Do minds exist?

[Juma]

For him it is so because he defined mind such.

This conclusion is the product of your mind.

You couldn't have made it at the age of two.

It took experience for your mind to grow to the point it could make such conclusions.

You are just running in circles.

 

[untermensche]

This conclusion is the product of your mind.

You couldn't have made it at the age of two.

It took experience for your mind to grow to the point it could make such conclusions.

You are just running in circles.

No, I have a position that nobody here can overcome.

A mind is necessary to make any sense of the world. And a very advanced mind is necessary to make conceptions from the world that don't exist in the world.

It is one thing we are absolutely sure about.

When we look at things like color and sound we clearly see these are things that only have existence in minds.

I don't have a clue what people imagine they are making conclusions using concepts with besides their mind?

Just because we clearly admit the existence of minds does not force us into some imaginary duality. We are not forced to divide the world into matter and mind.

But we do have to admit that mind is a property of matter. If the brain is matter and it generates a mind then clearly mind is a property of matter.

 

[Juma]

You are just running in circles.

No, I have a position that nobody here can overcome.

A mind is necessary to make any sense of the world. And a very advanced mind is necessary to make conceptions from the world that don't exist in the world.

It is one thing we are absolutely sure about.

Do you think that you can get concepts from written texts? (As in textbooks in scool)

Then why couldnt that text have been written buy a computer?

 

[none]

prove it

Give a rational objection.

When we say the individual learns something we are saying their mind has expanded, not their brain.

you say a lot and it doesn't add up to more than just words, maybe you'll understand that soon.

Stop your blathering.

You have NOTHING to add.

Step aside and let the adults discuss these matters.

Prove it or puss out.
Here is a rational objection: you have no proof, you are making shit up and it is obvious because you can't even describe what you are talking about.
It would be nice if you could define what a mind is and quit trying to be condescending.
That would be a good step in your maturity.
I'm skeptical of minds, the mind, a mind.
I believe in the existence of brains and their motor control and ability to think, a behavior.
And you can't define mind, you don't have the authority.
In short you don't know what you are taking about.

 

[blastula]

To all who deny there is a mind, what is it that you are referring to when you say "I" or "you"?

 

[fromderinside]

To all who deny there is a mind, what is it that you are referring to when you say "I" or "you"?

It depends. If I am a frog I don't think so its a meaningless notion. If I'm a human I probably refer to what I've remembered. Again saying 'I' isn't necessary since one can have memory and current awareness without language as many hominid and cetacean studies have demonstrated. If saying or thinking "I" is important then you are suggesting that spoken language is necessary to have a notion of self. That notion is falsified with such a mirror recognition studies among some birds, most hominids, the mammal dolphin, and octopus.

So do you have something else with which to defend your notion? If not. Great.

Think about self reference thinking this way. Does our knowing that the sun comes up in the east reflect what the relationship is between the sun and us on the earth? OK. So a social being with several mechanisms for long term awareness and many memory systems including that of self, should saying it be relevant that saying "I" or "you" have any meaning with respect to the nature of human beings?

 

[untermensche]

No, I have a position that nobody here can overcome.

A mind is necessary to make any sense of the world. And a very advanced mind is necessary to make conceptions from the world that don't exist in the world.

It is one thing we are absolutely sure about.

Do you think that you can get concepts from written texts? (As in textbooks in scool)

Then why couldnt that text have been written buy a computer?

What does that have to do with the assurance of our own mind?

I suspect computers will be built that will be able to perform all kinds of tricks.

But it won't change the assurance we have of our own mind.

Those that don't think they have a mind, yet manipulate language and concepts and grammar, are not persuasive.

 

[untermensche]

...It would be nice if you could define what a mind is and quit trying to be condescending....

Some people bring condescension onto themselves.

And this has been covered, there is no necessity to define what a mind is to say there is one.

All that is necessary is first hand experience of one.

It is impossible to experience things that don't exist.

If one has the experience of a mind then mind exists.

My experience of mind is clear to me. I don't have the slightest idea how it is possible for a person to engage here without the experience of their mind being clear to them.

