COLOUR

[DBT]

Your lack of any ideas about it or understanding of it is not an argument.

You have no understanding of the mind beyond your subjective experience of your own mind.

You don't have the slightest clue what a mind is objectively. You know about some correlations but don't even understand this very well. You think a person driving a car with four good tires and driving a car with only two good tires and two flat tires is the same thing.



A mind is not a homunculus.

You just have one bad understanding on top of bad understanding.

You think brains construct minds for no reason. You can't give me one purpose for a mind.

You think brains understand ideas because your mind understands them.

What we call mind or consciousness is, according to all evidence, a collection of abilities, features and attributes of brain activity; an electrochemical process....altered by inputs, chemical or structural changes.

You have no evidence of the objective mind. You don't have the slightest clue what it is. It s a completely unknown phenomena beyond our subjective experience of having a mind. You have subjective reports and correlations and nothing else.

Give me one purpose for a mind?

Why does the brain need some other thing aware of the world (that thing researchers demand reports from so they can pretend to do research about the mind) when it is according to you making all decisions and therefore already aware of the world?

The mind is not a Homunculus, nor did I say it was. It is you who creates a version of an Homunculus with your autonomy of mind belief. If mind has autonomy, it has independence, having independence makes it an entity residing in your skull, acting independently of the brain.

There lies your error.

You don't even understand the implications of your 'mind has independence' belief.

Not to mention the absurdity of believing mind acts independently from the brain in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

 

[untermensche]

Your lack of any ideas about it or understanding of it is not an argument.

You have no understanding of the mind beyond your subjective experience of your own mind.

You don't have the slightest clue what a mind is objectively. You know about some correlations but don't even understand this very well. You think a person driving a car with four good tires and driving a car with only two good tires and two flat tires is the same thing.



A mind is not a homunculus.

You just have one bad understanding on top of bad understanding.

You think brains construct minds for no reason. You can't give me one purpose for a mind.

You think brains understand ideas because your mind understands them.

What we call mind or consciousness is, according to all evidence, a collection of abilities, features and attributes of brain activity; an electrochemical process....altered by inputs, chemical or structural changes.

You have no evidence of the objective mind. You don't have the slightest clue what it is. It s a completely unknown phenomena beyond our subjective experience of having a mind. You have subjective reports and correlations and nothing else.

Give me one purpose for a mind?

Why does the brain need some other thing aware of the world (that thing researchers demand reports from so they can pretend to do research about the mind) when it is according to you making all decisions and therefore already aware of the world?

The mind is not a Homunculus, nor did I say it was. It is you who creates a version of an Homunculus with your autonomy of mind belief. If mind has autonomy, it has independence, having independence makes it an entity residing in your skull, acting independently of the brain.

There lies your error.

You don't even understand the implications of your 'mind has independence' belief.

Not to mention the absurdity of believing mind acts independently from the brain in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

I fully understand the implications of my position. The implications are that the mind has the ability to have feedback influence on the brain in some unknown way. When and if we ever discover what the mind actually is we will understand.

There is no evidence of minds beyond the subjective experience of minds people with minds have. You can't say you have evidence of something when you have no clue what it is and only have correlations and bad conclusions made from correlations.

There are subjective reports given by humans with minds.

That is all science knows about the mind. Science does not have the slightest clue what the mind is. There are correlations between a functioning brain or disturbing the brain and subjective reports and nothing else.

Your position is a bunch of nonsense.

It is pretending to know something about the mind without having the slightest idea what the mind is. Tell me specifically what the mind is. Don't tell me it is some thing that brain activity creates. That is a mere assumption based on correlations.

You are easily dismissed like dismissing a child talking about their imaginary friends.

 

[fromderinside]

You are easily dismissed like dismissing a child talking about their imaginary friends.

.... says the child talking as one of his imaginary friends.

 

[steve_bank]

The mind is not a Homunculus, nor did I say it was. It is you who creates a version of an Homunculus with your autonomy of mind belief. If mind has autonomy, it has independence, having independence makes it an entity residing in your skull, acting independently of the brain.

There lies your error.

