Do minds exist?

[untermensche]

All living things are related to me.

I don't think they all have minds.

But the mind is not the behavior or the mechanisms like muscles and nerves that allow the behavior. It is the experiences and "programming" that leads to the behavior.

There is the brain. Fairly dense tissue. Many types of cells, many specialized regions.

Then one step removed from the physical brain is the activity of the brain; the chemical transmitters, the electrical activity, the flow of blood and exchange of oxygen, and more.

Then one step removed from the activity of the brain is a creation of this activity. The mind. The subjective self that can experience sight and hearing and movement and touch, and drives and emotions and thoughts and memories.

The self doesn't experience neurotransmitters moving across clefts or tiny electrical impulses or the flow of blood.

It experiences a coherent whole. The world.

dogma
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
"the Christian dogma of the Trinity"
untershmesh's dogma of the mind, a mind, and minds...
no evidence just promises.

None of this refutes a word I wrote. It is babbling gibberish. It seems the product of a disturbed mind.

If you think there is no distinction between the brain and the activity of the brain demonstrate it.

And stop just demonstrating that you don't have a clue about anything.

 

[none]

dogma
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
"the Christian dogma of the Trinity"
untershmesh's dogma of the mind, a mind, and minds...
no evidence just promises.

None of this refutes a word I wrote. It is babbling gibberish. It seems the product of a disturbed mind.

If you think there is no distinction between the brain and the activity of the brain demonstrate it.

And stop just demonstrating that you don't have a clue about anything.

what is to refute?
you have no evidence.
you are just making claims, that is obvious.
I asked you to support your claims, please don't change the subject AGAIN.
what is the empirical evidence to support your claims?
understand Russel's teapot it will help you.
what is your empirical evidence to support your claims?
I am not interested in more claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others...

 

[untermensche]

The order of strength of evidence.

1. That which one experiences.

2. That which is documented, a recording of some kind.

3. The reports from others.

Some think because evidence is #1 to another but #3 to them it is not evidence.

They don't have a clue what they are talking about.

 

[fromderinside]

Better find out how the brain works. Experience is an entirely internal modelling approach. One needs agreement with others on what is measured rather than agreement on what one experiences to be fairly secure what is being observed is meaningful.

 

[untermensche]

To take any measurement requires that which experiences the measurement.

The mind.

 

[fromderinside]

To take any measurement requires that which experiences the measurement.

The mind.

The idea is come to an agreement on what is going to be measured, agree on methods to measure it, then agree on meaning of outcomes, or, everybody is going to die on True Detective. So never mind

 

[untermensche]

To take any measurement requires that which experiences the measurement.

The mind.

The idea is come to an agreement on what is going to be measured, agree on methods to measure it, then agree on meaning of outcomes, or, everybody is going to die on True Detective. So never mind

What is important is that which is measured has a correspondence with the real thing, that which is experienced.

 

[fromderinside]

The idea is come to an agreement on what is going to be measured, agree on methods to measure it, then agree on meaning of outcomes, or, everybody is going to die on True Detective. So never mind

What is important is that which is measured has a correspondence with the real thing, that which is experienced.

That which is experienced has very little to do with reality. Reality includes everything. That which is experienced includes only that which is sensed and perceived which is very little. Please tell us of what you experience about infrared emissions. Inquiring people want to understand.

 

[untermensche]

What is important is that which is measured has a correspondence with the real thing, that which is experienced.

That which is experienced has very little to do with reality.

?

The only way for us to possibly know something exists is to have some kind of experience of it, or it's effects.

 

[rousseau]

Here's a question:

Why do we call the feeling of sensations 'experience'?

Let's go down that train-track.

At first it seems like an egoistic term, we could surely define the feeling of sensation as something more mundane. Reactions between body + environment maybe.

But then where does the term 'experience' come from? It seems to pre-suppose an emergent property over body/environment reactions, something more in the life-time of an animal.

So where does this 'moreness' come from? It would mean that there is some kind of evolutionary pressure leading to the development of ego, and terms like 'experience' point to life that's developed in such a way that these mundane movements and reactions have an emergent quality to them.

Ok, so why do we accept what are, at core, material reactions, as acceptable?

Because we've developed in such a way that they feel really good, and are interesting.

Dammit I just killed everyone. Whoops.

 

[untermensche]

...Why do we call the feeling of sensations 'experience'?...

At first it seems like an egoistic term, we could surely define the feeling of sensation as something more mundane. Reactions between body + environment maybe....

If there is a "feeling of sensation" then there is that which feels.

There is no difference between saying; To feel pain or to experience pain.

Pain is not a reaction to the environment. The reaction is just some cells becoming excited.

Pain is something created by the brain and experienced by the mind.

If it isn't experienced by the mind, even if there is great damage, there isn't pain.

 

[Juma]

That which is experienced has very little to do with reality.

?

