Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne

[fromderinside]

We use MRI to diagnose the problem.

Tell that to the farmer in North Dakota oh city one.

 

[untermensche]

Don't know him.

 

[Grendel]

I never said the mind is not physical. If the mind is something generated by brain activity and brain activity is physical then the mind is physical.

Think about this carefully. Physical means 'subject to the Laws of Physics'.

Do you still say the Mind is physical?

Some people think the mind is some kind of quantum effect that is not understood.
It is not something that can be seen.
It is not something that could be weighed or ever touched.

No Quantum Physicist says the mind is 'some sort of QM effect', only those who know nothing about QM would say that.

If it can't be seen, weighed, touched or understood then it cannot be physical. In your quote above you say the Mind is Physical ... you said that because I pointed out a non-physical Mind could not be in error.

To support your theory you must state whether the Mind is Physical or Non-Physical. You can't just flit between the two depending on what post you're replying to.

The Mind is not a QM effect (anymore than the Brain or stomach or heart is)

So Unter, what's it to be? The Mind IS physical or IS NOT ?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The brain is getting some kind of information from the nerves that travel into the leg.

The brain is reflexively turning this into the sensation of pain in the leg for the mind to experience.

And here's yet another point where it all falls apart. You're saying the brain makes a mistake. But how could it?

According to your ontology, the brain merely reflexively takes the information sent to it from the nervous system and--for some unknown reason--"translates" it into "mind speak" I guess, for the "mind" to "experience," so how could it make a mistake? At what stage is it misinterpreting the signal from the nerve and how could it do that? It can't "interpret" to begin with. In your ontology, it functions as little more than a dumb, reflexive middleman, but how could it translate "pain in back" to "pain in leg," unless it knows the distinction between the two and then chooses the wrong one to tell the "mind"?

So that must mean that the nerve is somehow sending the wrong signal, which in turn means it isn't the brain making a mistake, the nerve is. The brain would just be "dumb" and relating reflexively the nerve's "mistake" for the "mind" to "experience."

But how could a nerve send a wrong signal? It doesn't have that capacity, because, once again, "wrong" is an interpretation and only some "thing" capable of understanding the difference between "right" and "wrong" (or, more accurately, "correct" and "incorrect") could make such an interpretation.

Brain can't do that according to your ontology. That would require it to not be "dumb." Nerve can't either, I presume.

Which means it must be the "mind" that is the one mistaking the pain signal as originating in the leg. But how could that be? It can only experience what the brain has prepared for it.

Evidence the brain is not thinking about the information.

But, again, it must be thinking about the information in order to get it wrong.

At some point, if your ontology holds, then what must be going on in regard to sciatica is that the brain is receiving (at least) two sets of signals; one set is "damage in the leg" and one set is "damage in the back" and because it is "dumb" it can't make a distinction between the two sets of signals, so it sends both signals reflexively. Which in turn means it is the "mind" that makes the mistake in resolving the two sets of signals from the "dumb" brain.

But, again, how could that be? If, in your ontology, it is the brain that prepares all "experience" packages, or whatever the fuck you call them, for the "mind" to experience, and the brain is sending two such conflicting "experience packages" (one "damage in leg" experience package and one "damage in back" experience package), then why is the "mind" consistently choosing the "damage in leg" experience package?

People who suffer from sciatica don't just have a one-time mistaken pain experience; it's always a sensation of a pain in their leg when in fact that damage is in their back. Why? Because the nerve sends the signal down the leg first and then back up the leg passed the pinched area and then to the brain, so the brain receives multiple location signals, not just one. So, is the brain somehow weighting the packages, so that the mind will go with one over the other? That would imply an ability to make not only a distinction, but also a preference AND from there, a deliberately wrong preference, which in turn would mean it can't be "dumb."

But if that were the case, then it would apply such an ability long before sending any experience packages to the "mind" and never choose to deliberately send a wrong experience.

So, we're back to (in your ontology), the brain not making any distinction--it's just reflexively reporting multiple signals--and it is the "mind" that is fucking things up, because it can't figure out which signal is correct. But, again, how could that be if whatever it experiences is, in your words, "all we know"?

