Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne

[untermensche]

The mind is not a function of the brain.

Some think it is some kind of unknown quantum effect.

Unter,

This is a strange claim.

The whole Universe and everything in it is a quantum effect....

Then it would be strange if the mind was not.

Do you understand that if the Mind is a product of some 'unknown' quantum effect then the Mind is simply a function of the brain. There is no escape from this conclusion.

No. Mind is a creation of some unknown subset of activity of the brain.

The mind is a function of the activity. An effect that arises out of the activity. Not a meaningless distinction.

Completely unknown activity.

- - - Updated - - -

Same old same old same old ..........

You bastardized my comments.

Turned them into total worthless shit.

Illuminated them as such.

By totally changing them?

Is drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa illuminating it?

 

[4321lynx]

UM said

By totally changing them?

Is drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa illuminating it?

I changed nothing. Dragged them into daylight fully expecting that your mind, a function of your brain, would kick and scream about it for a long time.

And it was not on your Mona Lisa, it was on a copy of it.

 

[Grendel]

Mind is a creation of some unknown subset of activity of the brain.

The mind is a function of the activity. An effect that arises out of the activity. Not a meaningless distinction.

Completely unknown activity

You keep saying this but it doesn't really make sense does it?

If the mind is a creation of the brain (through brain activity, subset of activity if you like) then it can only be a function of the brain.

For example, if the brain ceases all activity, then the (unknown) subset of activity must also cease. What happens then?

Does the Mind disappear with the ceasing of brain activity? This would prove it is a function of the brain.

Or does the Mind continue on? Proving it is an entity in itself, which you are claiming.

And why must this 'completely unknown activity' be unknown? Do you mean it is impossible for us (our minds .. hehee) to know it?

Is it hidden from us by some universal consciousness and we can't know the secret?

Or are our Minds just too dumb to understand this completely-unknown-activity?

But even more interesting, is, how do you know this completely-unknown-activity is unknown? Is it just unknown by you?

 

[untermensche]

Mind is a creation of some unknown subset of activity of the brain.

The mind is a function of the activity. An effect that arises out of the activity. Not a meaningless distinction.

Completely unknown activity

You keep saying this but it doesn't really make sense does it?

If the mind is a creation of the brain (through brain activity, subset of activity if you like) then it can only be a function of the brain.

Not if it is a created entity with the ability to have feedback on brain activity.

It would only take the smallest change in activity. The brain could amplify the smallest change of the right kind.

For example, if the brain ceases all activity, then the (unknown) subset of activity must also cease. What happens then?

I'm talking about an intact normally functioning brain.

What most people have.

The mind cannot exist apart from a brain.

But that does not mean it can't have feedback influence on the activity that creates it.

 

[Grendel]

This thread has become a waste ground.

Those of Unter's and Speakpigeon's views cannot change their minds in the face of direct attacks. It's the imputation that they are wrong that they resent. And it's that that they are defending in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to their views.

Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for everyone thinks himself so abundantly provided with it that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess.--DESCARTES.
.

In 1920 JAMES HARVEY ROBINSON wrote a book called 'THE MIND IN THE MAKING ...The Relation of Intelligence to Social Reform'. And here it is 2020, 100 years later and we still have people in this thread propounding views that were debunked 100 years ago. Here are a few excerpts. (The book is available at the Gutenberg Press.)

The truest and most profound observations on Intelligence have in the
past been made by the poets and, in recent times, by story-writers.
They have been keen observers and recorders and reckoned freely with
the emotions and sentiments. Most philosophers, on the other hand,
have exhibited a grotesque ignorance of man's life and have built up
systems that are elaborate and imposing, but quite unrelated to actual
human affairs. They have almost consistently neglected the actual
process of thought and have set the mind off as something apart to be
studied by itself.

But no such mind, exempt from bodily processes,
animal impulses, savage traditions, infantile impressions, conventional
reactions, and traditional knowledge, ever existed_, even in the case
of the most abstract of metaphysicians. Kant entitled his great work
_A Critique of Pure Reason_. But to the modern student of mind pure
reason seems as mythical as the pure gold, transparent as glass, with
which the celestial city is paved.

