Missing in action: Where is the mind?

Of course scientists--and philosophers--believe that Reality (whatever that may be) is the foundation (subject matter) of their efforts. But foundationalism refers not to this Reality per se; it refers to grand PRESUPPOSITIONS about it.

No it does not !
That one may have a theory upon the matter and believes it is quite different from asserting reality itself is a one end construction from the mind relative to nothing but the subject...it has been called solipsism !

While I may easily grant my subjectivity I am not forced on that ground to give up the acknowledgement of a transcendental system from which I am but a part...those who give up that belief remove themselves from social debate...in fact a no foundation removes the very subject as a valid ground for experience...anti foundationalism equals irrationality !

Oh, another confessional point: I do not like that our philosophical threads seem to have as part of their formal function "debate." I'm not here to debate--at my age I lack the hormones and agility for it--just to express my understandings and to enjoy exposure to those of others.
Frankly, your pechant for competition and conflict is annoying; if you weren't so intelligent you would be insufferable. But that's MY perspective.

My perspective is similar to yours.
Fil has a powerful intellect, meaning his capacity for reasoning is formidable. But what he does with it reminds me of a kid who stole his dad's porsche. It is, after all, entirely possible to be an intelligent idiot, as is evident from this comment:



What he is essentially saying is that "the works you read are wrong, and the works I read are right". It doesn't seem to occur to him that the views he so diligently advocates are the same; theories crafted by people he has chosen to believe in. This attitude is a lot of the reason why I repeatedly compare him to a religious fanatic; his inability to consider views that conflict with the ones he has chosen to believe in. I think he would make a far better lawyer than a philosopher...

Also, note that the quote from fil is laced with his own assumptions or interpretations about what you think, and that it is primarily those assumptions he argues against.

...Not true Cyr...my references might just as well be said provisional...my point is about which explanations are more likely or more sound, and hoping that some of you make an effort to sort out harder and dig down deeper instead of giving up straight away...sometimes I am passionate, sometimes I am tired and messy, others I might just be provocative, but I am always willing !...

Then I will try to voice my objection as simply as possible.

As far as I have been able to determine from out interaction, your ideas about mind all revolve around the biology of the brain. Traditionally, the brain is understood to be the origin of human consciousness.
Traditionally, consciousness is understood to have evolved from a non-conscious universe.
It is generally thought of as a phenomenon that has evolved by physical evolution, non-existent until the point where life-forms now display conscious activity.

The point I am arguing is one very many researchers would rather forget; there is no proof that this is indeed the case.
Big bang theory, evolution theory, neuroscience, psychology, computer science, mathematics or philosophy.... None of these have yet been able to provide a definite account of how consciousness could come to happen in a non-conscious universe.
That single fact renders every attempt to understand consciousness based on biology, or any physical science, questionable at best, because at the very foundation there lies an assumption that just cannot be justified. It creates a paradox; thought originating from something that is inherently thoughtless.

It is our cultural conditioning that makes us swallow this so willingly. It is the view we have after studying consciousness in contrast to classical physics.

Now, there is an alternative, provided to use by those who study reality on it's smallest scales, on sub-atomic levels. Consciousness studied in contrast to quantum physics suggests that even the physical world we perceive is merely an expression of consciousness.
Simply put, classical physics and the corresponding philosophies tell us that increasing complexity in physical evolution leads to increasing complexity in consciousness.
The alternative suggests that increasing complexity in non-physical, information patterns (consciousness) leads to increasing complexity in what we perceive as physical reality.
This indicates that even physical reality (cosmology, biology etc) are expressions of conscious reality, and there is no paradox at all if the base assumption is that the very universe itself is a thing of consciousness, in which the physical universe is merely an expression of consciousness.
All our theories that work, regarding evolution and cosmology are still valuable to us, because they explain the nature of our perception and the conditions in which human existence happens. But they are not objective. They are very subjective to human perception and consciousness.

