The human mind

[Koyaanisqatsi]

To not know how a reflexive brain creates a contemplative mind is miles from showing it isn't the case.

And asserting something is the case is even further away from proving that it is, which is endlessly ironic, because we are essentially in agreement in regard to the idea that the brain creates a "mind." The difference seems to only be in how that manifests (and its purpose), with you basically making a cosmological argument for no apparent reason.

In my thesis, the "mind" is a virtual, internal, mirror "world(s)" of the external, that includes at least one analogue--aka, a "self"--that can act within any given virtual scenario or "map" of the external, which is what accounts for the illusion of autonomy.

A video game would be an excellent analogy in that the brain creates both the fake worlds and the fake representative analogue of the individual in toto to run around in those worlds. The fake worlds, however, are actually any number of similar--yet slightly different--versions of the external, each with different traps/pitfalls/outcomes/possibilities that the brain shuffles through trillions of times every second, making constant updates as it goes along and in accordance with the constant flow of information being picked up by the sensory input devices that are the human body for the purpose of optimally navigating the external world (both physically and socially).

But just as in your thesis, there is no actual, or, I guess, better, objective autonomy. It just seems that way--i.e., that's how the "self" experiences it--but that is necessarily a product of how the brain created everything in the first place.

There is no separation between the "self" and the brain; it simply is an extension of the brain in the same manner as is the car in a game of Monopoly. But we don't say the car has any actual/independent/distinct (however you want to label it) "autonomy" as it moves around the board. From the car's "perspective" it may "experience" that it does, but we know that it actually does not.

Why? Because we have meta-understanding of what's going on that the car would not be privy to.

To even try to make a case proves the mind is autonomous.

Having an illusion of autonomy and being autonomous (as in separate from the brain) are two entirely different notions and there is nothing you have argued or can argue that could even begin to support such a notion. But for auld lang syne, you seem irrationally adamant on the latter and unjustifiably dismissive of the former. Why? What does it get you to assert "mind" as first cause instead of brain? It's just like arguing that "God" is first cause instead of simply ascribing that to the Universe, while insisting the whole time that only the notion of a "God" can answer all the questions, when in fact it just loads more in.

 

[untermensche]

In my thesis, the "mind" is a virtual, internal, mirror "world(s)" of the external, that includes at least one analogue--aka, a "self"--that can act within any given virtual scenario or "map" of the external, which is what accounts for the illusion of autonomy.

The problem is it takes an autonomous mind to come up with things like that.

Ideas don't just coalesce because a brain that evolved 200,000 years ago has mechanisms that make them.

It took thousands of years of human civilization for you to come up with those ideas.

They are ideas based on ideas based on ideas....

There is the creation of a virtual world.

And the mind is that which is aware of that world.

To have awareness requires both something that can be aware and the things it can be aware of. You can't just have one of these.

A video game would be an excellent analogy in that the brain creates both the fake worlds and the fake representative analogue of the individual in toto to run around in those worlds.

The game needs a human to control it.

You have not expressed any knowledge about the human playing a game by talking about the game.

There is no separation between the "self" and the brain; it simply is an extension of the brain in the same manner as is the car in a game of Monopoly.

Monopoly also requires a human.

Talking about it explains absolutely nothing about the human making a choice between buying one hotel or two.

But we don't say the car has any actual/independent/distinct (however you want to label it) "autonomy" as it moves around the board.

No shit. The autonomy is in the human that decided to play.

From the car's "perspective" it may "experience" that it does, but we know that it actually does not.

The car experiences nothing and has no perspective on anything.

Having an illusion of autonomy and being autonomous (as in separate from the brain) are two entirely different notions and there is nothing you have argued or can argue that could even begin to support such a notion.

I know. The psychosis model of the mind.

All choice is delusion.

Except when people use their minds to make a choice and claim the mind is not a distinct entity capable of making decisions.

 

[DBT]

Not the dualism shit again.

You do not know what the body is or what the mind is so your claims of dualism are merely claims of stupidity.

That's amusing. You are the one invoking dualism with your frivolous notion of conscious mind being in control of a brain that is generating that very same conscious mind.

 

[untermensche]

Not the dualism shit again.

You do not know what the body is or what the mind is so your claims of dualism are merely claims of stupidity.

That's amusing. You are the one invoking dualism with your frivolous notion of conscious mind being in control of a brain that is generating that very same conscious mind.

You are too unread to even understand that you need to actually know what the body and mind are to claim there is a dualism.

What is the body?

What is it?

We've reduced it to a bunch of probability equations.

 

[DBT]

Not the dualism shit again.

You do not know what the body is or what the mind is so your claims of dualism are merely claims of stupidity.

That's amusing. You are the one invoking dualism with your frivolous notion of conscious mind being in control of a brain that is generating that very same conscious mind.

You are too unread to even understand that you need to actually know what the body and mind are to claim there is a dualism.

What is the body?

What is it?

We've reduced it to a bunch of probability equations.

Unread?

Coming from someone who ignores or dismisses all research in the field, claiming that it's all worthless, this comment is even more amusing than the last.

Keep it up, you may even earn a reputation as a comedian.