Formerly philosophers thought of mind as having to do exclusively with
conscious thought. It was that within man which perceived, remembered,
judged, reasoned, understood, believed, willed. But of late it has
been shown that we are unaware of a great part of what we perceive,
remember, will, and infer; and that a great part of the thinking of
which we are aware is determined by that of which we are not conscious.
It has indeed been demonstrated that our unconscious psychic life far
outruns our conscious. This seems perfectly natural to anyone who
considers the following facts:

The sharp distinction between the mind and the body is, as we shall
find, a very ancient and spontaneous uncritical savage prepossession.
What we think of as "mind" is so intimately associated with what we
call "body" that we are coming to realize that the one cannot be
understood without the other. Every thought reverberates through the
body, and, on the other hand, alterations in our physical condition
affect our whole attitude of mind. The insufficient elimination of the
foul and decaying products of digestion may plunge us into deep
melancholy, whereas a few whiffs of nitrous monoxide may exalt us to
the seventh heaven of supernal knowledge and godlike complacency. And
vice versa, a sudden word or thought may cause our heart to jump,
check our breathing, or make our knees as water. There is a whole new
literature growing up which studies the effects of our bodily
secretions and our muscular tensions and their relation to our
emotions and our thinking.

Then there are hidden impulses and desires and secret longings of
which we can only with the greatest difficulty take account. They
influence our conscious thought in the most bewildering fashion. Many
of these unconscious influences appear to originate in our very early
years. The older philosophers seem to have forgotten that even they
were infants and children at their most impressionable age and never
could by any possibility get over it.

The term "unconscious", now so familiar to all readers of modern works
on psychology, gives offense to some adherents of the past. There
should, however, be no special mystery about it.

It is not a new animistic abstraction, but simply a collective word to include
all the physiological changes which escape our notice, all the forgotten
experiences and impressions of the past which continue to influence
our desires and reflections and conduct, even if we cannot remember
them. What we can remember at any time is indeed an infinitesimal part
of what has happened to us. We could not remember anything unless we
forgot almost everything. As Bergson says, the brain is the organ of
forgetfulness as well as of memory. Moreover, we tend, of course, to
become oblivious to things to which we are thoroughly accustomed, for
habit blinds us to their existence. So the forgotten and the habitual
make up a great part of the so-called "unconscious".

 

[untermensche]

UM said

By totally changing them?

Is drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa illuminating it?

I changed nothing.

I totally disagree.

If you had an argument and not silliness you would have made it.

 

[Grendel]

when anyone questions our belief and opinions. We
sometimes find ourselves changing our minds without any
resistance or heavy emotion, but if we are told that we
are wrong we resent the imputation and harden our hearts. We are
incredibly heedless in the formation of our beliefs, but find
ourselves filled with an illicit passion for them when anyone proposes
to rob us of their companionship. It is obviously not the ideas
themselves that are dear to us, but our self-esteem, which is
threatened. We are by nature stubbornly pledged to defend our own from
attack, whether it be our person, our family, our property, or our
opinion. A United States Senator once remarked to a friend of mine
that God Almighty could not make him change his mind on our
Latin-America policy. We may surrender, but rarely confess ourselves
vanquished. In the intellectual world at least peace is without
victory.

Few of us take the pains to study the origin of our cherished
convictions; indeed, we have a natural repugnance to so doing. We like
to continue to believe what we have been accustomed to accept as true,
and the resentment aroused when doubt is cast upon any of our
assumptions leads us to seek every manner of excuse for clinging to
them. _The result is that most of our so-called reasoning consists in
finding arguments for going on believing as we already do_.

And .....