Well, you answer that question right here:

how does the “mind” know it’s not “injured leg” if that’s what it experiences?

We use MRI to diagnose the problem.

So, after ALL of that pointlessly tortured horseshit, NOW you're saying that the "mind" can use objects out in the world to know--directly experience--that an experience it had (created reflexively by the brain) was objectively wrong, rendering your entire ontology utterly pointless.

 

[Grendel]

And here's yet another point where it all falls apart. You're saying the brain makes a mistake. But how could it?

According to your ontology, the brain merely reflexively takes the information sent to it from the nervous system and--for some unknown reason--"translates" it into "mind speak" I guess, for the "mind" to "experience," so how could it make a mistake? At what stage is it misinterpreting the signal from the nerve and how could it do that? It can't "interpret" to begin with. In your ontology, it functions as little more than a dumb, reflexive middleman, but how could it translate "pain in back" to "pain in leg," unless it knows the distinction between the two and then chooses the wrong one to tell the "mind"?

So that must mean that the nerve is somehow sending the wrong signal, which in turn means it isn't the brain making a mistake, the nerve is. The brain would just be "dumb" and relating reflexively the nerve's "mistake" for the "mind" to "experience."

But how could a nerve send a wrong signal? It doesn't have that capacity, because, once again, "wrong" is an interpretation and only some "thing" capable of understanding the difference between "right" and "wrong" (or, more accurately, "correct" and "incorrect") could make such an interpretation.

Brain can't do that according to your ontology. That would require it to not be "dumb." Nerve can't either, I presume.

Which means it must be the "mind" that is the one mistaking the pain signal as originating in the leg. But how could that be? It can only experience what the brain has prepared for it.



But, again, it must be thinking about the information in order to get it wrong.

At some point, if your ontology holds, then what must be going on in regard to sciatica is that the brain is receiving (at least) two sets of signals; one set is "damage in the leg" and one set is "damage in the back" and because it is "dumb" it can't make a distinction between the two sets of signals, so it sends both signals reflexively. Which in turn means it is the "mind" that makes the mistake in resolving the two sets of signals from the "dumb" brain.
.

It's actually a bit worse than that isn't it?

Unter has said the Mind is not subject to the Laws of Physics. (Non-physical, cannot be touched) But it is reliant for all it's information on the Brain. Ergo: As the Brain is the ONLY source of data for the mind ... then if the Brain makes a mistake, the Mind must make a mistake. It's in no position to not trust the Brain, is it.

This means that the Mind is entirely subjective to the Brain, and not the opposite. If the Brain says, 'I moved the hand like you told me' but in reality the Brain errored and the hand has not moved, then the Mind is in no position to tell where the hand now is.

This means the Mind is just a function of the Brain and not a separate Entity.

 

[Grendel]

Unter, you seem to have no problem harbouring cognitive dissonance?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Ergo: As the Brain is the ONLY source of data for the mind ... then if the Brain makes a mistake, the Mind must make a mistake. It's in no position to not trust the Brain, is it.

Evidently not anymore. Now the mind can just bypass the brain and turn to the outside world and get an MRI.

 

[untermensche]

Some people think the mind is some kind of quantum effect that is not understood.
It is not something that can be seen.
It is not something that could be weighed or ever touched.

No Quantum Physicist says the mind is 'some sort of QM effect', only those who know nothing about QM would say that....

Have you conducted a survey?

Physicists don't often talk about the mind. They understand they have nothing to say about it.

Here is Freeman Dyson a very respected physicist saying that he thinks the brain makes use of some of the strange effects we see at the quantum level in the creation of the mind. His comment begins at about 1:56:00.

 

[untermensche]

And here's yet another point where it all falls apart. You're saying the brain makes a mistake. But how could it?

There is nothing wrong with the leg.

The pain is in the leg.

The problem is in the back.

How is this not a mistake?

Pain is to inform the animal where there is a problem.

Here the brain fails to do that.