You don't even understand the implications of your 'mind has independence' belief.

Not to mention the absurdity of believing mind acts independently from the brain in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

I fully understand the implications of my position. The implications are that the mind has the ability to have feedback influence on the brain in some unknown way. When and if we ever discover what the mind actually is we will understand.

There is no evidence of minds beyond the subjective experience of minds people with minds have. You can't say you have evidence of something when you have no clue what it is and only have correlations and bad conclusions made from correlations.

There are subjective reports given by humans with minds.

That is all science knows about the mind. Science does not have the slightest clue what the mind is. There are correlations between a functioning brain or disturbing the brain and subjective reports and nothing else.

Your position is a bunch of nonsense.

It is pretending to know something about the mind without having the slightest idea what the mind is. Tell me specifically what the mind is. Don't tell me it is some thing that brain activity creates. That is a mere assumption based on correlations.

You are easily dismissed like dismissing a child talking about their imaginary friends.

Specifically hte mind is the workings of our biological neuro net. We know different areas of the brain affect differnt areas pf cognition and perception. I had temporary speech aphasia from a hit on the head that caused pressure on the speech center. For a few weks I could think words, but could not speak.

Neuro scince is not yet at the point of a complete working model of the brain, IOW an artificial human being.

Functions like speech and image recognition are emulated by neural net software based on the brain. Gogle neural nets.

The computer analogy, an AI twisting and turning to grasp the fact that it is a function of electronic circuits.

If you want details read a book on neuroscience and the brain. There are no simplistic philosophical answers.

You are using the word mind withiest definition. What precisely do you mean by mind?

Are you looking for a proof of a mind body duality? Life after physicals death? What is your motivation?

 

[untermensche]

You are easily dismissed like dismissing a child talking about their imaginary friends.

.... says the child talking as one of his imaginary friends.

Says the lost child that claims both the mind and experience are the figments of the imagination of something that doesn't exist.

 

[untermensche]

Specifically hte mind is the workings of our biological neuro net.

That is a general reference to some abstraction.

We know different areas of the brain affect differnt areas pf cognition and perception.

We know very general correlations between areas of the brain and subjective reports.

That is not a million miles from knowing what the mind is.

I had temporary speech aphasia from a hit on the head that caused pressure on the speech center.

Expressive aphasia is correlated to certain areas of the brain.

That does not tell us what the mind is. Only that the mind needs an intact nervous system to be fully expressed.

For a few weks I could think words, but could not speak.

Yes. And to drive a car you need four tires. If you only have three you will not be able to drive that well.

Neuro scince is not yet at the point of a complete working model of the brain, IOW an artificial human being.

Neuroscience does not have the slightest clue what the mind is.

They force subjects to give subjective reports so they can pretend they do.

Functions like speech and image recognition are emulated by neural net software based on the brain. Gogle neural nets.

Neural networks is a crude hypothesis that does not explain the phenomena of experience or the mind in any way.

The computer analogy, an AI twisting and turning to grasp the fact that it is a function of electronic circuits.

Computers do not have minds.

Minds are not computational.

If you want details read a book on neuroscience and the brain. There are no simplistic philosophical answers.

There are no details to read about. All neuroscience has are correlations between areas of the brain and forced subjective reports.

You are using the word mind withiest definition. What precisely do you mean by mind?

That is a valid point but nobody has much of a definition.

The mind is that which experiences. If there is experience that implies some thing that experiences and things it can experience.

The mind is that which experiences everything that is experienced.

The mind also acts. It moves the body and can sometimes think.

Are you looking for a proof of a mind body duality?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

The idea of body/mind duality is a primitive idea.

We do not know what matter is. It is reduced to complicated formulas and poetry.

There is no reason to assume a duality between mind and body.

Life after physicals death? What is your motivation?

What is your motivation?

Is seeking truth not enough?

 

[steve_bank]

That is a general reference to some abstraction.



We know very general correlations between areas of the brain and subjective reports.

That is not a million miles from knowing what the mind is.

I had temporary speech aphasia from a hit on the head that caused pressure on the speech center.

Expressive aphasia is correlated to certain areas of the brain.

