Hereafter: Has Dirty Harry Found Religion?


Recommended Posts

Bob,

I said what I said. It was clear enough.

And I've said it elsewhere.

It's like me asking if you know anything about logic.

Michael

I do. Do you know anything about physics or neuro-physiology?

Have a PET scan and watch your mind in action.

I know mind is neurophysiological process the same way I know things are made of atoms.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Wrong, Bob.

Consciousness as a relation may exist as the result of neurophysiological processes in the brains of certain entities, but that is not the same as saying that mind is that process or those entities, any more than saying that a reflection is a mirror or a shadow is an umbrella. Mind is no more matter than the meaning of 2+2=4 is the arrangement of the pixels on your computer screen.

Mind is process carried out by material entities exchanging physical energy. It has a purely physical basis and does not exist as a non-physical substance or object. I would love to see the words mind and soul as currently used purged out of the language. They do more harm than good.

Motion is what a moving car does. Minding is what a living brain does. Brains mind for a living. That is their main occupation.

In fact all that exists is physical. There is nothing else. Democritus and Luekipus were right.

We are Nature's latest exercise in Monkey Business.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Repeating that mind is process is metaphysically inaccurate and rhetorically irrelevant. Consciousness is a complex formal relation between entities. Do you understand what relation and form mean? Solar fusion is a process. So what? It is neither formal nor relative. The question at hand is the metaphysical relation of consciousness to existence. "Process" is not a metaphysically fundamental concept. If you want to have anything philosophically relevant to say, try explaining what you mean using the concepts entity, quality, and relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

I said what I said. It was clear enough.

And I've said it elsewhere.

It's like me asking if you know anything about logic.

Michael

I do. Do you know anything about physics or neuro-physiology?

Have a PET scan and watch your mind in action.

I know mind is neurophysiological process the same way I know things are made of atoms.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Wrong, Bob.

Consciousness as a relation may exist as the result of neurophysiological processes in the brains of certain entities, but that is not the same as saying that mind is that process or those entities, any more than saying that a reflection is a mirror or a shadow is an umbrella. Mind is no more matter than the meaning of 2+2=4 is the arrangement of the pixels on your computer screen.

Mind is process carried out by material entities exchanging physical energy. It has a purely physical basis and does not exist as a non-physical substance or object. I would love to see the words mind and soul as currently used purged out of the language. They do more harm than good.

Motion is what a moving car does. Minding is what a living brain does. Brains mind for a living. That is their main occupation.

In fact all that exists is physical. There is nothing else. Democritus and Luekipus were right.

We are Nature's latest exercise in Monkey Business.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Repeating that mind is process is metaphysically inaccurate and rhetorically irrelevant. Consciousness is a complex formal relation between entities. Do you understand what relation and form mean? Solar fusion is a process. So what? It is neither formal nor relative. The question at hand is the metaphysical relation of consciousness to existence. "Process" is not a metaphysically fundamental concept. If you want to have anything philosophically relevant to say, try explaining what you mean using the concepts entity, quality, and relationship.

I understand relation and form better than you. I do mathematics, which is precisely about relation and form. Now if mind is a relation, then tell me its order (two term, three term...) and what domains form the cartesian product of which mind is a subset. A relation is a subset of a cartesian product.

I await specific answers with bated breath.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

I said what I said. It was clear enough.

And I've said it elsewhere.

It's like me asking if you know anything about logic.

Michael

I do. Do you know anything about physics or neuro-physiology?

Have a PET scan and watch your mind in action.

I know mind is neurophysiological process the same way I know things are made of atoms.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Wrong, Bob.

Consciousness as a relation may exist as the result of neurophysiological processes in the brains of certain entities, but that is not the same as saying that mind is that process or those entities, any more than saying that a reflection is a mirror or a shadow is an umbrella. Mind is no more matter than the meaning of 2+2=4 is the arrangement of the pixels on your computer screen.

Mind is process carried out by material entities exchanging physical energy. It has a purely physical basis and does not exist as a non-physical substance or object. I would love to see the words mind and soul as currently used purged out of the language. They do more harm than good.

Motion is what a moving car does. Minding is what a living brain does. Brains mind for a living. That is their main occupation.

In fact all that exists is physical. There is nothing else. Democritus and Luekipus were right.

We are Nature's latest exercise in Monkey Business.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Repeating that mind is process is metaphysically inaccurate and rhetorically irrelevant. Consciousness is a complex formal relation between entities. Do you understand what relation and form mean? Solar fusion is a process. So what? It is neither formal nor relative. The question at hand is the metaphysical relation of consciousness to existence. "Process" is not a metaphysically fundamental concept. If you want to have anything philosophically relevant to say, try explaining what you mean using the concepts entity, quality, and relationship.

I understand relation and form better than you. I do mathematics, which is precisely about relation and form. Now if mind is a relation, then tell me its order (two term, three term...) and what domains form the cartesian product of which mind is a subset. A relation is a subset of a cartesian product.

I await specific answers with bated breath.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I see you are getting grouchy and calling names and resorting to third grade (elementary school) "I'm smarter than you" nonsense. I have personally met three people in my life who were as smart as me. I have no evidence you reach that level. I am quite sure I am also better looking and better endowed than you. Maybe we can drop the ad hominem?

I did not say that mind is a relation. I said consciousness is a relation. The term mind is a reification of consciousness, treating it as if it were an entity.

Relation is a much wider concept than the way in which you are using it. In your terms, as if an equation were relevant, consciousness would be a very high order relation indeed, in light of both its number of arguments and in its recursiveness.

I am still interested in you explaining your description of mind as a "process" in terms of entities, qualities and relations. What would a process be in terms of those concepts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not say that mind is a relation. I said consciousness is a relation. The term mind is a reification of consciousness, treating it as if it were an entity.

Fine. What is the order of the consciousness relation and in what Cartesian product is the relation contained.

I await your answer with bated breath.;

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of participating in what seems like a spirited discussion about the meaning of the mind, I will touch on the actual movie itself in my response.

I thought Hereafter was a tad slow but am glad Eastwood kept the movie consistent in its story in that it didn't get off track.

The acting was good and so were the special effects. As to whether or not Eastwood made this movie to consider if there is an afterlife or the validity of near-death experiences (NDE's), I think ultimately he made this movie because he likes doing what he does and gets paid for it.

I don't think it has anything to do with his considering NDE's as much as it is that he likes to make money by making movies.

Back in the 1980's I remember some controversy regarding the flick Red Dawn since the movie dealt with the possibility of a communist invasion of Russia.

I recall John Milius being criticized for Red Dawn due to their fear of it giving some legitimacy to conspiracy theorists and militia members allegations at the time that the Soviets and their allies would invade America.

I think what Milius did for communist invasions is what Eastwood has done for NDE's. He took a (albeit far out) concept and ran with it by making a movie based on a topic not considered by Hollywood producers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not say that mind is a relation. I said consciousness is a relation. The term mind is a reification of consciousness, treating it as if it were an entity.

Fine. What is the order of the consciousness relation and in what Cartesian product is the relation contained.

I await your answer with bated breath.;

Ba'al Chatzaf

I answered you above, click on the post link and read the answer I would give if I were to take the question seriously. But I don't. The specific sense of relation you are using is no more applicable in this metaphysicial context than treating the non-initiation of force as the non initiation of mass times acceleration would be in a political context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now