The "real" reasons for our beliefs are concealed from ourselves as
well as from others. As we grow up we simply adopt the ideas presented
to us in regard to such matters as religion, family relations,
property, business, our country, and the state. We unconsciously
absorb them from our environment. They are persistently whispered in
our ear by the group in which we happen to live. Moreover, as Mr.
Trotter has pointed out, these judgments, being the product of
suggestion and not of reasoning, have the quality of perfect
obviousness, so that to question them is to the believer
to carry skepticism to an insane degree, and will be met by
contempt, disapproval, or condemnation, according to
the nature of the belief in question. When, therefore, we find
ourselves entertaining an opinion about the basis of which there is
a quality of feeling which tells us that to inquire into it would be
absurd, obviously unnecessary, unprofitable, undesirable, bad form,
or wicked, we may know that that opinion is a nonrational one, and
probably, therefore, founded upon inadequate evidence.

Opinions, on the other hand, which are the result of experience or of
honest reasoning do not have this quality of "primary certitude". I
remember when as a youth I heard a group of business men discussing
the question of the immortality of the soul, I was outraged by the
sentiment of doubt expressed by one of the party. As I look back now I
see that I had at the time no interest in the matter, and certainly no
least argument to urge in favor of the belief in which I had been
reared. But neither my personal indifference to the issue, nor the
fact that I had previously given it no attention, served to prevent an
angry resentment when I heard _my_ ideas questioned.

This spontaneous and loyal support of our preconceptions--this process
of finding "good" reasons to justify our routine beliefs--is known to
modern psychologists as "rationalizing"--clearly only a new name for a
very ancient thing. Our "good" reasons ordinarily have no value in
promoting honest enlightenment, because, no matter how solemnly they
may be marshaled, they are at bottom the result of personal preference
or prejudice, and not of an honest desire to seek or accept new
knowledge.

In our reveries we are frequently engaged in self-justification, for
we cannot bear to think ourselves wrong, and yet have constant
illustrations of our weaknesses and mistakes. So we spend much time
finding fault with circumstances and the conduct of others, and
shifting on to them with great ingenuity the on us of our own failures
and disappointments. _Rationalizing is the self-exculpation which
occurs when we feel ourselves, or our group, accused of
misapprehension or error._

The little word _my_ is the most important one in all human affairs,
and properly to reckon with it is the beginning of wisdom. It has the
same force whether it is _my_ dinner, _my_ dog, and _my_ house,
or _my_ faith, _my_ country, and _my God_. We not only resent the
imputation that our watch is wrong, or our car shabby, but that our
conception of the canals of Mars, of the pronunciation of "Epictetus",
of the medicinal value of salicine, or the date of Sargon I, are
subject to revision.

Philosophers, scholars, and men of science exhibit a common
sensitiveness in all decisions in which their _amour propre_ is
involved. Thousands of argumentative works have been written to vent a
grudge. However stately their reasoning, it may be nothing but
rationalizing, stimulated by the most commonplace of all motives.
A history of philosophy and theology could be written in terms of
grouches, wounded pride, and aversions, and it would be far more
instructive than the usual treatments of these themes. Sometimes,
under Providence, the lowly impulse of resentment leads to great
achievements. Milton wrote his treatise on divorce as a result of his
troubles with his seventeen-year-old wife, and when he was accused of
being the leading spirit in a new sect, the Divorcers, he wrote his
noble _Areopagitica_ to prove his right to say what he thought fit,
and incidentally to establish the advantage of a free press in the
promotion of Truth.

And the link to the full book here


Greg

 

[untermensche]

This thread has become a waste ground.

Those of Unter's and Speakpigeon's views cannot change their minds in the face of direct attacks. It's the imputation that they are wrong that they resent. And it's that that they are defending in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to their views.

Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for everyone thinks himself so abundantly provided with it that those
even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else do not
usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already
possess.--DESCARTES.

In 1920 JAMES HARVEY ROBINSON wrote a book called 'THE MIND IN THE MAKING ...The Relation of Intelligence to Social Reform'

And here it is 2020, 100 years later and we still have people in this thread propounding views that were debunked 100 years ago.

Here are a few excerpts. (The book is available at the Gutenberg Press.)