That does not tell us what the mind is. Only that the mind needs an intact nervous system to be fully expressed.

For a few weks I could think words, but could not speak.

Yes. And to drive a car you need four tires. If you only have three you will not be able to drive that well.

Neuro scince is not yet at the point of a complete working model of the brain, IOW an artificial human being.

Neuroscience does not have the slightest clue what the mind is.

They force subjects to give subjective reports so they can pretend they do.

Functions like speech and image recognition are emulated by neural net software based on the brain. Gogle neural nets.

Neural networks is a crude hypothesis that does not explain the phenomena of experience or the mind in any way.

The computer analogy, an AI twisting and turning to grasp the fact that it is a function of electronic circuits.

Computers do not have minds.

Minds are not computational.

If you want details read a book on neuroscience and the brain. There are no simplistic philosophical answers.

There are no details to read about. All neuroscience has are correlations between areas of the brain and forced subjective reports.

You are using the word mind withiest definition. What precisely do you mean by mind?

That is a valid point but nobody has much of a definition.

The mind is that which experiences. If there is experience that implies some thing that experiences and things it can experience.

The mind is that which experiences everything that is experienced.

The mind also acts. It moves the body and can sometimes think.

Are you looking for a proof of a mind body duality?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

The idea of body/mind duality is a primitive idea.

We do not know what matter is. It is reduced to complicated formulas and poetry.

There is no reason to assume a duality between mind and body.

Life after physicals death? What is your motivation?

What is your motivation?

Is seeking truth not enough?

Read a book on neuroscience and the brain, then make a case. Truth on the barin is in the books.

What matter is is a nonsense question. We model what we observe with predictive models. There is no scientific definition of matter. We use the SI units of mass and the kilogram to model what we observe.

If there is no reason to assume a duality then the only alternative is the physical brain. You are answering your own question. The fact that as yet there is no comprehensive neural modle is irrelevant to your question.

Instead of mind substitute cognition which in psychology is a branch. Cognitive psychology. I took a class.

Cognitive functions
sight
sound
taste
taste
reasoning
logic... and so on.

The areas of the brain for htese are known.

Based on what I know of logic systems I view the brain as a sort of state machine. In a state of constant flux and change. Thoughts and sense of self, mind, is a system of dynamic logic. It is known that the brain can rewire itself and develop new neuro and structures based on new experiences. Google brain plasticity. a fairly recent development. The brain on its own adapts. Genetic driven capacity.

 

[untermensche]

What matter is is a nonsense question.

To some minds.

 

[fromderinside]

You are easily dismissed like dismissing a child talking about their imaginary friends.

.... says the child talking as one of his imaginary friends.

Says the lost child that claims both the mind and experience are the figments of the imagination of something that doesn't exist.

It's your imaginary friends of which I speak since I presume that is what you are talking about when you speak of figments of something you say is there but for which you can offer no objective evidence that it is there or how it is possible for it to be there. If you aren't speaking about mind and experience, that implies that there is no basis for mind that can experience imaginary friends which, in turn, means you no longer disagree with me.

toot sweet.

 

[DBT]

The mind is not a Homunculus, nor did I say it was. It is you who creates a version of an Homunculus with your autonomy of mind belief. If mind has autonomy, it has independence, having independence makes it an entity residing in your skull, acting independently of the brain.

There lies your error.

You don't even understand the implications of your 'mind has independence' belief.

Not to mention the absurdity of believing mind acts independently from the brain in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

I fully understand the implications of my position. The implications are that the mind has the ability to have feedback influence on the brain in some unknown way. When and if we ever discover what the mind actually is we will understand.

There is no evidence of minds beyond the subjective experience of minds people with minds have. You can't say you have evidence of something when you have no clue what it is and only have correlations and bad conclusions made from correlations.

There are subjective reports given by humans with minds.

That is all science knows about the mind. Science does not have the slightest clue what the mind is. There are correlations between a functioning brain or disturbing the brain and subjective reports and nothing else.

Your position is a bunch of nonsense.

