in the places never wandered, there are many secrets there to see (part I)

Philosophy talks happen now and again. Though this one was partially biochemical, as well.

[09:49] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I wonder, did february happen
[09:49] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: or was it imagined
[09:49] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr) grins
[09:54] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: February was likely fake news
[09:55] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): Pish
[10:00] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I mean...how do we really know it happened?
[10:00] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): Because...we lived through it?
[10:05] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: but how can you prove it?!
[10:06] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): Well, time is a shared illusion
[10:06] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: See. You admit it! An illusion!
[10:07] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): Reality is a shared illusion too
[10:09] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: see!
[10:09] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: you admit it!
[10:10] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: we are not really here!
[10:10] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): We may not be!

Current prevailing theory is leading to that conclusion, anyway.

[10:11] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: See! Proof positive!
[10:11] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr) giggles
[10:18] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I win
[10:18] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: or...do I
[10:18] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: what is winning?
[10:19] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): Winning might be an illusion too
[10:20] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: But..what if the illusion is an illusion?
[10:20] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: Illusions all the way down!
[10:24] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): And there's a working theory a group of quantum mathematicians are trying to prove that our reality is *actually* a simulation

Not to mention the ongoing research into how time may be a factor of gravity, and not an independent mechanism.

[10:25] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: scoffs
[10:25] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: There ARE no quantum mathematicians.
[10:28] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): Of course there are!
[10:29] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: Where?
[10:29] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I see no quantum mathematicians
[10:29] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: therefore, there are no quantum mathematicians
[10:33] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): Well, not *here*...
[10:34] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: but where?
[10:34] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: there?
[10:34] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I see none there, or here
[10:34] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: Therefore, there are no quantum mathematicians here, nor there...and what is there? No where, until it's here!
[10:39] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): See, some quantum mathematicians would agree
[10:40] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: Sure, if they existed
[10:42] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I am my brain
[10:43] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: But, you too, are my brain
[10:43] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: But my brain is an illusion
[10:43] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: There is no brain

Which is also a theory, along with the crowd trying to prove we're actually living in a simulation.

[10:47] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): Also remember the mind-brain split
[10:47] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): There is brain, and there is mind, and they are not the same thing
[10:50] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I'm not sure I'd see the difference.
[10:50] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: in honesty
[10:50] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: that's like [axxx] and her "there is a mind"
[10:50] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: What mind? how do you mean?
[10:51] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I'm not saying I wouldn't want there to be something of us divorced from the processes of the brain, just that currently, the best neuroscience does not paint that picture.
[10:51] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: There's the brain..the brain is the mind

So we addressed it, with my current understanding...and I realized I may not have thought this through enough.

[10:53] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): Here's how the theory goes.
[10:53] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): The brain's the meat. The mind's what named the brain.
[10:55] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: there's no difference, though
[10:55] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I'm not sure what you mean by "the mind"
[10:56] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: Without meaning to offend..to say "the mind named the brain" is nonsensical, if that makes sense
[10:56] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: It's basically saying "the brain named itself"
[10:56] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: according to what current neuroscience tells us
[10:58] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): Well, that's definitely another way to look at it.
[10:58] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I'm sorry, I don't have an frame of reference to look at it the way you probably are.
[10:58] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: It has absolutely no meaning to say it the other way, for me
[10:59] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I don't get what you mean.
[10:59] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: how do you mean "mind"
[10:59] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: as apart from "brain"
[11:01] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: this encapsulates the problem

It does. We're deep into theoretical perceptions, now.

[11:01] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: That's the thing about magic; you've got to know it's still here, all around us, or it just stays invisible for you. ― Charles de Lint
[11:01] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: [Axxx] has that quote on her profile.
[11:02] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: And the question is the same..what do you mean by magic?
[11:02] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I have no frame of reference.
[11:02] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: it is a statement that might be profound, but for me, it's nonsensical
[11:02] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: It's akin to saying "if I believe it's magic, it is magic"
[11:03] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): Well, this is a both-sides sort of article
[11:03] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): Though they come down largely on the side of 'only brain'
[11:04] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): I don't think it's that nonsensical. Meat can't think. In that sense, the brain is nothing more than meat bathed in chemicals and saline, occasionally electrically charged.
[11:05] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I think that modern science currently disagrees with you.
[11:05] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: Meat, as in the brain, does think.
[11:05] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: the processes are the brain
[11:05] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: the collection of processes in the brain drive what you are calling the mind.
[11:05] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: which, is fine
[11:05] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: but the distinction is one of "meat can't think, therefore it has to be something more"
[11:06] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: the problem is...there doesn't seem to be any merit to that, as of now.
[11:06] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: the author is flat out saying as much, here.

And there are a lot of studies on all sides.

[11:06] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): Right, but I'm not saying the something more is magic, or soul, or whatever
[11:06] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: She just doesn't want to admit it.
[11:06] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): I'm saying, the concept of language, and identification, and labeling, had to come from somewhere
[11:06] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: the brain
[11:07] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): Our bodies, our brains, work in much the same way--stimulus, reaction.
[11:07] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: and the way our brains are interacting with other brains
[11:07] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: yes
[11:07] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): There's no higher thought involved.
[11:07] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I don't know what you mean by higher thought.

And this was the second time I sat back and said, "Huh."

[11:07] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: it's just thought
[11:07] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: what makes it higher or lower?
[11:08] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): You don't perceive a difference between *hunger* *need* levels of reaction, and, say, one of Shakespeare's plays?
[11:08] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: my perception is irrelevant
[11:08] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I'm saying..here's a good point
[11:09] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: "made them do it than if their brain (aberrant activity patterns, pathological circuitry...) did shows just how deeply average folks believe that mind and brain are distinct."
[11:09] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I might perceive, believe x
[11:09] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: and that's fine
[11:09] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: but it does not change the base fact, as best we can tell, that there is no difference.
[11:09] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: It's an arbitrary thing.
[11:10] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: Like me saying that human progress is inherently better than what another animal might do
[11:10] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): Oh, no, I fully get we're just animals
[11:10] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: Yes, from my perspective, my creative activity has more meaning, but objectively no, it doesn;t
[11:10] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: so, I might perceive shakespeare as having more merit..but it doesn't.
[11:10] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): So, maybe this is my confusion.
[11:11] Emilly Shatner-Orr (emilly.orr): Brain reacts. Mind thinks. But for how you're putting it, brain reacts, brain also perceives, and we translate those perceptions into language, but they're still all chemicals and jolts across the neurons?
[11:11] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: right, but...it's just the brain
[11:11] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: I don't know where you're coming up with mind.
[11:11] Mxxxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx: that's all I am saying :)

This was me sitting back and facing one of my 'But of course it's this way' beliefs, and then spinning around and looking at it again. Why is that an 'of course' belief? What makes it an 'of course' belief? Is it a true belief? Maybe it's time to work that out.

(This endeth part one. This is a long one, it will be three parts. Part II will be posted later today.)