This is a link to a video, the first of ten parts. If you are interested in exploring these ideas it may be a good place to start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-fba4OD208

...OK you are entitled to your view, very well, but the thing is, as I see it, simplicity is always the word in my mind regarding any discussion in philosophy...consciousness is a complex point to start with, irreducibly complex and ends up fitting the picture as a magical entity which cannot be explained down further the way you put it, and I need a link between the organic and inorganic...it even crossed my thoughts if mind was eliminated as an effect the distinction between biological and inorganic can be blurred which would be great for a full theory on matter...in that line of thought I rather have a model who reduces the experience of mind or awareness to an integrated phenomena of functional operations on which the I is only a passive observer who assists to the necessary unfold of fully deterministic processes in reality in which he is an agreeing integrated part (compatibilism)...why so you might wonder ? well, my obsession with determinism is not explained by any theistic inclination which I don´t have but with an admitted obsession in getting a non magical mechanical model in which all the steps of the chain are present, and that includes differences in spatio temporal algorithmic perspectives of relation build from any point in the web from which all subjectivity is objectively functionally explained...in here subjectivity is not viewed as a trait of humans but as the unique standing point that any object or system (a more abstract description of an object) has from is position in space time on its relations with the remaining of the web...in my mind I see equations for subjective standing points relating anything with the entirety of the web from its specific position with its specific "observing" point...observing in here is, there you go, a simplified version for detecting of a relational bound...I see vectors, forces energy...if I go for further reducing I no longer see this things either which then themselves must be just further down information systems of pure maths...the very matter energy space and time all of them become formulas for different axis of info in relation...well and the list goes on but you get the picture already...

...the thing is no matter how nice I try to be with you or you with me we will be always in opposite sides of the fence...I am a reductionist at heart which opposes any magical irreducibly complex standing point...my model is the result of my entire youth thinking upon the matter in a free form with an high degree of personal investment...it is long pass any returning point by now...one of my main goals is in fact to blur the differences between organic and inorganic phenomena by getting a different perspective on systems motion time reference...hope you can indulge the fact that I always will oppose you unless in face of mass evidence to the contrary...its not personal, as I said I even consider you a nice guy but our starting points are far apart and probably are irreconcilable...still there is allot of value I take from you JL Fido or Fresco that much I assure you to be true...

Are you saying that reductionism is the sole venue by which you explore this?
I appreciate the uses of reductionism, but there are some clear limitations to it.
Holism also has some clear limitations to it.
I believe that a man might walk through a forest navigating either by sound or by sight and have a good chance of getting through it, avoiding the dangers and threats. But if he navigates by sound and sight his chances increase considerably.
What I am saying is that reductionism is an even more effective tool when used together with holism, it's counterpart.
Holism might lead you off, and so might reductionism, but by making use of both, one can keep a check on the other.

I mean no disrespect when saying this, but it think it's reasonable that we have to consider the subjects we emphasize as relevant to our goals. Can reductionism identify those subjects for you?
If they can do that, then why is there such controversy surrounding it? How do you know that it is even relevant to "blur the distinction between the organic and the inorganic"? Incidentally, the process of blurring the distinctions between anything strikes me as a very holistic approach, not at all something a reductioninst would consider.

...not necessarily as I can indulge myself to go astray but mostly...the appeal of reductionism is the appeal of optimism if you think on it...I like to believe our species can get something out of the box worth looking at...

I feel that optimism when exploring other areas.

In a way, the view of consciousness I am favoring, at least, the explanation of it that I am referring to, is a consequence of unified field theory. The idea set forth by Einstein of forming a single theory that could account for all the forces of physics. I am sure you know the story.

The curious thing is that as viable options for a unified field theory start emerging, we also see philosophies surrounding them that reflect the initial intention of the theory of physics. Philosophies that unite all the branches of human inquisition in a single comprehensive theory where everything fits together.

What was it the sage said when asked to provide a statement that applied to everything? Ah, it was "And this too shall pass."

...well it seems to me at least the passing does n´t pass...
(...and if the passing is a loop I have no problems with what passes...a bit like the infinities of Cantor that still can be packed by "quality"...)

Or something in our pants worth playing with...

...true !

That's certainly below the belt.

...or not given he is literally right in making that assertion...

More opinions from you?

I was being quite literal myself. My belt is above the things in my pants most of the time...

..aside you clearly giving the impression of not getting the meaning, since his post addressed specifically my post your last comment is pretty much gratuitous...wherever you play with your belt is none of my concern...

Oh, I get it. Funny, actually.