It is pretending to know something about the mind without having the slightest idea what the mind is. Tell me specifically what the mind is. Don't tell me it is some thing that brain activity creates. That is a mere assumption based on correlations.

You are easily dismissed like dismissing a child talking about their imaginary friends.

You say that you fully understand the implications of your position....then proceed to demonstrate that you don't understand the implications of your position.

This remains true regardless of how many posters point out the fallacies, no matter what scientific literature is cited and quoted. You just persist with fallacies you don't appear to recognize.

 

[untermensche]

The mind is not a Homunculus, nor did I say it was. It is you who creates a version of an Homunculus with your autonomy of mind belief. If mind has autonomy, it has independence, having independence makes it an entity residing in your skull, acting independently of the brain.

There lies your error.

You don't even understand the implications of your 'mind has independence' belief.

Not to mention the absurdity of believing mind acts independently from the brain in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

I fully understand the implications of my position. The implications are that the mind has the ability to have feedback influence on the brain in some unknown way. When and if we ever discover what the mind actually is we will understand.

There is no evidence of minds beyond the subjective experience of minds people with minds have. You can't say you have evidence of something when you have no clue what it is and only have correlations and bad conclusions made from correlations.

There are subjective reports given by humans with minds.

That is all science knows about the mind. Science does not have the slightest clue what the mind is. There are correlations between a functioning brain or disturbing the brain and subjective reports and nothing else.

Your position is a bunch of nonsense.

It is pretending to know something about the mind without having the slightest idea what the mind is. Tell me specifically what the mind is. Don't tell me it is some thing that brain activity creates. That is a mere assumption based on correlations.

You are easily dismissed like dismissing a child talking about their imaginary friends.

You say that you fully understand the implications of your position....then proceed to demonstrate that you don't understand the implications of your position.

This remains true regardless of how many posters point out the fallacies, no matter what scientific literature is cited and quoted. You just persist with fallacies you don't appear to recognize.

Your claims are nonsense.

You wouldn't know a rational argument if your life depended on it.

You don't have the slightest idea what the mind is objectively.

But like a child are blind to that fact.

 

[steve_bank]

What matter is is a nonsense question.

To some minds.

Matter is a term for all that exists. There is no what, it just is.

 

[WAB]

What matter is is a nonsense question.

To some minds.

Matter is a term for all that exists. There is no what, it just is.

You sure? Wikipedia sayeth:

In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.[1] All everyday objects that can be touched are ultimately composed of atoms, which are made up of interacting subatomic particles, and in everyday as well as scientific usage, "matter" generally includes atoms and anything made up of them, and any particles (or combination of particles) that act as if they have both rest mass and volume. However it does not include massless particles such as photons, or other energy phenomena or waves such as light.[1]: 21 [2] Matter exists in various states (also known as phases). These include classical everyday phases such as solid, liquid, and gas – for example water exists as ice, liquid water, and gaseous steam – but other states are possible, including plasma, Bose–Einstein condensates, fermionic condensates, and quark–gluon plasma.[3]

- [bold mine] But I know Wiki can be wrong.

 

[steve_bank]

I think that is what I said. There is no precise definition at least as I see it, there is mass in kg as a property of matter.

Matter and energy. I view energy as a relative state of matter that can do work. Gravitational potential energy, falling water turns a turbine for example.

So, to me all that exists is matter. A philosophical view not a scientific one.

To unter's question as I see see it matter is what it is, there is no deeper explanation than reality itself. Atoms and particles however particles are subdivided are all matter. A catch all term.

 

[untermensche]

What matter is is a nonsense question.

To some minds.

Matter is a term for all that exists. There is no what, it just is.

Then there cannot possibly be a duality between minds and matter.

Because minds exist. I at least assume there are other minds than the one I know about.

 

[skepticalbip]

.... paraphrased...
yadda, yadda, experience, yadda, experience, experience, etc.

You say that you fully understand the implications of your position....then proceed to demonstrate that you don't understand the implications of your position.

This remains true regardless of how many posters point out the fallacies, no matter what scientific literature is cited and quoted. You just persist with fallacies you don't appear to recognize.

