• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne

Doesn't look like human behavior at all.

That looks more like reflexive non-contemplative behavior.

The same behavior over and over. Like a bird building a nest.

That is not planning something then building it then analyzing the building then changing the plans and building something a little different as humans do.

Who knows if a mind is involved?

The human mind is not dependent on there being an ant mind.
 
Explain that link.

What do you think is there?

Just giving a link is mindless.
 
Dualism is the erroneous belief that the mind is a seperate entity to the Brain.

Idealism say there is no such thing as Brain, only Mind exists

It's not hard to see using scientific evidence that both of the above ideas are fallacious.

Materialism holds that mental phenomena are identical to nueronal phenomena. And this, through scientific testing has been proven true. There is no longer a mind-body problem. The only problem we're left with is how to 'de-brief' all those who cannot detach from either of the first two ideas

:)
 
Grendel said:
Dualism is the erroneous belief that the mind is a seperate entity to the Brain.
Click to expand...

Dualism is the idea that there are two substances.

The mind and the body.

But the body is not a substance.

Idiocy is the idea that the mind and the brain are the same thing.
 
untermensche said:
Grendel said:
Dualism is the erroneous belief that the mind is a seperate entity to the Brain.
Click to expand...

But the body is not a substance.

Idiocy is the idea that the mind and the brain are the same thing.
Click to expand...

Then put me down with the idiots, because we're all mindless but only the idiots know it .... heheeee :)


(just out of interest what is the body if it's not substance)
 
You just formed some half-baked ideas with your mind and forced your hands to type them out with your mind.

You use your mind to claim you have no mind.

Absolute absurdity!
 
untermensche said:
OK.

So you have no point.

Do you believe you are freely saying the things you say?

Or are you just an observer?

Or are you observing but not even an observer?

Could something that is not free answer these questions freely?
Click to expand...

Your ramblings brought me around to reconsidering tegmenta. Yes, the same tegmentum found first in ancient vertebrates and seen by Crick as the basis for consciousness and self awareness. There are many tegmentum awarenesses, modelling operations actually, all going on doing different sizing and planing operations just like those in reptiles or even manta Rays guiding cataloging sense and effector directions. Only these more modern versions are found in cortex as neural nets are doing it unconnected to sense or effector at attending tasks for this or that reason related to whatever the organism is emerged in wherever it is doing.

They aren't 'free' anything, just alternative consciousnesses rising up and taking over now and then for some unremembered purpose to carry out their staging of things.

When psychologists study social cognition, they often focus on something called theory of mind, the ability to understand the possible contents of someone else’s mind. Some of the more complex examples are limited to humans and apes. But experiments show that a dog can look at another dog and figure out, “Is he aware of me?” Crows also show an impressive theory of mind. If they hide food when another bird is watching, they’ll wait for the other bird’s absence and then hide the same piece of food again, as if able to compute that the other bird is aware of one hiding place but unaware of the other. If a basic ability to attribute awareness to others is present in mammals and in birds, then it may have an origin in their common ancestor, the reptiles. In the AST’s evolutionary story, social cognition begins to ramp up shortly after the reptilian wulst evolved. Crocodiles may not be the most socially complex creatures on earth, but they live in large communities, care for their young, and can make loyal if somewhat dangerous pets.

If AST is correct, 300 million years of reptilian, avian, and mammalian evolution have allowed the self-model and the social model to evolve in tandem, each influencing the other. We understand other people by projecting ourselves onto them. But we also understand ourselves by considering the way other people might see us. Data from my own lab suggests that the cortical networks in the human brain that allow us to attribute consciousness to others overlap extensively with the networks that construct our own sense of consciousness.
Click to expand...

From: A New Theory Explains How Consciousness Evolved: A neuroscientist on how we came to be aware of ourselves. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/how-consciousness-evolved/485558/

Bottom line is we aren't doing anything freely it's all about which what-if are we going to land on next. Your tegmentum is continuously monitoring your senses and effectors modelling what is happening and different about-to-happens and just-happeneds while parts of the cortex are modelling many other what-if scenarios related to this or that attention getting event which may be promoted to awareness at any time depending on circumstances.

Your view of mind and consciousness untermenche is all just plain bad 2400 year old based fiction.
 
Yes. The mind is an evolved "entity" with many capabilities.

Since nobody has the slightest clue what it is objectively nobody can say how it came about.

A part of the mind is that it is something capable of being aware of things.

Like you, a mind, is aware of these stories.

If only you could use your mind to make a point.

But perhaps unlike me you are not capable of autonomously forming ideas.

If you think anything in that article shows how the phenomena of something experiencing is created you are a lost lost puppy.

It is a bunch of wild speculations and no explanations of anything.

Your mind is satisfied with so little. Nothing actually.
 
All you have is blather.

It is clear that vertebrates became conscious when they developed tegmentum on top of sense, effector, and motive structures. It is more clear that mammals are developing self awareness as are some birds. In both cases there is co-indicent development of CNS. Well demonstrated, well researched.

