andy-k wrote:

By what criteria are phenomena (using
that word as generally as possible)
assigned to the categories of 'mental'
and 'physical'?

Some interesting replies here, and much
food for thought. Having pitched the
question I feel I should contribute my
own view, which seems to have
something in common with a few of the
remarks from other respondents.

I don't think there are any hard and fast
rules here, but rather 'mental' and
'physical' are words that one learns to
apply according to the customs of the
linguistic community to which one
belongs. It is the error of reifying these
adjectives into the substantive terms
'mind' and 'matter' that leads to
philosophical problems -- i.e. it is an
error to look for the essential attributes
of mind and of matter and then to
conclude that the two are
incommensurable and cannot therefore
interact with one another.

But you don't have the courage of your convictions to analyze any
challenges to what you say and imply. You don't answer any relevant
question. You haven't presented anything as a conviction. Therefore, you
feel confident in your cleverness to avoid dealing with the real issues.
You avoid being specific like a plague.

Clearly the question you pose refers to consciousness, but you hide that
in verbiage of criteria of phenomena of assignment of categories of
mental events. Here you even pass that off as linguistic gyrations using
words that have no real referent. Why do you want to avoid the evidence
supplied by your own consciousness?


What's the problem?

If you are reading this,
you're conscious, and you know it.
If I'm wrong,
there's no way to show it.

It's like looking for love in all the wrong places.

You can't say that's off topic because love without consciousness
wouldn't be sensible. Did you notice the 'double entendre' in 'sensible
consciousness'?

That's part of the problem.

Materialists can't find consciousness because it is non materialistic.
Idealists can't find consciousness because there is nothing to be
conscious of except their own consciousness, more specifically their own
self consciousness. Yet each must use terms that are 'double entendric',
or even 'poly entendric': i.e., the required terms used have a double
meaning, one as a material object, the other, a subjective idea of that
object.

You would think that dualisms could resolve that problem because they
encompass both, but dualists are attacked by both sides. They try to
mediate the two by incorporating double meanings in their explanations
that sound like double talk exacerbated by special meanings of technical
jargon. So much confusion has been created that the idea of 'dual' is
treated like a dirty four letter word; yet, each side is tainted with
the duality of meanings in the terms that are used..

How many times have you read, and reread, the same paragraph to
understand its intended meaning?

A great deal of humor depends on 'double entendres'. If you want to find
humor in =EF=BF=BD philosophy you can spot those double entendres' by
comparing literal and intended meanings.

Did you notice above that I smuggled the word 'self' into the self
consciousness of idealists?

That's the key to understanding consciousness because you understand
your own consciousness. The problem being discussed is not your
consciousness but the knowledge of the consciousness of others. You know
what consciousness is. Anyone who has had any simple experience knows
what it is. To pick just one, pain: You know what it is, and you know
that others can't feel your pain in the same way that you do.

The point is this. Anything that can be described mechanistically does
not require consciousness. Also your consciousness, or any
consciousness, cannot be explained without including yourself as part of
the mechanism. You certainly cannot avoid being part of the mechanism of
explaining your conscious understanding of consciousness.

So, what is self?

Some people have trouble with that question. That's not a problem for
me.

I have no doubt that I am the master of my thoughts. I am more than
that, but I am at least that. I never had to find myself. I was always
where I was. I never tried to hide myself from myself because I knew
that wherever I tried to hide, I would be there. Though I was never
lost, my house was lost a few times. Though I never tried to hide from
myself, I have tried to hide myself from others at times. I don't know
all there is to know about myself, but I know enough to know what I
know, and to enjoy discovering what I don't know about myself. I
certainly know more about myself than anyone else, and more than I know
about anyone else.

My relationship with my brain, or body, is a somewhat strange question.
My brain, as well as the rest of my body, is part of me. I function with
my brain and body as a unit, usually without giving it much thought.
When I do think about it, I do so to try to satisfy some desire that my
body was not designed to do automatically, or by itself, without some
intervention.
I am not transcendent to my brain or body. Nor am I transcendent to my
spirit, the other part of me wherein I can manipulate the knowledge I
abstract from the activity of my body (and brain).

My body (and brain) also interacts with a world 'outside' of me in the
sense that it is not me. The world 'outside' is not completely separated
from me, because part of what is 'outside' of me is also 'inside' of me
as my body. It is because my body is part of me, and part of the world
outside of me, that it can serve as a medium that makes knowledge of
that 'outside world' available to my private 'inside world'.

Consciousness consists of the knowledge I, or anyone else, can possess
even if that knowledge was restricted to the simple awareness of pain.
Knowledge is the creation of an understanding of those simple feelings
as ideas that can be manipulated by me to discover ways to control the
causes of those feelings to do something to enhance those I like, and to
minimize those I dislike.

I accentuate the positive.
Eliminate the negative,
I don't mess with the in between -
The chaos, or pandemonium, that results from their mixture.

You can't leave me, or my ability to control both my ideas and my body,
out of any conscious explanation, or any explanation of consciousness.

Consciousness is the essence of human nature.

A human being consists of a will, a body, and a spirit. To understand
human nature it is necessary to include all three, not independent in
the sense that they are separable, as in death, but independent in the
sense that they are distinguishable one from the other in life.

Human nature is not monistic, or dualistic. It is triunistic.

Same for consciousness, mental activity, and knowledge. Any claim to
know anything includes all three aspects.

Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/

So many misconceptions, so little time.

Materialists can't find consciousness because it is
non materialistic.

That's the key to understanding consciousness because
you understand your own consciousness. The problem
being discussed is not your consciousness but the
knowledge of the consciousness of others. You know
what consciousness is. Anyone who has had any simple
experience knows what it is. To pick just one, pain:
You know what it is, and you know that others can't
feel your pain in the same way that you do.


The point is this. Anything that can be described
mechanistically does not require consciousness.

So, what is self?


Some people have trouble with that question. That's
not a problem for me.


I have no doubt that I am the master of my thoughts.