Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne

[Speakpigeon]

What needs to be explained is how the mind moves the arm.

No, the only thing that you have to explain is how on earth you could possibly KNOW that it's the mind and not the brain that moves the arm.
EB

Because I use my mind to move my arm as my mind chooses.

I do it every day. I have done it for years.

What possible reason is there to doubt this experience?

How you could possibly KNOW that it's the mind and not the brain that moves the arm.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Because I use my mind to move my arm as my mind chooses.

I do it every day. I have done it for years.

What possible reason is there to doubt this experience?

How you could possibly KNOW that it's the mind and not the brain that moves the arm.
EB

I am a mind not a brain.

if a brain creates me I am still not a brain. I am a creation of a brain.

I move the arm at my will.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I am describing experience accurately.

"You" can't describe anything "accurately." Your ontology does not allow for that.

Gibberish.

My ontology allows my mind to experience and command my hands to type out the words it chooses to describe it.

It's not open to anything you want it to be you fucking ignoramus. It has to actually follow a logical progression, which yours does not as has been conclusively demonstrated multiple times by myself and others. That you just keep petulantly stomping your foot to gainsay that fact doesn't change the fact.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's called a reflex.

"Translating" a wavelength into the "experience" of "red" for a generated "mind" to "experience" is a reflex?

You're an idiot.

 

[untermensche]

It's called a reflex.

"Translating" a wavelength into the "experience" of "red" for a generated "mind" to "experience" is a reflex?

You're an idiot.

An idiot would think incredulity was an argument.

Your ignorance of things is not an argument.

 

[untermensche]

Gibberish.

My ontology allows my mind to experience and command my hands to type out the words it chooses to describe it.

It's not open to anything you want it to be you fucking ignoramus. It has to actually follow a logical progression, which yours does not as has been conclusively demonstrated multiple times by myself and others. That you just keep petulantly stomping your foot to gainsay that fact doesn't change the fact.

I just wanted to save this rant.

The logical progression of having a mind is the mind can understand and create ideas.

Any idea.

Even disturbed rants like this.

 

[Grendel]

You are just mindlessly babbling and addressing nothing.

But what is doing the babbling if it's not the mind

A lazy mind.

A mind in error unable to admit it.

Unter,

You're a really interesting guy. Truly. I admire the fact that you have worked out your theory and you can adequately defend it against good counter argument. (Unfortunately this does not mean you're right) I also admire that you don't really lose your rag, despite provacation. Well done!

If the Mind is not physical but something else non-physical ... then ....

How could it become lazy? Only organic physical entities become tiring and lazy as their energy source depletes.

How could it lend itself to error? What can possibly malfunction in a non-physical thing.

 

[untermensche]

A lazy mind.

A mind in error unable to admit it.

Unter,

You're a really interesting guy. Truly. I admire the fact that you have worked out your theory and you can adequately defend it against good counter argument. (Unfortunately this does not mean you're right) I also admire that you don't really lose your rag, despite provacation. Well done!

If the Mind is not physical but something else non-physical ... then ....

How could it become lazy? Only organic physical entities become tiring and lazy as their energy source depletes.

How could it lend itself to error? What can possibly malfunction in a non-physical thing.

I never said the mind is not physical.

If the mind is something generated by brain activity and brain activity is physical then the mind is physical.

Why some minds force their body to do a lot and some minds force their body to do very little is nothing I could explain.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Because I use my mind to move my arm as my mind chooses.

I do it every day. I have done it for years.

What possible reason is there to doubt this experience?

How you could possibly KNOW that it's the mind and not the brain that moves the arm.
EB

I am a mind not a brain.

if a brain creates me I am still not a brain. I am a creation of a brain.

I move the arm at my will.

Whatever... How do you KNOW it's the mind and not the brain that moves the arm?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I never said the mind is not physical.

If the mind is something generated by brain activity and brain activity is physical then the mind is physical.

Why some minds force their body to do a lot and some minds force their body to do very little is nothing I could explain.

It's not just that. There's nothing you can explain, full stop.