The truest and most profound observations on Intelligence have in the
past been made by the poets and, in recent times, by story-writers.
They have been keen observers and recorders and reckoned freely with
the emotions and sentiments. Most philosophers, on the other hand,
have exhibited a grotesque ignorance of man's life and have built up
systems that are elaborate and imposing, but quite unrelated to actual
human affairs. They have almost consistently neglected the actual
process of thought and have set the mind off as something apart to be
studied by itself. _But no such mind, exempt from bodily processes,
animal impulses, savage traditions, infantile impressions, conventional
reactions, and traditional knowledge, ever existed_, even in the case
of the most abstract of metaphysicians. Kant entitled his great work
_A Critique of Pure Reason_. But to the modern student of mind pure
reason seems as mythical as the pure gold, transparent as glass, with
which the celestial city is paved.

Formerly philosophers thought of mind as having to do exclusively with
conscious thought. It was that within man which perceived, remembered,
judged, reasoned, understood, believed, willed. But of late it has
been shown that we are unaware of a great part of what we perceive,
remember, will, and infer; and that a great part of the thinking of
which we are aware is determined by that of which we are not conscious.
It has indeed been demonstrated that our unconscious psychic life far
outruns our conscious. This seems perfectly natural to anyone who
considers the following facts:

The sharp distinction between the mind and the body is, as we shall
find, a very ancient and spontaneous uncritical savage prepossession.
What we think of as "mind" is so intimately associated with what we
call "body" that we are coming to realize that the one cannot be
understood without the other. Every thought reverberates through the
body, and, on the other hand, alterations in our physical condition
affect our whole attitude of mind. The insufficient elimination of the
foul and decaying products of digestion may plunge us into deep
melancholy, whereas a few whiffs of nitrous monoxide may exalt us to
the seventh heaven of supernal knowledge and godlike complacency. And
vice versa, a sudden word or thought may cause our heart to jump,
check our breathing, or make our knees as water. There is a whole new
literature growing up which studies the effects of our bodily
secretions and our muscular tensions and their relation to our
emotions and our thinking.

Then there are hidden impulses and desires and secret longings of
which we can only with the greatest difficulty take account. They
influence our conscious thought in the most bewildering fashion. Many
of these unconscious influences appear to originate in our very early
years. The older philosophers seem to have forgotten that even they
were infants and children at their most impressionable age and never
could by any possibility get over it.

The term "unconscious", now so familiar to all readers of modern works
on psychology, gives offense to some adherents of the past. There
should, however, be no special mystery about it. It is not a new
animistic abstraction, but simply a collective word to include all the
physiological changes which escape our notice, all the forgotten
experiences and impressions of the past which continue to influence
our desires and reflections and conduct, even if we cannot remember
them. What we can remember at any time is indeed an infinitesimal part
of what has happened to us. We could not remember anything unless we
forgot almost everything. As Bergson says, the brain is the organ of
forgetfulness as well as of memory. Moreover, we tend, of course, to
become oblivious to things to which we are thoroughly accustomed, for
habit blinds us to their existence. So the forgotten and the habitual
make up a great part of the so-called "unconscious".

That excerpt has nothing to say about my position which is a physiological and philosophical position.

The mind arises because of specific activity.

My only claim is that the mind can have a feedback effect on the activity that creates it.

This is beyond science at this time.

Science has nothing to say about the mind.

Science does not know what it is.

All research relies on subjective reports to know what is happening in the mind.

 

[Grendel]

That excerpt has nothing to say about my position which is a physiological and philosophical position. My only claim is that the mind can have a feedback effect on the activity that creates it. This is beyond science at this time.

Science has nothing to say about the mind. Science does not know what it is.

Unter,

Your posts are getting a little sillier, a little more defensive, a little more shrill, and your original distinctions have morphed into defensiveness. However, chill Dude, it's all good

You don't need to fight, to prove you're right ...


Out here in the fields
I fight for my meals
I get my back into my living
I don't need to fight
To prove I'm right
I don't need to be forgiven

Don't cry
Don't raise your eye
It's only teenage wasteland
. Baba O'Reilly .... The Who

 

[untermensche]

That excerpt has nothing to say about my position which is a physiological and philosophical position. My only claim is that the mind can have a feedback effect on the activity that creates it. This is beyond science at this time.

Science has nothing to say about the mind. Science does not know what it is.

