Do minds exist?

[none]

It's absurd to deny the brain

Where does the concept of "brain" exist? Where do all concepts exist?

Only in the mind.

sadly you need to be educated that the brain is responsible for thought and motor control.

 

[untermensche]

Where does the concept of "brain" exist? Where do all concepts exist?

Only in the mind.

sadly you need to be educated that the brain is responsible for thought and motor control.

You have this mass of tissue in your skull that was created according to your genetic endowment.

I have a mass of tissue in my skull too. And it was created according to my genetic endowment.

Your genetic endowment is very similar but also different from mine.

We actually have different things in our skulls.

But we label them both "brains" as if they are the same thing.

 

[fromderinside]

Our main difference is one of us talks to himself while the other communicates with others.

The notion that we can use our minds to declare there are no minds is too absurd to take seriously.

The notion that there is a 'we' or 'I' that uses something called a mind which is unspecified, assumed to be nervous system and endocrine system, is laughable. What if the 'we' or 'I' and why does it make us go. If you are saying it is what is articulate as what the brain and endocrine systems does with information that explains how the body act acts, you might be forgiven. But no. You claim it is the master agent that orchestrates even what the brain and endocrine systems do. Invisible, unembodied, free willing, deciding, without apparent need of what is being processed by other human systems.

Give it a rest. Climb, if possible out of the 13th century and in to the century where humans have learned to pull apart man's machinery to find us animals, yes, to be machines as the rest of our understanding of physics instructs.

I refuse to make space for non-existent mechanisms justifying why we apparently need believe we are something other than mass and matter. I'll leave that to neuroscience which seems to be doing pretty good job. No I don't believe neuroscience is a controlling thing either. I've limited my personal belief maker from that conceit.

 

[blastula]

The notion that we can use our minds to declare there are no minds is too absurd to take seriously.

The notion that there is a 'we' or 'I' that uses something called a mind which is unspecified, assumed to be nervous system and endocrine system, is laughable. What if the 'we' or 'I' and why does it make us go. If you are saying it is what is articulate as what the brain and endocrine systems does with information that explains how the body act acts, you might be forgiven. But no. You claim it is the master agent that orchestrates even what the brain and endocrine systems do. Invisible, unembodied, free willing, deciding, without apparent need of what is being processed by other human systems.

Give it a rest. Climb, if possible out of the 13th century and in to the century where humans have learned to pull apart man's machinery to find us animals, yes, to be machines as the rest of our understanding of physics instructs.

I refuse to make space for non-existent mechanisms justifying why we apparently need believe we are something other than mass and matter. I'll leave that to neuroscience which seems to be doing pretty good job. No I don't believe neuroscience is a controlling thing either. I've limited my personal belief maker from that conceit.

When you said "I refuse," what were you referring to by "I"?

 

[untermensche]

The notion that we can use our minds to declare there are no minds is too absurd to take seriously.

The notion that there is a 'we' or 'I' that uses something called a mind which is unspecified, assumed to be nervous system and endocrine system, is laughable.

This is a product of your mind.

To deny it is to be a blathering idiot.

 

[bilby]

It is better to have a bad plan than no plan at all.

But then a bad plan is not "wrong answer"

It is; unless you are the definition police and have outlawed all previously correct definitions of the word 'wrong' other than your personal favourite.

That's one way to win an argument, I guess. But it lacks subtlety, finesse, or reason.

 

[none]

sadly you need to be educated that the brain is responsible for thought and motor control.

You have this mass of tissue in your skull that was created according to your genetic endowment.

I have a mass of tissue in my skull too. And it was created according to my genetic endowment.

Your genetic endowment is very similar but also different from mine.

We actually have different things in our skulls.

But we label them both "brains" as if they are the same thing.

You are getting close, what does a brain do?

 

[Juma]

But then a bad plan is not "wrong answer"

It is; unless you are the definition police and have outlawed all previously correct definitions of the word 'wrong' other than your personal favourite.

That's one way to win an argument, I guess. But it lacks subtlety, finesse, or reason.

You totally misses the point. It is not abot the answer being magically correct or incorrect in a schoolbook kind of way but wether the answer is a suitable useful answer that is important.

If it is the best possible answer. Why should you call that "wrong"?

 

[bilby]

It is; unless you are the definition police and have outlawed all previously correct definitions of the word 'wrong' other than your personal favourite.

That's one way to win an argument, I guess. But it lacks subtlety, finesse, or reason.

You totally misses the point. It is not abot the answer being magically correct or incorrect in a schoolbook kind of way but wether the answer is a suitable useful answer that is important.

If it is the best possible answer. Why should you call that "wrong"?

A bad plan is NOT the best possible answer. It is just better than no answer at all.

 

[Juma]

You totally misses the point. It is not abot the answer being magically correct or incorrect in a schoolbook kind of way but wether the answer is a suitable useful answer that is important.

If it is the best possible answer. Why should you call that "wrong"?

A bad plan is NOT the best possible answer. It is just better than no answer at all.

The context was that it is better to have "a bad plan than no plan". That is only true if the plan is not really bad. Thus if the answer is not really wrong.

 

[bilby]

A bad plan is NOT the best possible answer. It is just better than no answer at all.

The context was that it is better to have "a bad plan than no plan". That is only true if the plan is not really bad. Thus if the answer is not really wrong.

Meh.