For example, can you explain how you KNOW that "the mind is something generated by brain activity"?

Also, how do you KNOW it's the mind and not the brain that moves the arm?

See, there's nothing you can explain, nothing at all.
EB

 

[Grendel]

A lazy mind. A mind in error unable to admit it.

Unter,

How could it become lazy? Only organic physical entities become tiring and lazy as their energy source depletes. How could it lend itself to error? What can possibly malfunction in a non-physical thing.

I never said the mind is not physical. If the mind is something generated by brain activity and brain activity is physical then the mind is physical.

Think about this carefully. Physical means 'subject to the Laws of Physics'.

If the Mind is physical that means a surgeon could expose it just like exposing the brain.
If the Mind is physical it would generate mass under acceleration because that's what it means to be subject to the Laws of Physics.
If the Mind is separate from the Brain, then it can be weighed separately, because that's what physical means.

You said Science knows nothing about the Mind. Science may not know a lot about the Mind as Entity, but it does know a great deal about the Laws of Physics.

Do you still say the Mind is physical?

 

[untermensche]

I never said the mind is not physical. If the mind is something generated by brain activity and brain activity is physical then the mind is physical.

Think about this carefully. Physical means 'subject to the Laws of Physics'.

If the Mind is physical that means a surgeon could expose it just like exposing the brain.
If the Mind is physical it would generate mass under acceleration because that's what it means to be subject to the Laws of Physics.
If the Mind is separate from the Brain, then it can be weighed separately, because that's what physical means.

You said Science knows nothing about the Mind. Science may not know a lot about the Mind as Entity, but it does know a great deal about the Laws of Physics.

Do you still say the Mind is physical?

Some people think the mind is some kind of quantum effect that is not understood.

A surgeon would not expose a quantum effect. It is not something that can be seen.

It is not something that could be weighed or ever touched.

You do admit you are a mind forcing your hands to type words?

 

[untermensche]

I am a mind not a brain.

if a brain creates me I am still not a brain. I am a creation of a brain.

I move the arm at my will.

Whatever... How do you KNOW it's the mind and not the brain that moves the arm?
EB

I have no reason to doubt it.

Why would I doubt clear experience?

Because you don't understand what is going on?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

How do you KNOW it's the mind and not the brain that moves the arm?

I have no reason to doubt it.

And there it is.

 

[ruby sparks]

How do you KNOW it's the mind and not the brain that moves the arm?

I have no reason to doubt it.

And there it is.

Actually, it would be more accurate for him to say that he personally feels that there is no reason to doubt it. There are in fact many reasons, empirical and philosophical, to doubt it, and they have been put to him many times. He just rejects them out of hand. It's a common feature of dogmatic beliefs.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I am a mind not a brain.

if a brain creates me I am still not a brain. I am a creation of a brain.

I move the arm at my will.

Whatever... How do you KNOW it's the mind and not the brain that moves the arm?
EB

I have no reason to doubt it.

Why isn't science a good reason for you to doubt that it's the mind that moves the arm?
EB

 

[untermensche]

I have no reason to doubt it.

Why isn't science a good reason for you to doubt that it's the mind that moves the arm?
EB

Science has no understanding of the mind.

It does not even know what the objective mind is.

It has nothing to make me doubt.

- - - Updated - - -

How do you KNOW it's the mind and not the brain that moves the arm?

I have no reason to doubt it.

And there it is.

Yes.

A rational position.

Based on the only evidence at hand.

 

[untermensche]

And there it is.

Actually, it would be more accurate for him to say that he personally feels that there is no reason to doubt it. There are in fact many reasons, empirical and philosophical, to doubt it, and they have been put to him many times. He just rejects them out of hand. It's a common feature of dogmatic beliefs.

If you could present an argument you believed in you would just do it.

Like I do it.

You would not merely talk about arguments that if made have been addressed and shown to be fallacious.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Actually, it would be more accurate for him to say that he personally feels that there is no reason to doubt it.

