The human mind

[Ahab]

You have no clue how a mind exists or what it is.

Certainly untermensche's conception of the mind is much different than yours.

Though I don't agree entrely with his conception, it is certainly much closer to mine than yours or DBT's. The main difference untermensche and I seem to have is that he attribute's mental powers to the mind that I think should be attributed to the human person. At least he does not attribute those powers to the human brain.

The mind is not a thing or entity. Therefore, I don't think the mind is an agent that can act in this world. Rather it is the human person who can reason and act for reasons. Because of that we can say he has a mind.

 

[fromderinside]

The only problem with what you wrote DBT is "conscious decisions" which is something for which there is no basis. So all untermenche is discussing is something that has no physical basis in the terms that you so ably set out.

As humans who communicate in structured sequences with other humans we believe we are conscious else we would have a problem justifying what we are doing even though animals get along quite well without doing that.

So there you are. A metaphysical problem which has no scientific solution. Think of consciousness as a convenient fiction humans employ to deceive themselves into being at the base for what what we do. At the same time humans find cause and effect links in animals who don't use language as humans use language to be quite satisfactory to explain their behavior.

Its as the late Dr. Daniel Wegner said: "Consciousness is a fiction, an illusion".

 

[DBT]

The only problem with what you wrote DBT is "conscious decisions" which is something for which there is no basis.

I know. I didn't mean to say that consciousness determines decisions being made, only that this is our conscious experience, we experience making decisions, thoughts being thought, feelings felt, etc.

That division between our experience and its underlying production being the source of Mr Untermenche's error. I should have been clearer.

So all untermenche is discussing is something that has no physical basis in the terms that you so ably set out.

Yes.

 

[untermensche]

You have no clue how a mind exists or what it is.

Certainly untermensche's conception of the mind is much different than yours.

Though I don't agree entrely with his conception, it is certainly much closer to mine than yours or DBT's. The main difference untermensche and I seem to have is that he attribute's mental powers to the mind that I think should be attributed to the human person. At least he does not attribute those powers to the human brain.

The mind is not a thing or entity. Therefore, I don't think the mind is an agent that can act in this world. Rather it is the human person who can reason and act for reasons. Because of that we can say he has a mind.

A mind that cannot act is a mind not needed.

The evolutionary advantage of having a mind exists only if the mind can act based on "ideas" with contemplation and planning.

If the mind is nothing but reflexive activity of a brain it is not needed.

If the experience of moving the hand any way desired is not directed by the mind willing it then the brain is doing more than moving the hand. It is creating an elaborate delusion.

 

[fromderinside]

one word reply to all points above

WHY?

 

[untermensche]

Why is having the experience you are ordering the arm to move by doing something with your mind an elaborate delusion if you are not doing something with your mind to order the brain to move the arm?

What is this thing we are doing with our mind to cause the arm holding still to move?

 

[DBT]

You have no clue how a mind exists or what it is.

Certainly untermensche's conception of the mind is much different than yours.

Though I don't agree entrely with his conception, it is certainly much closer to mine than yours or DBT's. The main difference untermensche and I seem to have is that he attribute's mental powers to the mind that I think should be attributed to the human person. At least he does not attribute those powers to the human brain.

The mind is not a thing or entity. Therefore, I don't think the mind is an agent that can act in this world. Rather it is the human person who can reason and act for reasons. Because of that we can say he has a mind.

A mind that cannot act is a mind not needed.

The evolutionary advantage of having a mind exists only if the mind can act based on "ideas" with contemplation and planning.

If the mind is nothing but reflexive activity of a brain it is not needed.

If the experience of moving the hand any way desired is not directed by the mind willing it then the brain is doing more than moving the hand. It is creating an elaborate delusion.

It is the brain that acts through the means/medium of both conscious and unconscious mind. Mind doesn't exist without a brain to generate it.

 

[fromderinside]

No conscious. No mind!

We understand we are aware of ourselves, our world, and of a time and space in which we are aware. No need to insert 'mind' or 'conscious' there beyond as place holders for incompletely understood behavioral dynamics and encompassing theory.

We behave as organisms of a particular sort no more no less.

It's a dance early language burdened humans went through trying to explain their behavior before they realized language was just a part of behavior. Once we got that behind us we settled down and studied behavior and it's underpinnings.

 

[DBT]

'Mind' like 'consciousness' is just just a broad term referring to a collection of attributes and abilities being enabled by a functional brain: the sensations of sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste, related thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc, etc. which come and go in response to stimuli and whatever brain networks happen to be doing. You may forget where you put your keys one moment, then recall the action a few moments later...

 

[untermensche]

A mind that cannot act is a mind not needed.

The evolutionary advantage of having a mind exists only if the mind can act based on "ideas" with contemplation and planning.