Unter,

Your posts are getting a little sillier, a little more defensive, a little more shrill, and your original distinctions have morphed into defensiveness.

Your posts do not address mine in the least.

You have abandoned addressing my positions.

Or better yet advancing your own position.

You are babbling to yourself.

Like some crazy person.

And posting insane non sequiturs.

A good song from when music was great but it has absolutely nothing to say here.

 

[Grendel]

Your posts do not address mine in the least. You have abandoned addressing my positions. You are babbling to yourself. Like some crazy person.

Hmmmmm ..... Perhaps you are right? Perhaps I'm wrong.

I think you have a fine mind )) which has become mis-directed.

If you are right, then unfortunately you have failed to articulate your hypothesis so that I can understand it. But no problem, I'm probably just some crazy person who can't understand simple logic.

May I summarise your hypothesis as I see it? As I interpreted your posts?

Thank you in advance, so kind ...

Unter's MIND
The Brain is part of the physical body.
The Brain is a material organ, like the heart and the stomach.
The Brain, unlike the heart or stomach, carries out some unknown physical function. A subset-func.
This subset-func gives rise to the Mind.

The Mind is not a material organ.
The Mind controls the actions of the body and the Brain (consciousness and unconsciousness?)
The Mind exists as it's own Entity.

Science has nothing to say about the Mind.
Science does not know what it is.

If my summary of your hypothesis is correct. (I'm aware that it may not be, no need to get angry) then surely Occam's Razor would show that the Mind is an unnecessary stage ... the Brain can do it all. If you don't understand what I'm saying then let me make it simpler. Why hypothesise a Mind? Why is it necessary? Why not just call it a Brain ... why add a middleman called the Mind when it serves no purpose?

Let me put it another way.
I say the Brain regulates and thinks for the Body.
You say No, a middleman is required .. and so the Mind is hypothesised.

I say I and Unter are good people by Nature
The Pope says No, a middleman is required .. and so God is hypothesised.

Why is a middleman necessary?

 

[untermensche]

The Mind is not a material organ.

It is a phenomena that arises due to the activity of an organ.

It is not mysterious.

The Mind controls the actions of the body and the Brain (consciousness and unconsciousness?)

The mind has limited control over some things.

The will is part of the mind.

The will commands the brain to move the arm.

Try it.

The Mind exists as it's own Entity.

"Entity".

What specifically it is we have no clue.

Science has nothing to say about the Mind.
Science does not know what it is.

One follows the other.

if you do not even know what something is you can't say anything about it.

If my summary of your hypothesis is correct. (I'm aware that it may not be, no need to get angry) then surely Occam's Razor would show that the Mind is an unnecessary stage ... the Brain can do it all.

The mind makes decisions based on ideas. Based on beliefs. Based on a response to emotion.

The brain is cells that can emit molecules.

It is robotic and reflexive and can only operate on existing mechanisms. Ideas cannot influence it.

A brain needs a mind to operate using ideas.

Since I have the sensation of controlling the movement of the arm Occam's Razor would say this is a superfluous redundancy if the brain is doing it.

 

[Grendel]

if you do not even know what something (the mind) is you can't say anything about it.

You seem to have a lot to say about it and you freely admit you don't know what it is?

A brain needs a mind to operate using ideas.

This doesn't answer anything does it? You're not accepting my alternate proposal, ie: The Brain has it's own ideas (Occam's Razor)

You can't just say the Brain 'needs' the Mind and expect that to be understood, and when it's not understood call those who don't understand it crazy persons.

WHY DOES THE BRAIN NEED A MIND TO OPERATE? PLEASE ANSWER IN DETAIL

 

[untermensche]

if you do not even know what something (the mind) is you can't say anything about it.

You seem to have a lot to say about it and you freely admit you don't know what it is?

I started a whole thread talking about the distinction between the subjective mind and the objective mind.

The subjective mind is beyond study but we still know what our experiences are.

We know we must do something in our minds to move the arm.

The objective mind is what science can study and what science presently has no clue about what it is.

A brain needs a mind to operate using ideas.

This doesn't answer anything does it?

Of course it does.

The mind as evolved control mechanism.

