Do minds exist?

[Togo]

retarded is the best I can come up with to describe it.

He's right, that is pretty much the best he can come up with.

You've been posting for a while now. Are you likely to come up with a point any time soon, or are you just fishing for reactions on a topic you don't appear to understand?

 

[Juma]

It is in no way retarded. It succintly answered the post it was a reply to.
Do you think it is wrong then please state what is wrong with it.

"Retarded" isnt really that clear...

retarded is the best I can come up with to describe it.
if I asked you to explain it you'd just say it needs no explanation, and you would be right because it is retarded.
i'll wait for you back on topic

What is ot that you dont understand?
That features can be processes?
That matter in fact is dynamic?

 

[Juma]

retarded is the best I can come up with to describe it.

He's right, that is pretty much the best he can come up with.

You've been posting for a while now. Are you likely to come up with a point any time soon, or are you just fishing for reactions on a topic you don't appear to understand?

Who is you talking to and why?

 

[none]

retarded is the best I can come up with to describe it.
if I asked you to explain it you'd just say it needs no explanation, and you would be right because it is retarded.
i'll wait for you back on topic

What is ot that you dont understand?
That features can be processes?
That matter in fact is dynamic?

well when you figure out what can be let me know, I am somewhat interested...

 

[fromderinside]

So you take something that, by nature, is progressive within its process, and use it to exclude something that is, by nature, combinatoric within its process and exclude it from things that prescribes process from discussions of descriptions of process patterns. That would be a bit like saying insects aren't normal evolvers wouldn't it?

If you have even the slightest doubt and show where rocks or planetary geo-evolution are excluded from being described as evolving outside your biocentric spectacled view. As an aid heck out

This is pathetic.

As I already have said several times, humans are free to call any kind of change "evolution".

But biological evolution is not the same thing as rocks being pushed and squeezed and slowly worn away.

One only need be completely ignorant of biological evolution and the phenomena of life to think it is.

Or a pathetic poser.

When we come to understand fitness we'll see the relation between different forms of physical evolution. Until then, take it on faith, fitness, while complex, is every bit as this-causes-that as are every other type of physical evolution, including evolution of rocks.

Please don't take it as different in kind because it is not yet well understood or complex. That sort of taking has been a fools errand since man began to aggregate information. If a chain of related events are robustly physically connected as a process that process will be ultimately described in physical terms of cause and effect.

 

[Juma]

What is ot that you dont understand?
That features can be processes?
That matter in fact is dynamic?

well when you figure out what can be let me know, I am somewhat interested...

So you dont know what it is you dont understand?

 

[none]

well when you figure out what can be let me know, I am somewhat interested...

So you dont know what it is you dont understand?

you haven't said anything.

 

[Juma]

So you dont know what it is you dont understand?

you haven't said anything.

So you did not understand anything... And you dont want to clear things up... Yes... Then that is your problem, not mine.

 

[none]

you haven't said anything.

So you did not understand anything... And you dont want to clear things up... Yes... Then that is your problem, not mine.

That you think you said anything worthwhile says a lot about you.
your responses were retarded.
You're free to evaluate what you said as meaningful but you'd be wrong.

 

[Juma]

So you did not understand anything... And you dont want to clear things up... Yes... Then that is your problem, not mine.

That you think you said anything worthwhile says a lot about you.
your responses were retarded.
You're free to evaluate what you said as meaningful but you'd be wrong.

May you explain why?

 

[untermensche]

This is pathetic.

As I already have said several times, humans are free to call any kind of change "evolution".

But biological evolution is not the same thing as rocks being pushed and squeezed and slowly worn away.

One only need be completely ignorant of biological evolution and the phenomena of life to think it is.

Or a pathetic poser.

When we come to understand fitness we'll see the relation between different forms of physical evolution. Until then, take it on faith, fitness, while complex, is every bit as this-causes-that as are every other type of physical evolution, including evolution of rocks.

Please don't take it as different in kind because it is not yet well understood or complex. That sort of taking has been a fools errand since man began to aggregate information. If a chain of related events are robustly physically connected as a process that process will be ultimately described in physical terms of cause and effect.

The very idea of "fitness" doesn't arise until we have life.

Any rock is equally fit to be pushed and squeezed and worn away.

But with life, some things are more "fit" than others.

So most definitely I am saying that life is a different kind of existence than non-life. There is a clear difference between the two and the things that pertain to life do not necessarily pertain to non-life. Like the existence of minds.

 

[fromderinside]

When we come to understand fitness we'll see the relation between different forms of physical evolution. Until then, take it on faith, fitness, while complex, is every bit as this-causes-that as are every other type of physical evolution, including evolution of rocks.Please don't take it as different in kind because it is not yet well understood or complex. That sort of taking has been a fools errand since man began to aggregate information. If a chain of related events are robustly physically connected as a process that process will be ultimately described in physical terms of cause and effect.

The very idea of "fitness" doesn't arise until we have life.Any rock is equally fit to be pushed and squeezed and worn away.But with life, some things are more "fit" than others. So most definitely I am saying that life is a different kind of existence than non-life. There is a clear difference between the two and the things that pertain to life do not necessarily pertain to non-life. Like the existence of minds.