It is needless for us to debate the semantics, because I gave an example so that it would not be unclear what I meant. If you insist that what I must have meant by the word 'wrong' is defined by your opinion, in preference to my example, then there is nothing I can do to help you, so further discussion is futile.

 

[Juma]

The context was that it is better to have "a bad plan than no plan". That is only true if the plan is not really bad. Thus if the answer is not really wrong.

Meh.

It is needless for us to debate the semantics, because I gave an example so that it would not be unclear what I meant. If you insist that what I must have meant by the word 'wrong' is defined by your opinion, in preference to my example, then there is nothing I can do to help you, so further discussion is futile.

To say that an answer is wrong you must at least know the question. What is the question when meeting a lorry on the wrong side?

 

[fromderinside]

The notion that there is a 'we' or 'I' that uses something called a mind which is unspecified, assumed to be nervous system and endocrine system, is laughable.

This is a product of your mind.

To deny it is to be a blathering idiot.

It is a product since it was typed and sensed. Of a mind? Come on. evidence exists in the typing strokes that however the content makes it to output thence to input was aided by repetitive correcting of activity intended but not executed properly because parts of the brain involved in it's creating is messed up by age effects.

 

[untermensche]

This is a product of your mind.

To deny it is to be a blathering idiot.

It is a product since it was typed and sensed. Of a mind? Come on. evidence exists in the typing strokes that however the content makes it to output thence to input was aided by repetitive correcting of activity intended but not executed properly because parts of the brain involved in it's creating is messed up by age effects.

You are blathering.

The mind is an amalgam of many things but at it's core is a center, the self.

 

[none]

oh, now we are defining a mind again and not talking about a mind's existence...
I thought untershech was adamant that it's definition was not going to be discussed, right before the tantrum about 3 year olds...

 

[untermensche]

oh, now we are defining a mind again and not talking about a mind's existence...
I thought untershech was adamant that it's definition was not going to be discussed, right before the tantrum about 3 year olds...

What is the difference between the notion of " the self" and the notion of "the subjective"?

It is just a different way to say the same thing.

 

[none]

oh, now we are defining a mind again and not talking about a mind's existence...
I thought untershech was adamant that it's definition was not going to be discussed, right before the tantrum about 3 year olds...

What is the difference between the notion of " the self" and the notion of "the subjective"?

It is just a different way to say the same thing.

the brain exists, we have empirical evidence
the mind, minds, and a mind seem to be your fantasy
they could exist under the right circumstances

 

[untermensche]

What is the difference between the notion of " the self" and the notion of "the subjective"?

It is just a different way to say the same thing.

the brain exists, we have empirical evidence
the mind, minds, and a mind seem to be your fantasy
they could exist under the right circumstances

We have experiential evidence of our minds and we can see the products of minds.

And so-called "empirical evidence" is evidence that subjective minds agree on.

All evidence is subjective. When a mind experiences a certain thing it calls that thing "evidence".

 

[fromderinside]

When a mind experiences a certain thing it calls that thing "evidence".

No we call that self evidence which is a phenomenon.

From Merriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/blog/shrinkflation-words-were-watching.htm
something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something

1 a: an outward sign :indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter


2
: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
— in evidence1
: to be seen : conspicuous <trim lawns … are everywhere in evidence — American Guide Series: North Carolina>

2 : as evidence

Gee where is it written that a mind experiences? What you seem to be calling 'mind' is usually referred as to 'one' or 'the person', Charley, Sarah, etc. My view is metaphysics is from unimaginative pussies, the lazy, and those hidden in past worlds. We've got something just about as mushy in folk science called 'the brain' which primarily consists of nervous system, endocrine system, sensors, and effectors involved in behaving.

One might analogize mind with memory except that we already know that there are several memories, and, if we listen (we shouldn't) to Sperry and Gazziniga's dualism there are at least two minds. In any case what's in your apple cart is scattered all over the place.

You need something more than self referenced belief if you want to move past about 1600 which is when study of frogs revealed nervous systems transmitted chemicals.

 

[untermensche]

No we call that self evidence which is a phenomenon.

From Merriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/blog/shrinkflation-words-were-watching.htm
something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something

1 a: an outward sign :indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter


2
: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
— in evidence1
: to be seen : conspicuous <trim lawns … are everywhere in evidence — American Guide Series: North Carolina>

2 : as evidence

Gee where is it written that a mind experiences? What you seem to be calling 'mind' is usually referred as to 'one' or 'the person', Charley, Sarah, etc. My view is metaphysics is from unimaginative pussies, the lazy, and those hidden in past worlds. We've got something just about as mushy in folk science called 'the brain' which primarily consists of nervous system, endocrine system, sensors, and effectors involved in behaving.

One might analogize mind with memory except that we already know that there are several memories, and, if we listen (we shouldn't) to Sperry and Gazziniga's dualism there are at least two minds. In any case what's in your apple cart is scattered all over the place.

You need something more than self referenced belief if you want to move past about 1600 which is when study of frogs revealed nervous systems transmitted chemicals.

How tedious.

something which shows that something else exists or is true

What exactly does this "something" show itself to?

The only thing, we know about, that can examine evidence and talk about it is a human mind.

All measurements are examined with a mind. The ruler and what it measures are experienced in a mind.

If minds agree on the appearance (in the mind) of a measurement the evidence is called "objective".