You, on the other hand are arguing with irrelevant words based on denial of evidence without ever resorting to demonstrating how evidence others present is wrong.

life has developed multiple instances of multiple capabilities in multiple ways and multiple examples of multiple capabilities exist in every human with counter capabilities at the ready.

Until you come to terms with such as the current state of attention research, awareness research, and predictive behavior research by demonstrating some facility with them in your arguments you probably should just be put on ignore by most.

So show me your evidence of entity beyond your hand wave, your evidence for mind beyond hand wave, your evidence for will beyond hand wave and I'll be glad to help you understand why those terms are really not very useful since they are just subjective placeholders for behavior of which users of such have no evidence in support beyond silly stuff like 'self evident'.

Sherrington had evidence for synapse even though it had not been demonstrated at the time. A few years later the chemical nature of information transport across the synaptic cleft was demonstrated anas were it's mechanisms. Try to use that model like Crick used that model to fabricate his model for the understructure of consciousness which is now pretty clearly demonstrated through evolutionary behavior, neural activity, and genetic codes and elaborated products.

Fortunately you are not a road block, just an irritation needing education so knowledge of mankind's capacities and processes will go on without your clatter now.
 
fromderinside said:
It is clear that vertebrates became conscious when they developed tegmentum on top of sense, effector, and motive structures.
Click to expand...

Tell me how the phenomena of experiencing is created.

Please be specific.

How does the brain create the experience of blue and how specifically does the experience of blue occur? That is an understanding.

You are simply naming parts of a brain and spinning wild tales.

And then claiming an understanding of the mind.

That you don't have a clue it is ALL you're doing is amusing.
 
Not a single piece of evidence reported from your keyboard. Are you a Robot?

As for how maybe you need to read a little Koch and Crick, actually Koch since the SA article is from 2016.

If you want to test this from your own experience try moving your arm unexpectedly. I suggest unexpectedly because one is often surprised and needs respond appropriately very quickly. Not possible is it. Why? Models were already in place trending to other actions. What animals among the kingdom show such behavior? Rays for one.

Next.
 
Naming a part of the brain and making up a bunch of fictional stories based only on subjective knowledge is stupidity.
 
Never have I said the brain cannot reflexively move the body.

I have said that the mind can move the body too.

There is a difference between voluntary and involuntary movement.

Involuntary movement is spastic and lacks control. It is senseless, mindless.

It is not the same thing as calmly controlling the arm with the mind to type out the words the mind has chosen to use.

Your position is: Movement is movement.

It is something a person who never had to help anybody or could help anybody could say in ignorance.
 
Uh, there's a difference between unexpectedly and reflexive. Reflexive is predictable, unexpected, by definition isn't predictable.

I didn't say it would be easy for you, but, that was mainly because it's a tough circumstance to set up. However given your response I think the problem is beyond your capacities to accomplish. So never mind.
 
A noise behind you that is unexpected can cause a reflexive turning of the head.

There is reflexive activity with the unexpected.

You step into a hole unexpectedly and reflexes can kick in to try to prevent injury.

There are many stimuli for reflexive activity.

And none of it has anything to do with calmly typing out the words your mind chooses to type out.

None of it has anything to do with the building of a skyscraper.

When will you ever address voluntary purposeful as opposed to reflexive movement?

It exists too.
 
Head turning is a class of reflexive behavior. It is programmed into beings for a reason. Head turning to locate stimulie provide advantage to the being that has the behavior. The refelxive behavior is expected behavior. to anticipated stimulus.

You have a saw. You are on the wrong side of the branch. Don't start cutting. If you do your particular genes will no longer be part of the pool.

Try to construct an intentional act that is unexpected, one that overrides one you have been planning. Both can exist within you at the same time all you havge to do is find a way to elevate one over the other.

But no, you perseverate on a path that isn't even related to the question posed. Not even a faint try untermenche.

You've drawn a red herring across the trail in an attempt to divert from doing anything that might be uncomfortable to you. What a tard.

You aren't discussing you are defending a fixed, hopeless position.
 
You are dancing and waving your arms.

You are not saying anything I don't know. I studied human movement for decades. I have practical real world knowledge about movement.

There is reflexive movement and willed purposeful movement. Mobility is an interplay between the two.

And when a person is under some perceived threat the reflexive part can become more prominent. The brain has the ability to reflexively move the body without the mind knowing the movement is going to occur or without the mind commanding it. This does not eliminate the ability for the mind to at another time command the arm to move.

That is the difference between the two types of movement.

Involuntary: The brain commands.

Voluntary: The mind commands.

You think they are the same thing. Your position is: Movement is movement. And you are even smug about this gross ignorance.

It is because you never had to actually help an unfortunate stroke victim gain productive voluntary control over spastic unproductive reflexes.

You would tell them to stop trying to regain control with their mind, there is no such thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom