Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne

[untermensche]

Your ontology does not allow you to assert such a belief. So what are you basing that assertion upon?

Your case rests on a putrid dodge.

Something is done in the mind to move the arm. A mental command is given.

My ontology includes the mind.

The mind is that which experiences, all it experiences and some of what it has experienced, and all it can do.

That is the mind.

You can deal with it or dodge it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Your ontology does not allow you to assert such a belief. So what are you basing that assertion upon?

Your case rests on a putrid dodge.

Demonstrably false as all of the detailed argumentation you continue to avoid illustrates.

Something is done in the mind to move the arm.

So now it's in the "mind." And how exactly do you arrive at this assertion?

A mental command is given.

So now the "mind" is both "mental" and capable of giving a "command." To...?

My ontology includes the mind.

And shoes include laces, but that doesn't mean laces can just magically command the shoes to walk.

The mind is that which experiences

So you keep asserting.

all it experiences and some of what it has experienced

What does this mean? The mind has a meta understanding of the context and content of what it experienced? How?

You have repeatedly asserted that it is the brain that translates information for the mind to experience, which necessarily means that the "mind" is only "experiencing" the stories the brain creates. But the brain is unreliable. So the "mind" of your ontology necessarily only experiences the brain's stories.

It has no capacity--no ability--to independently verify or directly experience any of the content--the "things"--of the experiences, so it can only know that it experiences. That is the full extent of its capabilities under your ontology. What the "things" are that the brain makes up for it are completely outside its capacity for understanding under your ontology and even if they somehow were, because the brain is unreliable, the "mind" can't ever be sure what the "things" are the brain has translated for it.

That kind of meta understanding could only be possible if the "mind" were the brain and had the same information as the brain and the same understanding of the information that the brain evidently has in order for it to translate the information for the "mind" to experience, etc., etc., etc. Iow, "mind" MUST BE "brain" for it to even have a chance at being capable of independent verification of what the brain translates.

You don't get to just make up anything you want in order to gloss over these fatal flaws. The ontology has to stand on its own and it clearly does not.

and all it can do. That is the mind.

"All it can do." And that means what, exactly? The "mind" is suddenly omnicapable? It can puppeteer the brain and the body? How? It's entire existence is generated by the brain and anything it experiences is nothing more than stories imbued to it by the brain, who is an unreliable narrator.

It can't know anything outside of what the brain generates. It has no corporeal existence for it to in turn directly instruct the body to do anything. It is not an organ inside the brain physically connected to the nervous system or muscular system such that it could directly send an impulse, so how, exactly does it have any dominion at all over the function of the body?

You can deal with it or dodge it.

I have directly dealt with it twice now and exhaustively detailed why it fails and what questions YOU must exhaustively answer. You are very clearly the one dodging it.

 

[untermensche]

Something is done in the mind to move the arm.

So now it's in the "mind." And how exactly do you arrive at this assertion?

The experience of doing something with the mind is in the mind.

A mental command is given.

So now the "mind" is both "mental" and capable of giving a "command." To...?

Not "now". It has been my position from the beginning.

Your failures to understand my position is not an argument.

The mind can act. We commonly call this ability the "will".

I have said it over and over.

My ontology includes the mind.

And shoes include laces, but that doesn't mean laces can just magically command the shoes to walk.

That is perhaps the most worthless dodge I, a mind that can act, has ever experienced.

The mind is that which experiences

So you keep asserting.

It's a self evident truism.

The mind is just the label we give to that which experiences and all it experiences and all it can do.

You are arguing against self evident truisms.

Truisms like to experience requires that which CAN experience and something TO experience.

 

[4321lynx]

All that exists to a subjective mind trapped somewhere are the experiences of that mind.

We are subjective minds that seem to have a body at our control. We know the subjective and nothing else.

We know the experience of the table. It's appearance. It's hardness. It's weight and mass. These are all experiences.

Never is there anything but an experience.