Let's unpack that and use UM's terminology and ontology such that, from now on I will use "mind" to refer to UM.

What the "mind" just stated was that the "mind" has no reason to doubt that it--the "mind"--moves the arm because that is its "clear experience." Yet, previously, the "mind" stated that it instructed the brain to move the arm via a mechanism the “mind” calls “will”:

The will is part of the mind.

The will commands the brain to move the arm.

These are both assertions of objective conditions. The problem being, that the “mind” has also stated (in its very first post itt no less):

That there may be something objective behind some of the experiences and not others is a subjective hypothesis.

And then later:

The objective is hypothesized, believed to be there.

There is no way to prove using only experience, and that is all that is available, that anything besides experience exists.

In spite of this (from another thread):

I am saying...that it is unlikely the subjective exists without something objective as the cause.

And this:

What is this "evidence" you speak of?

You mean the subjective experience of something?

There is nothing else.

And this:

How do we know about this "evidence"?

All we know are our experiences.

The rest is hypothesis.

And this:

There is no knowledge of the objective.

Only faith it is behind experience.

In contradiction to this:

I state facts.

But here’s a more direct example of the “mind’s” ontology fucking itself:

No amount of experiences of a table will prove the table is there.

Yet, the objection condition of the “will” being “part of the mind” and that it “commands the brain to move the arm” is somehow exempt from this maxim.

And then, of course, this tangle of objective declarations:

Nothing shows the dumb brain as opposed to the smart mind more than sciatica.

The dumb brain senses pressure or some other irritant to the nerve at the level of the lumbar spine as a problem with the leg. It creates the sensation of an injured leg.

Not back pain. Severe leg pain.

The dumb mechanical brain fails in it's duty to inform the mind in this instance.

While of course the smart mind figures out what is really happening.

Which is directly contradicted by this:

It's called a reflex. A stimulus creates a response....The brain does not know what the signal means. It just responds reflexively and translates the signal into something a mind can experience.

So, in the case of sciatica, it translates the signal into “injured leg.” But how could it? And consistently, too? A one-off might be explicable in light of the “mind’s” ontology, but to consistently mis-translate?

And how does the “mind” know it’s not “injured leg” if that’s what it experiences? Why suddenly does investigation change the experience? Why does figuring out “what is really happening” suddenly transport us from the subjective experience to the objective condition of "not injured leg, injured back"?

In short, the "mind" is totally full of shit.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing shows the dumb brain as opposed to the smart mind more than sciatica.

The dumb brain senses pressure or some other irritant to the nerve at the level of the lumbar spine as a problem with the leg. It creates the sensation of an injured leg.

Not back pain. Severe leg pain.

The dumb mechanical brain fails in it's duty to inform the mind in this instance.

While of course the smart mind figures out what is really happening.

Which is directly contradicted by this:

It's called a reflex. A stimulus creates a response....The brain does not know what the signal means. It just responds reflexively and translates the signal into something a mind can experience.

So, in the case of sciatica, it translates the signal into “injured leg.” But how could it? And consistently, too? A one-off might be explicable in light of the “mind’s” ontology, but to consistently mis-translate?

And how does the “mind” know it’s not “injured leg” if that’s what it experiences? Why suddenly does investigation change the experience? Why does figuring out “what is really happening” suddenly transport us from the subjective experience to the objective condition of "not injured leg, injured back"?

In short, the "mind" is totally full of shit.

Here is the only substance.

Again, nothing but ignorance posing as an argument. With some baseless incredulity.

In the case of sciatica the nerve that travels down the leg is somehow being irritated at the level of the lumbar spine. Usually the irritation is compression. If the disc herniates this can cause a very painful compression with severe pain in the leg.

The brain is getting some kind of information from the nerves that travel into the leg.

The brain is reflexively turning this into the sensation of pain in the leg for the mind to experience.

Evidence the brain is not thinking about the information.

This all fits perfectly within my ontology.

Once again you have no point.

how does the “mind” know it’s not “injured leg” if that’s what it experiences?

We use MRI to diagnose the problem.