have reason to exit?

How can this 100% non interacting component be characterized?

What can we ever know about this component, and how would it effect anything else based on its 100% non interaction.

So, is it even meaningful to discuss this thing that effects nothing and cannot be characterized?

Things are what they do. Spirit is physical if it interacts. That which has no structure and no interactions is meaningless.

I think you may have misread something. Nowhere did I mention anything about anything that “does not interact with reality”. I specifically stated that in my concept of it, [spirit] does interact.

I don’t happen to agree with any of those three statements. Which illustrates the exact point I was trying to make. If you insist that your definitions are the only acceptable ones, then there can hardly be any meaningful communication other than that which you have pre-defined as being acceptable.

edit-correction: Actually, I do agree with this one...I believe that the "structureless" thing (spirit) has no intrinsic "meaning". But it is the thing which imparts "meaning". In other words, there is no "meaning" without someone to assign meaning.

Yeah, Jeanniebean is awesome