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

Yes and no.

The bolded part is definitely wrong. We have a body, which serves to service a brain which, among a host of other functions, produces something we call a mind which, among a host of other functions produces consciousness and thought; and so on, until "we" reach the entries in this thread. Or seems to.

The brain, or Central Nervous System, produces and directs the mind. Much, or in many cases most, of its function is unconscious and depends on the CNS's degree of development, its physio-chemo-electro-magnetic environment, as well as its hormonal environment, its psychological environment produced by its other functions and influenced by nutrition, drugs, fatigue, sleep deprivation, education level, previous experience or lack of it, tradition of nearby other brains and forces of nature, religion, physical injuries, pathogenic invasion, malfunction etc etc etc, all of these acting on one another severally or individually in a dynamic equilibrium in this polyphasic system.

No brain, no mind. Damaged brain, damaged mind whether uncompensated or compensated.

The mind has no influence on the brain apart from changing/correcting the brain's environment. It certainly does not have control of the body or brain except in very, very rare cases and even then to a limited degree of control.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The mind is just the label we give to that which experiences and all it experiences and all it can do.

You are arguing against self evident truisms.

Bullshit! The mind is "just": that which experiences and all it experiences and all it can do.

Your intellectual fraud is the only thing self-evident here.

 

[untermensche]

The mind is just the label we give to that which experiences and all it experiences and all it can do.

You are arguing against self evident truisms.

Bullshit! The mind is "just": that which experiences and all it experiences and all it can do.

Your intellectual fraud is the only thing self-evident here.

Mind is a human label.

It is that which experiences and all it experiences. It moves the body. It makes the hands type out specifically chosen words.

I can't speak about what I may be talking to.

 

[4321lynx]

Your ontology does not allow you to assert such a belief. So what are you basing that assertion upon?

Your case rests on a putrid dodge.

Something is done in the mind to move the arm. A mental command is given.

My ontology includes the mind.

The mind is that which experiences, all it experiences and some of what it has experienced, and all it can do.

That is the mind.

You can deal with it or dodge it.

A mosquito takes off and flies.

Does the mosquito have a mind? Or is it an automaton, its CNS produced by its parents' DNA's?

An amoeba encircles and "digests" something and expels the waste. Evidence of a "mind"? Of a CNS?

Where does the mind begin, or seem to begin?

Deal with it or dodge it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Mind is a human label.

Convenient backpedal.

It is that which experiences and all it experiences.

So, let's unpack this now, since you've redefined terms. "That which experiences" we've already addressed. On to "all it experiences."

By this I assume you mean that the "mind" is the culmination of its experiences, or are you arguing that it has meta understanding of "all it experiences"?

Because your previous ontology being redefined now held that it was the brain that created/translated/imbued the "mind" with the content of the "experiences."

Iow, the mind only saw the movies the brain made for it to see. So it never--ever--experiences any of the content the brain translates, it only ever experiences the translation of the content by the brain.

So in your now expanded ontology, we have this order of events:

1. Brain translates information about an objective universe received from the various sensory input devices collectively referred to as a "body";
2. Brain somehow imbues the translation--the now [i[]subjective[/i] interpration the brain translated from the information from the various senaroy input devices--to the "mind";
3. Mind "experiences" only the brain's translation/interpretation (i.e., watches the movie);
4. Mind somehow magically has a meta-understanding/verification process independent of brain that allows it to discern "all it experiences" from the brain's translations, and then, again, somehow

5. It moves the body. It makes the hands type out specifically chosen words.

So, to recap your now arbitrarily expanded ontology, the "mind" has impossible meta-understanding and the independent ability to verify the veracity of the brain's stories in order to parse the distinct "things it experiences" as objectively true experiences (i.e., the content, not merely the act of experiencing) AND it now somehow has direct physical control over the body and the autonomy to direct physical actions.

Iow, it's the brain.

I can't speak about what I may be talking to.

That has been abundantly clear throughout all of this mess (and in the other thread).

 

[4321lynx]

To continue...

A Venus' flytrap has a mind? It obviously can count and tell time . It must have a CNS or a clock.

The Venus flytrap (also referred to as Venus's flytrap or Venus' flytrap), Dionaea muscipula, is a carnivorous plant native to subtropical wetlands on the East Coast of the United States in North Carolina and South Carolina.[3] It catches its prey—chiefly insects and arachnids—with a trapping structure formed by the terminal portion of each of the plant's leaves, which is triggered by tiny hairs on their inner surfaces.

When an insect or spider crawling along the leaves contacts a hair, the trap prepares to close, snapping shut only if another contact occurs within approximately twenty seconds of the first strike. Triggers may occur if one-tenth of the insect is within contact.[4] The requirement of redundant triggering in this mechanism serves as a safeguard against wasting energy by trapping objects with no nutritional value, and the plant will only begin digestion after five more stimuli to ensure it has caught a live bug worthy of consumption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_flytrap

"Metaphysic" that anyone?

 

[Speakpigeon]

But I never said that did I? I said I said there is a probability, (meaning a possibility) that nothing exists outside your head. And that's all the difference in the world. Why did you cut the word 'probability' out of my post, and then tell me I'm mistaken? Your claim is now unsubstantiated, strike 1.

You're just squandering my time. This is just tedious.

That's what you said:

When you truly believe the probability that 'nothing' exists (not a probability in QM btw) outside your head, as you do, then it becomes impossible to answer your challenge. Can you see that?

So, to repeat, I don't believe the probability that 'nothing' exists".

The rest of you post is of the same cloth. There it goes down the chute.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Your ontology does not allow you to assert such a belief. So what are you basing that assertion upon?

Your case rests on a putrid dodge.

Something is done in the mind to move the arm. A mental command is given.

My ontology includes the mind.

The mind is that which experiences, all it experiences and some of what it has experienced, and all it can do.

That is the mind.

You can deal with it or dodge it.

A mosquito takes off and flies.

Does the mosquito have a mind? Or is it an automaton, its CNS produced by its parents' DNA's?...

We can't answer that question.

It certainly does not have a human mind. Or even a mammalian mind.

What it has we have no clue.

 

[untermensche]

Convenient backpedal.

Your lack of full understanding is not an argument.

the "mind" has impossible meta-understanding

A conclusion pulled from thin air.

The mind is that which experiences.

That which it experiences exists within the mind. It is not out in the world.

So the mind is that which experiences and all it experiences.

And the arm can be moved at will.

This is also done with the mind.

All of this makes up the human mind.

These are clear observations, not conclusions.

 

[DrZoidberg]

To continue...

A Venus' flytrap has a mind? It obviously can count and tell time . It must have a CNS or a clock.

The Venus flytrap (also referred to as Venus's flytrap or Venus' flytrap), Dionaea muscipula, is a carnivorous plant native to subtropical wetlands on the East Coast of the United States in North Carolina and South Carolina.[3] It catches its prey—chiefly insects and arachnids—with a trapping structure formed by the terminal portion of each of the plant's leaves, which is triggered by tiny hairs on their inner surfaces.

When an insect or spider crawling along the leaves contacts a hair, the trap prepares to close, snapping shut only if another contact occurs within approximately twenty seconds of the first strike. Triggers may occur if one-tenth of the insect is within contact.[4] The requirement of redundant triggering in this mechanism serves as a safeguard against wasting energy by trapping objects with no nutritional value, and the plant will only begin digestion after five more stimuli to ensure it has caught a live bug worthy of consumption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_flytrap

"Metaphysic" that anyone?

It's debatable. But almost all animals have the same set of neuro receptors we do. Which suggests they have something similar to what we do. The difference is a question of degree, rather than any fundamental quality.

But I think the difference between plants and animals, as far as autonomy and mind goes, isn't as big as we like to believe. When a tree is hit by an axe it sends signals to other parts of the tree, and it takes mitigating steps. That's the exact same function pain has in humans.

I think everything living on Earth has something analogous to a mind.

 

[untermensche]

All that exists to a subjective mind trapped somewhere are the experiences of that mind.

We are subjective minds that seem to have a body at our control. We know the subjective and nothing else.

We know the experience of the table. It's appearance. It's hardness. It's weight and mass. These are all experiences.

Never is there anything but an experience.

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

Yes and no.

The bolded part is definitely wrong. We have a body, which serves to service a brain which, among a host of other functions, produces something we call a mind which, among a host of other functions produces consciousness and thought; and so on, until "we" reach the entries in this thread. Or seems to.

The brain, or Central Nervous System, produces and directs the mind.

The brain creates the mind but does not direct it.

The mind directs the brain.

The mind directs the body.

Mental stress destroys the body.

No brain, no mind.

No mind no purposeful activity.

No architecture.

No literature.

No art.

No mind = a dumb brain that can only operate on reflex.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The mind is that which experiences.

Already granted.

That which it experiences exists within the mind.

Non-sequitur. The mind is generated by the brain. How is there now a place "within" the mind for "experiences" (i.e., a brain's story) to "exist" and what does that even mean?

It is not out in the world.

Also already granted. Again, "experiences" are the brain's translation of sensory information provided by the body and imbued to the "mind." This is your ontology based on your assertions.

So the mind is that which experiences and all it experiences.

Non-sequitur. Nothing in your ontology allows for the incoherent assertion that the "mind" is "all it experiences." The phrase "all it experiences" is vague, undefined and subject to equivocation. It does not stand on its own no matter how many times you repeat it for the reasons already given that you are clearly avoiding.

And the arm can be moved at will.

Non-sequitur and incoherent. Define "will." Detail precisely how something generated by the brain to experience suddenly now has a physical, corporeal existence, a "will" and the capacity to directly send signals to the body's muscular system.

This is also done with the mind.

Baseless assertion. Your ontology does not allow you to derive or even infer such a belief, let alone assert it is based on "observation" as you do next.

If you mean observation of another, that would necessarily entail a story created by your brain and "told" to your "mind" not anything objective and all of the problems of brain being an unreliable narrator obtain.

If you mean observation made by the "mind," then you are claiming meta-capacities of the "mind" that somehow allow it to observe its own mental process somehow transcend the corporeal and physically direct chemical signals to the muscular system.

These are clear observations

Your ontology does not allow for any such "observations" but even if it did, they are by no means "clear."

What is clear is that only you are pulling this shit out of your ass, while petulantly avoiding all of the fatal flaws already exhaustively detailed.

 

[untermensche]

That which it experiences exists within the mind.

Non-sequitur.

Wrong.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That which it experiences exists within the mind.

Non-sequitur.

Wrong.

Undeniably true.

 

[Grendel]

So, prove to me that evidence is something that exists outside our heads.
EB

So, to repeat, I don't believe the probability that 'nothing' exists" (outside the head).

If you don't believe the possibility that nothing exists outside your mind, then why do you state this below?

please note that the rest of Wiki's explanation does apply to untermensche's view (and my own): (B) "knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind".

These two claims of yours are in direct contradiction! Why would anyone give your posts any credibility at all? Your back-pedalling and obfuscating. Strike 3.

 

[untermensche]

Wrong.

Undeniably true.

Oh well.

You've had your say and proved nothing.

Mind is a word to describe that which experiences.

It also describes all that is experienced.

All that is experienced with and in a mind.

It also describes something that has limited power.

It can command the body to move.

It can form arguments.

All of this is mind.

This is our starting point.

 

[4321lynx]

No comment on the amoeba? btw it's an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entamoeba_histolytica

and UM said

The brain creates the mind but does not direct it.

Wrong.