If the mind is nothing but reflexive activity of a brain it is not needed.

If the experience of moving the hand any way desired is not directed by the mind willing it then the brain is doing more than moving the hand. It is creating an elaborate delusion.

It is the brain that acts through the means/medium of both conscious and unconscious mind. Mind doesn't exist without a brain to generate it.

This is only about the 50th time you have droned that worthlessness.

We are talking about a phenomena created by activity. Not just activity.

A phenomena that can act and influence the activity that creates it.

Just because you have no clue what the phenomena is does not demonstrate it is not needed.

If a subject can autonomously make a guess about the timing of voluntary movements then the subject has autonomy.

If a subject does not have the autonomy to make a guess about the timing of voluntary movements then the reported times are meaningless.

In the first case the conclusions many draw from the study (autonomously) must be absurd.

In the second case the whole study is absurd.

 

[fromderinside]

We are talking about a phenomena created by activity. Not just activity.

A phenomena that can act and influence the activity that creates it.

First you argue with yourself. You talk of a phenomena created by activity then you suggest, apparently without further need for activity that the phenomena influences the activity.

First there is activity creating something. Then there is other activity modifying what previous activity created. You might as well go all the way and say the activity is that of drive and maintenance systems, then selective elements of those outputs are fed back as activity modulate, modify, reverse, and stop, what has previously been driven and maintained.

No need for mind or consciousness since those systems are documented in nervous systems from sea cucumbers to humans and dolphins. Limited autonomy is what organisms that move do, in fact, even advanced plants employ mechanisms to act on their areas to defeat predators and agonist species through circulatory and chemical processes without the need for neurons.

We know the structure and function of many of these activity modulating activities as neural lateral inhibition, descending feedback, and chemical moderating and encouraging systems. We know that brain stacks upon brain through evolution furthering the work of these activities.

You get this in your second quarter of general psych fella. Were you asleep?

JUst because we have about 20 visual fields doing things other than categorizing does not mean we know nothing about what is going on. We also know we can track metabolic activity by monitoring oxygen uptake is whatever area we are interested using such as fMRI technology. We even know that there at least three separate often complementary systems for sustaining neurally active environments.

Hell I knew all this except MRI back in 1980. Well we had begun to use magnetic resonance as early as the mid seventies except we hadn't made it as sensitive as were existing electrical recording techniques. At that time we used single cell and multicell recordings and surface recordings to monitor brain activity and were making progress even then, in fact from the early 1900s we recorded from cells and scientists knew chemical activation was at the base of behavioral activity as early as the late 1600s.

 

[untermensche]

First you argue with yourself. You talk of a phenomena created by activity then you suggest, apparently without further need for activity that the phenomena influences the activity.

The mind once created has several switches available to it. They are there and a part of growth is learning how to throw them.

Throwing a switch does not influence the activity creating the mind.

It moves the arm.

 

[DBT]

A mind that cannot act is a mind not needed.

The evolutionary advantage of having a mind exists only if the mind can act based on "ideas" with contemplation and planning.

If the mind is nothing but reflexive activity of a brain it is not needed.

If the experience of moving the hand any way desired is not directed by the mind willing it then the brain is doing more than moving the hand. It is creating an elaborate delusion.

It is the brain that acts through the means/medium of both conscious and unconscious mind. Mind doesn't exist without a brain to generate it.

This is only about the 50th time you have droned that worthlessness.

We are talking about a phenomena created by activity. Not just activity.

A phenomena that can act and influence the activity that creates it.

Just because you have no clue what the phenomena is does not demonstrate it is not needed.

If a subject can autonomously make a guess about the timing of voluntary movements then the subject has autonomy.

If a subject does not have the autonomy to make a guess about the timing of voluntary movements then the reported times are meaningless.

In the first case the conclusions many draw from the study (autonomously) must be absurd.

In the second case the whole study is absurd.

It has been far more than the 50th time that you have ignored the essentials. The very essentials that falsify your unfounded claim for autonomy of mind. Physics, research, case studies, evidence....all ignored in favour of dualism....which was discredited long ago.

 

[untermensche]

This is only about the 50th time you have droned that worthlessness.

We are talking about a phenomena created by activity. Not just activity.

A phenomena that can act and influence the activity that creates it.

Just because you have no clue what the phenomena is does not demonstrate it is not needed.

If a subject can autonomously make a guess about the timing of voluntary movements then the subject has autonomy.

If a subject does not have the autonomy to make a guess about the timing of voluntary movements then the reported times are meaningless.

In the first case the conclusions many draw from the study (autonomously) must be absurd.

In the second case the whole study is absurd.

It has been far more than the 50th time that you have ignored the essentials. The very essentials that falsify your unfounded claim for autonomy of mind. Physics, research, case studies, evidence....all ignored in favour of dualism....which was discredited long ago.