THAT is what needs explaining.

How is it possible for a thing with a mind to not know they have one? What is their blindness?

 

[blastula]

To all who deny there is a mind, what is it that you are referring to when you say "I" or "you"?

It depends. If I am a frog I don't think so its a meaningless notion.

That second sentence is gibberish, and the rest of your reply is nonresponsive to what I asked, except for this part.

If I'm a human I probably refer to what I've remembered.

So when you say "I've remembered," you are saying "what I've remembered" remembered????

But let's say it's given that the "I" refers to what you've remembered, why can't that mean the mind?

 

[fromderinside]

Refer to my comments to blastula​. Not you blastula.

All you need to get past your failure to take in my response is to know that a frod sets up one end of beings that might be said to have a mind.

As for your reverberation response consider that the human has several memories and several long term awarenesses. To which should I be responding as a observant human being when I'm responding to myself, to my mate, to my children, to one who threatens me, to the abstract about which I might be attending? Every "I' is demonstrably different. Using "I" is a convenience which serves our language basis and no more. Consider it a shorthand for thinking about our behaving brain and endicrine system in whatever situation we fined ourselves.

Really. If you can get past what one does routinely you can begin to understand how the mind and "I" get in the way of how we understand ourselves. We are a collection, each of us, that uses these pieces as necessary and convenient to keep from being eaten. The notion of "I" is no more at our center than is the earth at the center of the universe.

 

[blastula]

Prove it or puss out.
Here is a rational objection: you have no proof, you are making shit up and it is obvious because you can't even describe what you are talking about.
It would be nice if you could define what a mind is and quit trying to be condescending.
That would be a good step in your maturity.
I'm skeptical of minds, the mind, a mind.
I believe in the existence of brains and their motor control and ability to think, a behavior.
And you can't define mind, you don't have the authority.
In short you don't know what you are taking about.

I assume you believe in the existence of stomachs. Are you also skeptical of the existence of digestion?

 

[fromderinside]

Prove it or puss out.
Here is a rational objection: you have no proof, you are making shit up and it is obvious because you can't even describe what you are talking about.
It would be nice if you could define what a mind is and quit trying to be condescending.
That would be a good step in your maturity.
I'm skeptical of minds, the mind, a mind.
I believe in the existence of brains and their motor control and ability to think, a behavior.
And you can't define mind, you don't have the authority.
In short you don't know what you are taking about.

I assume you believe in the existence of stomachs. Are you also skeptical of the existence of digestion?

Well since many things digest one might think digestion is important even in organisms without intestines. But really. What is the importance of "I' or mind to a bacteria or rat or , yes, a frog. Yet you probably agree all vertebrates have brains that are evolved from other nervous configurations yet you provide no argument for the existence of mind in any of them other than man.

 

[blastula]

I assume you believe in the existence of stomachs. Are you also skeptical of the existence of digestion?

Well since many things digest one might think digestion is important even in organisms without intestines. But really. What is the importance of "I' or mind to a bacteria or rat or , yes, a frog. Yet you probably agree all vertebrates have brains that are evolved from other nervous configurations yet you provide no argument for the existence of mind in any of them other than man.

I haven't denied that other animals have minds. And you've provided no argument that all brains must be equivalent in function.

 

[blastula]

Refer to my comments to blastula​. Not you blastula.

All you need to get past your failure to take in my response is to know that a frod sets up one end of beings that might be said to have a mind.

As for your reverberation response consider that the human has several memories and several long term awarenesses. To which should I be responding as a observant human being when I'm responding to myself, to my mate, to my children, to one who threatens me, to the abstract about which I might be attending? Every "I' is demonstrably different. Using "I" is a convenience which serves our language basis and no more. Consider it a shorthand for thinking about our behaving brain and endicrine system in whatever situation we fined ourselves.

Really. If you can get past what one does routinely you can begin to understand how the mind and "I" get in the way of how we understand ourselves. We are a collection, each of us, that uses these pieces as necessary and convenient to keep from being eaten. The notion of "I" is no more at our center than is the earth at the center of the universe.