The only way for us to possibly know something exists is to have some kind of experience of it, or it's effects.

Yes. Thus the only way to know what you experience is is to have some kind of experience if it or its effects. Not just by believing what you say.

 

[none]

That which is experienced has very little to do with reality.

?

The only way for us to possibly know something exists is to have some kind of experience of it, or it's effects.

The following is not a request for a story about what you claim the mind, a mind, and minds functions are or what you claim they do.
You've already expressed that the mind, a mind, and minds perform an activity, what is the empirical evidence to support the claim?

- - - Updated - - -

...Why do we call the feeling of sensations 'experience'?...

At first it seems like an egoistic term, we could surely define the feeling of sensation as something more mundane. Reactions between body + environment maybe....

If there is a "feeling of sensation" then there is that which feels.

There is no difference between saying; To feel pain or to experience pain.

Pain is not a reaction to the environment. The reaction is just some cells becoming excited.

Pain is something created by the brain and experienced by the mind.

If it isn't experienced by the mind, even if there is great damage, there isn't pain.

This is more story, I understand you believe the mind, a mind, and minds perform a function, what is the empirical evidence to support the claim you are making?
No need for another story or claim.

 

[rousseau]

...Why do we call the feeling of sensations 'experience'?...

At first it seems like an egoistic term, we could surely define the feeling of sensation as something more mundane. Reactions between body + environment maybe....

If there is a "feeling of sensation" then there is that which feels.

Of course there is, the body as a whole has the ability to sense.

There is no difference between saying; To feel pain or to experience pain.

Pain is not a reaction to the environment. The reaction is just some cells becoming excited.

So at what point do cells becoming excited cease to be a reaction and start to be an 'experience'.

Pain is something created by the brain and experienced by the mind.

If it isn't experienced by the mind, even if there is great damage, there isn't pain.

Ok, but in this case we're conflating two terms, 'brain' with 'mind'. The brain is an extremely complex structure which can drastically change a person's sense of self. Damage one part of the brain and 'sensing' and 'feeling' can change quite a bit. So if by 'mind' you just mean 'brain' then sure, people have minds.

If that's not what you mean you need to demonstrate what the mind actually is.

If you can't demonstrate what the mind is then the conversation can't progress, either because it doesn't actually exist, or we don't have enough information about it yet.

 

[untermensche]

?

The only way for us to possibly know something exists is to have some kind of experience of it, or it's effects.

Yes. Thus the only way to know what you experience is is to have some kind of experience if it or its effects. Not just by believing what you say.

That is your side of it.

For me there can be no greater evidence than the evidence of my mind. I need no convincing and cannot be persuaded that what I know best is known better by somebody else.

 

[untermensche]

If there is a "feeling of sensation" then there is that which feels.

Of course there is, the body as a whole has the ability to sense.

Not true at all.

Only the mind feels the pain. The body may have some reflexive activity but it doesn't "feel" or "experience". Only the mind does that.

People undergo all kinds of incredibly intrusive surgery everyday.

They feel no pain while undergoing it and their body feels no pain either.

If you take away the experience of pain in the mind you can inflict all kinds of damage to the body but there is no pain.

So at what point do cells becoming excited cease to be a reaction and start to be an 'experience'.

This is a good question but it can only be answered after we understand the mechanisms that give rise to the mind.

The mind is a "whole". It is fuzzy around the edges and it changes over time but there is an amount of consistency as well. What we call "the personality".

Things cease to be just reaction when the mind experiences them.

Damage one part of the brain and 'sensing' and 'feeling' can change quite a bit. So if by 'mind' you just mean 'brain' then sure, people have minds.

Damage the hard drive and there is a change to the picture on the screen.

Is the hard drive and the picture on the screen the same thing?

Or does one give rise to the other?

 

[Juma]

Yes. Thus the only way to know what you experience is is to have some kind of experience if it or its effects. Not just by believing what you say.

That is your side of it.

For me there can be no greater evidence than the evidence of my mind. I need no convincing and cannot be persuaded that what I know best is known better by somebody else.

But the evidence of your mind is only evidence of itself. Qualia is itself.

 

[Speakpigeon]

What is important is that which is measured has a correspondence with the real thing, that which is experienced.

Please tell us of what you experience about infrared emissions.

Isn't it hot this?

I also know what colour.

And, that's it.
EB

 

[untermensche]

That is your side of it.

For me there can be no greater evidence than the evidence of my mind. I need no convincing and cannot be persuaded that what I know best is known better by somebody else.

But the evidence of your mind is only evidence of itself. Qualia is itself.

No.

There is that which is experienced (qualia) and that which experiences it (mind).

 

[Juma]

But the evidence of your mind is only evidence of itself. Qualia is itself.

No.

There is that which is experienced (qualia) and that which experiences it (mind).

No. Qualia is experience. It is the actual process of experiencing.