You can't know the physics of a phenomena you don't even know.

Your claims of understanding the physics of the phenomena of mind are absolute nonsense.

 

[DBT]

This is only about the 50th time you have droned that worthlessness.

We are talking about a phenomena created by activity. Not just activity.

A phenomena that can act and influence the activity that creates it.

Just because you have no clue what the phenomena is does not demonstrate it is not needed.

If a subject can autonomously make a guess about the timing of voluntary movements then the subject has autonomy.

If a subject does not have the autonomy to make a guess about the timing of voluntary movements then the reported times are meaningless.

In the first case the conclusions many draw from the study (autonomously) must be absurd.

In the second case the whole study is absurd.

It has been far more than the 50th time that you have ignored the essentials. The very essentials that falsify your unfounded claim for autonomy of mind. Physics, research, case studies, evidence....all ignored in favour of dualism....which was discredited long ago.

You can't know the physics of a phenomena you don't even know.

Your claims of understanding the physics of the phenomena of mind are absolute nonsense.

Crock. That sensory input precedes transmission and transmission precedes distribution, which precedes processing, which precedes representation is easily tested.

That is not only logical, but based on proven physical principles.

That is how the physical world works.

 

[untermensche]

You can't know the physics of a phenomena you don't even know.

Your claims of understanding the physics of the phenomena of mind are absolute nonsense.

Crock. That sensory input precedes transmission and transmission precedes distribution, which precedes processing, which precedes representation is easily tested.

That is not only logical, but based on proven physical principles.

That is how the physical world works.

"Crock" just doesn't cut it.

Mind is an unknown phenomena.

It does not violate anything about physics.

Your claim that using the mind to command the brain to move the arm defies physics is absolute nonsense.

It is as bad as having a study that uses what must be autonomous guesses about timing to conclude autonomy doesn't exist.

 

[DBT]

You can't know the physics of a phenomena you don't even know.

Your claims of understanding the physics of the phenomena of mind are absolute nonsense.

Crock. That sensory input precedes transmission and transmission precedes distribution, which precedes processing, which precedes representation is easily tested.

That is not only logical, but based on proven physical principles.

That is how the physical world works.

"Crock" just doesn't cut it.

Mind is an unknown phenomena.

It does not violate anything about physics.

Your claim that using the mind to command the brain to move the arm defies physics is absolute nonsense.

It is as bad as having a study that uses what must be autonomous guesses about timing to conclude autonomy doesn't exist.

You focus on the word 'Crock' like it was some sort of lifeline for your unfounded autonomous mind idea, yet completely ignore the well founded, undeniable physics of cognition...that information must first be acquired by the senses, transmitted, processed, distributed, etc, etc, before you get to experience that information in the form of sight, sound, smell, thoughts and so on.

This is what you persistently refuse to acknowledge or consider.

 

[untermensche]

"Crock" just doesn't cut it.

Mind is an unknown phenomena.

It does not violate anything about physics.

Your claim that using the mind to command the brain to move the arm defies physics is absolute nonsense.

It is as bad as having a study that uses what must be autonomous guesses about timing to conclude autonomy doesn't exist.

You focus on the word 'Crock' like it was some sort of lifeline for your unfounded autonomous mind idea, yet completely ignore the well founded, undeniable physics of cognition...that information must first be acquired by the senses, transmitted, processed, distributed, etc, etc, before you get to experience that information in the form of sight, sound, smell, thoughts and so on.

This is what you persistently refuse to acknowledge or consider.

There is no physics of the mind that is understood.

It is an unknown phenomena.

Nobody knows specifically how it arises or what it is. But nothing about it defies physics. There may not be any physics that describes it yet. I do not assume we have a total understanding of the physical universe.

We know for certain if we do something with our mind sometimes we can force a memory into consciousness, if we do something with our mind we can move our arm as desired.

We know this for certain about the mind. We have no idea what specific activity in the brain is creating it.

We can't say anything about the physics of the mind.

We can say some things about the physics of the brain.

 

[DBT]

More denial of the undeniable fact that first the brain must acquire information from its senses, transmit this information to related structures and process this information before you get to see what it is you are looking at, or thinking about.

You dance around this issue like an accomplished Ballerina.

 

[fromderinside]

First you argue with yourself. You talk of a phenomena created by activity then you suggest, apparently without further need for activity that the phenomena influences the activity.

The mind once created has several switches available to it. They are there and a part of growth is learning how to throw them.

Throwing a switch does not influence the activity creating the mind.

It moves the arm.

Like I said, all your little extra word does is act as a placeholder for further definition of behavior activity. As you seem to often admit the mind isn't explainable or connected to anything other than itself which means it isn't necessary or real.