What makes you think that the existence of a mind would deny that we are a behavior the brain?

 

[none]

...It would be nice if you could define what a mind is and quit trying to be condescending....

Some people bring condescension onto themselves.

And this has been covered, there is no necessity to define what a mind is to say there is one.

All that is necessary is first hand experience of one.

It is impossible to experience things that don't exist.

If one has the experience of a mind then mind exists.

My experience of mind is clear to me. I don't have the slightest idea how it is possible for a person to engage here without the experience of their mind being clear to them.

THAT is what needs explaining.

How is it possible for a thing with a mind to not know they have one? What is their blindness?

Your selective acknowledgement of my post is typical of your tantrums.
You are a waste of skin, empty.
You can't define a mind because you don't have authority, you don't know what a mind is, and you certainly don't know the capacity of a brain.
You waste bandwidth with your ranting.

 

[untermensche]

Some people bring condescension onto themselves.

And this has been covered, there is no necessity to define what a mind is to say there is one.

All that is necessary is first hand experience of one.

It is impossible to experience things that don't exist.

If one has the experience of a mind then mind exists.

My experience of mind is clear to me. I don't have the slightest idea how it is possible for a person to engage here without the experience of their mind being clear to them.

THAT is what needs explaining.

How is it possible for a thing with a mind to not know they have one? What is their blindness?

Your selective acknowledgement of my post is typical of your tantrums.
You are a waste of skin, empty.
You can't define a mind because you don't have authority, you don't know what a mind is, and you certainly don't know the capacity of a brain.
You waste bandwidth with your ranting.

You offer NOTHING.

Are you trying to prove you have no mind?

All you're doing is showing you have a poor one.

Try to deal with this: It is impossible to have the experience of things that don't exist.

If a thought is experienced it exists.

And thoughts are experienced by minds.

 

[none]

Your selective acknowledgement of my post is typical of your tantrums.
You are a waste of skin, empty.
You can't define a mind because you don't have authority, you don't know what a mind is, and you certainly don't know the capacity of a brain.
You waste bandwidth with your ranting.

You offer NOTHING.

Are you trying to prove you have no mind?

All you're doing is showing you have a poor one.

Try to deal with this: It is impossible to have the experience of things that don't exist.

If a thought is experienced it exists.

And thoughts are experienced by minds.

I'm just pointing out you offer nothing of substance or value and don't understand the capacity of a brain or a brains ability.
no need to get hostile, just provide an argument that is reasonable, but you can't because the mind, minds, and a mind is fictitious.
have a nice day.
I recognize your empty promises and claims thats all.
An adult would have figured out they were full of shit by now but you seem willfully ignorant.

 

[Juma]

Do you think that you can get concepts from written texts? (As in textbooks in scool)

Then why couldnt that text have been written buy a computer?

What does that have to do with the assurance of our own mind?
.

It was a response to you unsupported statement that awarewness as we human experiences it, are necessary to form concepts and to make sense of the world.

 

[untermensche]

What does that have to do with the assurance of our own mind?
.

It was a response to you unsupported statement that awarewness as we human experiences it, are necessary to form concepts and to make sense of the world.

I said a mind is necessary to make sense of the world.

The very idea of making sense implies a mind.

Minds make sense of things.

All else merely reacts to things.

 

[untermensche]

You offer NOTHING.

Are you trying to prove you have no mind?

All you're doing is showing you have a poor one.

Try to deal with this: It is impossible to have the experience of things that don't exist.

If a thought is experienced it exists.

And thoughts are experienced by minds.

I'm just pointing out you offer nothing of substance or value and don't understand the capacity of a brain or a brains ability.
no need to get hostile, just provide an argument that is reasonable, but you can't because the mind, minds, and a mind is fictitious.
have a nice day.
I recognize your empty promises and claims thats all.
An adult would have figured out they were full of shit by now but you seem willfully ignorant.

You won't engage.

I doubt you could.

But try to explain how you are dealing with these concepts without a mind.

I'm afraid it is so far beyond you I might as well ask a tree.