Very rational. Very wrong.

Just because we can categorize something at a given level doesn't mean that level of categorization is lawful with respect to that level. The reason reductionist model seems to work is that every time we appear to have laws there comes another wrinkle which demands explanation that requires us to reference a more fundamental level of observation for answers. I've no problem with one using a calculus that 'works' at a given level as long as that calculus can reference and intimately be explained by more fundamental theory and observation. Newtonian theory works for most mechanics but it is better explained by relativity. Mendeleev's theory works fine for armature gardeners but genetic theory supported by relativity works better. etc.

We're not arguing here. We're splitting hairs and making it sound like there is something real behind our disagreement.

So you go ahead and elude yourself that the mind is real. I'm confident better results are available if one tries to understand why something that evolves guided by probability in increments depending on local conditions produces an integrated something upon the previous collage called a 'mind' rather than organizing elements in a cobbled reactive machine.

 

[untermensche]

...So you go ahead and elude yourself that the mind is real...

There is no doubt it is real. It is the thing most real.

What it is is the only question.

Dennet loves to talk about "wonder tissue" and the fact that there is no such thing in the brain.

But physics tells us it is all "wonder tissue". Matter is not something understood. It is only described. It does things that can't be explained, like be in two places at once.

 

[fromderinside]

But physics tells us it is all "wonder tissue". Matter is not something understood. It is only described. It does things that can't be explained, like be in two places at once.

I like 'elude'. It gets the message across and it saves keystrokes.

Yeah, but the description works like a charm. If you have something with which to replace it so that a mind is an integrated thing in the brain brought about by random, situational, happenstances, surviving, in a mechanistic winding down world be our guest. Describe how your theory can be validated or falsified.

You have the floor.

 

[untermensche]

But physics tells us it is all "wonder tissue". Matter is not something understood. It is only described. It does things that can't be explained, like be in two places at once.

I like 'elude'. It gets the message across and it saves keystrokes.

Yeah, but the description works like a charm. If you have something with which to replace it so that a mind is an integrated thing in the brain brought about by random, situational, happenstances, surviving, in a mechanistic winding down world be our guest. Describe how your theory can be validated or falsified.

You have the floor.

To elude implies both an eluder and that which is eluded.

If there is an eluder then there is a mind.

The models work but they describe what "nature" does, not what it is. Not what it may be capable of.

Gravity does such and such. What it is is unknown. Even saying it is bent space just begs the question; What is space?

But this goes into left field.

Ultimately I see no argument from you at all. Talking about rocks doesn't say a thing about the mind. Life is a unique direction of matter that does it's own thing.

 

[fromderinside]

I like 'elude'. It gets the message across and it saves keystrokes.

Yeah, but the description works like a charm. If you have something with which to replace it so that a mind is an integrated thing in the brain brought about by random, situational, happenstances, surviving, in a mechanistic winding down world be our guest. Describe how your theory can be validated or falsified.

You have the floor.

To elude implies both an eluder and that which is eluded.

If there is an eluder then there is a mind.

The models work but they describe what "nature" does, not what it is. Not what it may be capable of.

Gravity does such and such. What it is is unknown. Even saying it is bent space just begs the question; What is space?

But this goes into left field.

Ultimately I see no argument from you at all. Talking about rocks doesn't say a thing about the mind. Life is a unique direction of matter that does it's own thing.

You actually dismissed your own contention in your argument. The thing you mention cannot be known if it is like gravity and space. If it isn't like those and it isn't even described by other than self report the scientific thing to do is cut your losses.

 

[untermensche]

To elude implies both an eluder and that which is eluded.

If there is an eluder then there is a mind.

The models work but they describe what "nature" does, not what it is. Not what it may be capable of.

Gravity does such and such. What it is is unknown. Even saying it is bent space just begs the question; What is space?

But this goes into left field.

Ultimately I see no argument from you at all. Talking about rocks doesn't say a thing about the mind. Life is a unique direction of matter that does it's own thing.

You actually dismissed your own contention in your argument. The thing you mention cannot be known if it is like gravity and space. If it isn't like those and it isn't even described by other than self report the scientific thing to do is cut your losses.

Mind is directly perceived. It is the only thing that can be known for certain. Which is not at all saying it is all there is.

 

[none]

That you think you said anything worthwhile says a lot about you.
your responses were retarded.
You're free to evaluate what you said as meaningful but you'd be wrong.

May you explain why?

Because I don't rely on your hallucinations
do minds exist?
What is mind?

 

[untermensche]

do minds exist?
What is mind?

That's two distinct questions.

Does time exist? What is time?

Minds exist, we are using them to post our little sentences here.

What they are is most likely a product of brains, which isn't saying much but isn't saying nothing.

 

[none]

do minds exist?
What is mind?

That's two distinct questions.

Does time exist? What is time?

Minds exist, we are using them to post our little sentences here.

What they are is most likely a product of brains, which isn't saying much but isn't saying nothing.

you don't know what a mind is but subscribe biological processes to it.
cute.