Christianity is heading for a full allegorization

[The Grand Nudger]

Sorry for the delay in replying... 

No worries. 

In that case I still don't think I'm fully understanding what you're saying here. In that whether we're talking about substance (and like poly later, I was also curious what exactly what was meant by that in a world of multiple types of particles, but just assumed it meant any material; the physical world... we can get onto that later maybe) or properties, the reason I think there's only two... as in dual... on the table, as opposed to many, is that there is, or at least seems to be, something fundamentally different in an overarching sense, between having/experiencing a perspective at all, whatever form it takes (ie 1st, 2nd, 3rd person or whatever else), and the mind-independent reality beyond it (ie the physical world) that we and science, examine from the outside. Ie any other properties that we could possibly examine in the universe, be they burger properties, wind properties etc, as per your example, we examine from the outside... from a perpective, but actually having/experiencing a perspective seems something completely different.

Substance is the difference between the material and the immaterial.  Properties are some x that both the material and immaterial have.  A material being could be impermeable - that would be substance and property - but an immaterial being could also be impermeable.  Different substance, same property.  A material being may be impermeable while an immaterial being is thoroughly permeable.  Different substance, different properties.  A material being could be permeable or impermeable.  Same substance, different properties.  

Sure, even in a world of just one substance, the property of consciousness is different than other properties and different than it's lack.  We take it to be recognizable and existent.  Tell me how that doesn't also apply to wind?  

Ie for instance, the fact that the brain and computers (in the case of video games etc) can and do computationally model environments and perpectives, has never been in dispute for me. Indeed, I think dreams are a prime example of how there must be an internal model of the world represented in our brains. But having that model and experiencing it are two different things, or seem so to me. In a similar way to the question I posed earlier of what sort of existence the different levels of processing/description in a running computer have... not quite the same, in the sense that those processes are not - necessarily - deemed to have an internal perpsective, but maybe still the same ballpark.

If all of the processing the brain (or a computer) does is in the material properties set - but experience (and experience alone) is in the mental set...then all of the physics is in the material set - and the wind (and wind alone) actually blowing is in the windal set. 

 

Anyway, as to your real life experiences of the 2nd person perspective, I assume you mean an out-of-body experience/dissociation... maybe on the battlefield, or somewhere else? Is that something you're happy/comfortable talking about? 

Yeah, got bounced around a bit.  Fucked up my ears, blew out a knee, cracked my skull.  Otherwise minor damage.  Lucky lucky lucky.

As to acute visual stuff, mostly at the beginning.  I'd see myself the moment before - but from the pov of a crowd up ahead - and then nothing.  Just pants-shitting nothing.  It was abrupt, it was compelling, it could happen when I was awake, or I could dream about it.  The difference between being awake and dreaming wasn't at all clear to me at the time.  I actually don't have any recollection of the event - and I was out for a week after - no memories from that either.  Just lost time.  

OTOH.....I had the distinct impression for quite awhile after that I was a passenger in my own body.  That my thoughts and my actions were some other person.  A you, not me.  Not a part of me.  I didn't know his thoughts, I didn't control his actions, I don't think I remember all of it.   We didn't talk to each other or anything like that.  There was no personality to it, really- it was as if I wasn't there all the time, or he wasn't aware I was ever there, whoever the fuck he was.  

That lasted a lot longer than my physical recovery.  I knew something was still wrong... but I wasn't exactly forthcoming with that info.  I felt like I was slipping back into myself..no other way to describe it - I just hadn't filled every inch of boot yet.  I feel like shit about that - I didn't want to think about what could happen...I was still in love with the idea of a career in the service. It only dawned on me how fucked up things could have been when a buddy told me that the day-of I'd initially popped back up..everyone thought I was okay - I stumbled around for a bit, let off a few rounds, then collapsed like a rag doll.   I could've done the same on base or back home for no reason at any time.

As to mental events effecting other mental events in epiphenomenalism, I guess I just look at that through having to trace it through the physical side. Ultimately I don't think there's much difference between epiphenomenalism and physicalism on that score; if the physical side is determined by physics and the mental side in one way or another mirrors that/is identical with that, then the mental side should have an at least apparent correlatable causal flow... so whether you see mental events as actually causing other mental events, as per physicalism because of identity, or apparently/indirectly through the underlying physical causality, doesn't make any practical difference that I can see. 

If a mental event like experiencing happiness can cause material events to occur - all of the other "just processing" the brain is doing..which is, allegedly..... everything and anything else the brain is doing - then epiphenomenalism is flatly and plainly wrong on it's face, and by it's own merits.  

Do you actually think it's the case that one of the differences between material events or brain events..and mental events....is that mental events have no or can have no effect on material events?  That would definitely make the case that the division of properties all ultimately arising from a single substance is cogent with respect to mental events..but not windal events.  Wind absolutely does effect material events.