His posts read, to me, like he has read an article by some fringe philosopher expounding on the old "brain in a jar" argument or more likely watched a Youtube video of it. He didn't really understand it but thought it was cool so added his muddled interpretation of it to the old argument turning it into gibberish.

 

[untermensche]

His posts read, to me, like he has read an article by some fringe philosopher expounding on the old "brain in a jar" argument or more likely watched a Youtube video of it. He didn't really understand it but thought it was cool so added his muddled interpretation of it to the old argument turning it into gibberish.

You read to me like a clueless narcissist that can't respond to one argument I make.

Brain in the jar stuff come's from the fact that all we have are our experiences and the assumptions we make from them.

I don't find it a rational assumption based on my experiences though.

I doubt many think it is a rational assumption.

The rational assumption is our experiences are correlated to something out there, IMO.

But color is not out there. There is no way to demonstrate color is out there.

It is only something experienced.

 

[steve_bank]

His posts read, to me, like he has read an article by some fringe philosopher expounding on the old "brain in a jar" argument or more likely watched a Youtube video of it. He didn't really understand it but thought it was cool so added his muddled interpretation of it to the old argument turning it into gibberish.

Second that thought.

 

[steve_bank]

His posts read, to me, like he has read an article by some fringe philosopher expounding on the old "brain in a jar" argument or more likely watched a Youtube video of it. He didn't really understand it but thought it was cool so added his muddled interpretation of it to the old argument turning it into gibberish.

You read to me like a clueless narcissist that can't respond to one argument I make.

Brain in the jar stuff come's from the fact that all we have are our experiences and the assumptions we make from them.

I don't find it a rational assumption based on my experiences though.

I doubt many think it is a rational assumption.

The rational assumption is our experiences are correlated to something out there, IMO.

But color is not out there. There is no way to demonstrate color is out there.

It is only something experienced.

All we have is our experiences yes, but we have science to give us rational ways to explain the brain and perceptions.

Yet again electromagnetic radiation is out there, we categorize by wavelength or frequency. Blue is an arbitray lanel assigned to a particular wavelength. No different than a word for weight of an object.

Weight is a human word for a measurable quantity. It is all in our heads one way or another.

The eye and brain are hardwired together like the wiring in a house, there is no information, there is detection of wavelengths.

Information is a human invented word as all human words are. There are no absolutes.

 

[untermensche]

You read to me like a clueless narcissist that can't respond to one argument I make.

Brain in the jar stuff come's from the fact that all we have are our experiences and the assumptions we make from them.

I don't find it a rational assumption based on my experiences though.

I doubt many think it is a rational assumption.

The rational assumption is our experiences are correlated to something out there, IMO.

But color is not out there. There is no way to demonstrate color is out there.

It is only something experienced.

All we have is our experiences yes,

Oh? So I am right, and all these pages you and others have argued this point were a waste of my time?

but we have science to give us rational ways to explain the brain and perceptions.

I use nothing but science to make claims about color.

I talk about what the energy is actually doing and draw rational conclusions.

All the energy is doing is causing the isomerization of retinal.

There is no possible way for the nervous system to know what caused the isomerization of retinal or anything about what caused the isomerization of retinal.

To think there is color information in energy passed to the nervous system from energy is to believe in miracles.

Yet again electromagnetic radiation is out there, we categorize by wavelength or frequency.

That is an assumption derived from experience.

Remember one line up when you agreed all we have are our experiences?

Blue is an arbitray lanel assigned to a particular wavelength.

Blue is not assigned to energy.

Blue is an experience correlated with the energy.

But being correct about things only matters to some.

No different than a word for weight of an object.

The weight is a property of the object correlated to it's mass.

Color is not a property of light.

The eye and brain are hardwired together like the wiring in a house, there is no information, there is detection of wavelengths.

Your utter ignorance of how the nervous system works and bad conclusions from bad assumptions are not an argument.

Nothing in the nervous system is hardwired like the wiring of a house.

There is no detection of wavelength by the nervous system.

There are evolved mechanisms that react to the isomerization of retinal. These mechanisms have no way to understand why the retinal transformed. Retinal is not an evolved mechanism. It is a molecule.