Because the brain is reflexive not contemplative, unlike the mind.

 

[untermensche]

Unter has said the Mind is not subject to the Laws of Physics.

Never said it.

Never came close to saying it.

In fact I have said the exact opposite.

Hard for anything serious to occur if just lies about my position are discussed.

But if something is an unknown effect it is impossible to say how it is effected within the current models of physics.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And here's yet another point where it all falls apart. You're saying the brain makes a mistake. But how could it?

There is nothing wrong with the leg.

The pain is in the leg.

The problem is in the back.

How is this not a mistake?

Yeah, you deliberately avoided all the other parts of my post where that is explored in depth.

 

[Grendel]

I never said the mind is not physical.
If the mind is something generated by brain activity and brain activity is physical then the mind is physical.

This is clearly not true. To be a physical object then it must be measurable, a material object. Can you name one thing that is physical but not material?

Only your mind. So when you say the Mind has NO physical properties, then you are saying the Mind IS NOT physical. That's what physical means, can you see that?

Unter has said the Mind is not subject to the Laws of Physics.

Never said it.
Never came close to saying it.
In fact I have said the exact opposite.

You have said BOTH, and you vary the mix according to whom you're replying too (cognitive dissonance) You can't say the Mind has NO physical properties, AND it's physical as well. You must demonstrate it's Physicality.

Can you do this? If not, then your theory is wrong. It's futile trying to respond that Science doesn't understand, or that there is a magic Quantum effect that nobody understands (snigger )

You have to take a stand.

If the Mind is physical, then you simply have to supply proof. He who asserts must prove.
If the Mind is not physical, then you also have to supply proof. He who asserts must prove.

But you cannot mix the two, unless you want to embarass yourself, the Mind cannot be a bit of both.

So please state, here, now, which it is ... and Unter, attach some kind of proof, even if it's a little bit wobbly, OK?

 

[untermensche]

And here's yet another point where it all falls apart. You're saying the brain makes a mistake. But how could it?

There is nothing wrong with the leg.

The pain is in the leg.

The problem is in the back.

How is this not a mistake?

Yeah, you deliberately avoided all the other parts of my post where that is explored in depth.

No deliberate avoidance of anything of merit.

Which is why all you can do is talk about the alleged great arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you name one thing that is physical but not material?

Magnetic force.

All the forces are physical but not material.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Pathetic.

 

[untermensche]

The great arguments you have but can only write that.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

how does the “mind” know it’s not “injured leg” if that’s what it experiences?

We use MRI to diagnose the problem.

So, after ALL of that pointlessly tortured horseshit, NOW you're saying that the "mind" can use objects out in the world to know--directly experience--that an experience it had (created reflexively by the brain) was objectively wrong, rendering your entire ontology utterly pointless.

 

[untermensche]

There is nothing tortured about any of it.

It is very clear.

The brain has some kind of activity that gives rise to a mind that experiences all things and has the ability to effect the reflexive brain by altering the activity creating it in some way.

Thus the mind moves the arm at will.

Something we all experience everyday.

What is tortured is to say that clear continual experiences are tortured observations.

The mind does not use objects in the world.

It uses experiences of them. Reflexive representations of them.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

how does the “mind” know it’s not “injured leg” if that’s what it experiences?

We use MRI to diagnose the problem.

So, after ALL of that pointlessly tortured horseshit, NOW you're saying that the "mind" can use objects out in the world to know--directly experience--that an experience it had (created reflexively by the brain) was objectively wrong, rendering your entire ontology utterly pointless.

 

[untermensche]

Yeah you said that nonsense already.

The mind does not use objects in the world.

The mind does not experience objects.

You will not find objects in the brain that the mind is experiencing.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

how does the “mind” know it’s not “injured leg” if that’s what it experiences?

We use MRI to diagnose the problem.

So, after ALL of that pointlessly tortured horseshit, NOW you're saying that the "mind" can use objects out in the world to know--directly experience--that an experience it had (created reflexively by the brain) was objectively wrong, rendering your entire ontology utterly pointless.