Able to control in ways a mechanical brain cannot control.

Like control with ideas. Ideas are creations appreciated in a mind. To the brain they are just activity without any understanding.

 

[Grendel]

Like control with ideas. Ideas are creations appreciated in a mind. To the brain they are just activity without any understanding.

According to Natural Selection there is a need for all successful mutations. Bacteria don't have Brains. Homo Sapiens have Brains. So between us and the first bacteria a Brain was selected for.

OK ... Can we agree on that much?


You're making the claim that a Brain cannot appreciate ideas or creations ... and therefore a Mind was selected for to act as the middleman

QUESTION 1: How do you know a Mind exists when Science doesn't? What evidence do you have?
QUESTION 2: Was a Mind selected for in the process of Natural Selection?
QUESTION 3: How do you know, or what scientific process leads you to believe, that a Brain does not understand Ideas and Creations ?


It's not enough to say, 'Brains are dumb, therefore something else is needed .. I know ... A Mind is needed, an imaginary thing, it'll make the perfect go-between'.

Please answer EACH question as best you can, but answer each question clearly.

 

[untermensche]

Brains were selected for what?

The biomass of bacteria is greater than humans.

 

[Grendel]

Unter. Please, Just try to answer the questions.


QUESTION 1: How do you know a Mind exists when Science doesn't? What evidence do you have?
QUESTION 2: Was a Mind selected for in the process of Natural Selection?
QUESTION 3: How do you know, or what scientific process leads you to believe, that a Brain does not understand Ideas and Creations ?


It's not enough to say, 'Brains are dumb, therefore something else is needed .. I know ... A Mind is needed, an imaginary thing, it'll make the perfect go-between'.

Please answer EACH question as best you can, but answer each question clearly.

 

[untermensche]

Unter. Please, Just try to answer the questions.

QUESTION 1: How do you know a Mind exists when Science doesn't? What evidence do you have?

Mind is just a word we give to that which experiences.

I experience therefore I am a mind.

QUESTION 2: Was a Mind selected for in the process of Natural Selection?

Once a controlling agent that gives the organism a survival advantage arrives it most definitely will be selected for and will remain and will change over time.

QUESTION 3: How do you know, or what scientific process leads you to believe, that a Brain does not understand Ideas and Creations ?

The brain works with cells and with chemicals and has blood constantly moving.

It does not work with ideas. It cannot. It can't know anything.

Something created by a brain could.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Seems to me you would do well to drop the pretence you understand these things and start to pay attention to what people actually say. Understanding the world requires humilityEB

Hmmmmmm .... I leave you in peace. I think we understand each other a little better now, don't you? ... heheeee

Turns out, I didn't need to wait for your second post to understand enough of you.

I didn't see you showing you understood what I said.

But just out of interest why is humility necessary to understand the world?

It's pretty obvious we tend to believe our own ideas and overestimate their value. The notion we better adopt a critical attitude to our own ideas isn't new. Easier said than done, though.

Still, you should try it.

Unter has just claimed that we need a 'mind' and a 'will' and 'memory'. He also says he doesn't know what a mind is caused by.

How many 'things' does a philosopher need? Can you just make them up as you require them?

You'll have to ask our specialist here. UM is all intuition and zero rationality. Critical thinking is a crucial aspect of rationality (I should in fact say a critical aspect of it), so UM doesn't understand the word. Without it, you're stuck with your intuitions, which may or may not be very good. He's unable to look at his intuitions about the infinite with a critical eye and so take them as Gospel truth. Now, he's not the only one here and many people come to accept what they've learnt as the Gospel truth, whatever the reason, although probably human nature is reason enough.

Critical thinking also requires to be scrupulous about what you think and say. Most people here are much too careless in how they express their views to have any meaningful debate.

And there are other things you'd need. But, hey, seems enough for now for you to consider.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

According to Natural Selection there is a need for all successful mutations. Bacteria don't have Brains. Homo Sapiens have Brains. So between us and the first bacteria a Brain was selected for.

That's just bad metaphysics. Selection doesn't care about anything. Nothing is "selected for".
EB