 

[steve_bank]

A+ for metaphysical gymnastics.

However I am puzzled. Can you explain how we 'see our minds'? It is unclear what this means.

Sorry, I don't see what you mean. If you could explain.
EB

In the battle of wits you sir are unarmed.

 

[steve_bank]

Personally I prefer 'I fart therefore I exist'.

You are a mind that experiences and has limited control of the body.

The body farts.

Not you.

All you can do is push that fart a little harder or hold it in.

You could say: "I know about farts therefore I exist".

Have you considered professional counseling?

As the great American philosopher P E Sailor said, 'I ams what I ams!'.

 

[steve_bank]

It is not exactly news emotions and thinking are chemical based.

Testosterone increases aggression in people taking it for body building.

My favorite image for the mind debates is a dog chasing its tail.

There is no way with words to create unambiguous definitions. That is why art and music are powerful, they communicate feeling and thought non verbally. They bypass the verbal translation process.

Software vs hardware is another image for me. Imagine a self aware AI trying to debate what it is with other AI. What is their point of reference?

We learn growing up to assign meaning. As a kid you see a kid fall and get hurt, crying. You get hurt and cry, making a conection that you both have the same sunjective experience.

Kick a dog and it whines, yelps. We make a connection that a dog experiences pain and suffering.

A sense a self and how we arrive at an image or understanding is not arrived at by definitions.

Theories of self back far. Worth taking a look at if you are interested in finding a resolution. I don't think there can be one. You choose a view or just keep spinning on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)


Ātman (/ˈɑːtmən/) is a Sanskrit word that means inner self or soul.[1][2][3] In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle,[4] the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. In order to attain liberation (moksha), a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana), which is to realize that one's true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman.[2][5]

The six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is Ātman (soul, self) in every being. This is a major point of difference with the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta which holds that there is no unchanging soul or self.[6][7][8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Buddhism)

Ātman (/ˈɑːtmən/), attā or attan in Buddhism is the concept of self, and is found in Buddhist literature's discussion of the concept of non-self (Anatta).[1]

Most Buddhist traditions and texts reject the premise of a permanent, unchanging atman (self, soul).[2][3] However, some Buddhist schools, sutras and tantras present the notion of an atman or permanent "Self", although mostly referring to an Absolute and not to a personal self.....Ātman and atta refer to a person's "true self", a person's permanent self, absolute within, the "thinker of thoughts, feeler of sensations" separate from and beyond the changing phenomenal world

 

[DBT]

You are too unread to even understand that you need to actually know what the body and mind are to claim there is a dualism.

What is the body?

What is it?

We've reduced it to a bunch of probability equations.

Unread?

Coming from someone who ignores or dismisses all research in the field, claiming that it's all worthless, this comment is even more amusing than the last.

Keep it up, you may even earn a reputation as a comedian.

Invincible ignorance fallacy

''The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms (see ad lapidem fallacy).''

 

[untermensche]

You are too unread to even understand that you need to actually know what the body and mind are to claim there is a dualism.

What is the body?

What is it?

We've reduced it to a bunch of probability equations.

Unread?

Coming from someone who ignores or dismisses all research in the field, claiming that it's all worthless, this comment is even more amusing than the last.

Keep it up, you may even earn a reputation as a comedian.

Invincible ignorance fallacy

''The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms (see ad lapidem fallacy).''

Fine.

Then tell me exactly what the body is?

In your own words.

We will see how well read you are.

 

[untermensche]

It is not exactly news emotions and thinking are chemical based.

There can be thinking that is not directed. Dreamlike thinking. Letting the imagination free to go wild.

And there is very controlled thinking that produces the sentences we can read here and everywhere.

But both are products of a will.

A will that lets go and a will that controls absolutely.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The problem is it takes an autonomous mind to come up with things like that.

Baseless assertion. I can just as legitimately assert, "It takes a brain to come up with things like that" and it would be applicable to both of our theses.

Ideas don't just coalesce

Baseless assertion contradicted by YOUR OWN terms (e.g., in regard to what you wrote about dreaming in the post previous to this one).

There is the creation of a virtual world.

Yes, otherwise known as "maps."

And the mind is that which is aware of that world.

False. The "mind" is the name we give to the virtual world; the "mirror" world to the external. The "self" would be the name we give to our analogues that the brain places into that virtual world. The "self" is (generally) not aware that it is in a virtual world and that's where you seem to have the biggest problem. To whit:

To have awareness requires both something that can be aware and the things it can be aware of. You can't just have one of these.

Break that down. "Something that can be aware" and "things it can be aware of." Ok. In this discussion, the "something" is the analogue "self" and the "things it can be aware of" are, essentially, replicas of external objects as well as internal associations/memories/stored information.

Here's where I get distinctness where you failed, so to put it in binary terms you can understand, the "self" algorithm is a distinct and separate one from the "mindscape" algorithm. Different, distinct "programs"--just like in a video game--that nevertheless can interact.

So, the "self" can be aware of the replicas of the external things, but it need not be aware that they are replicas. Iow, Pinocchio thinks he's a real boy--and behaves as if he were a real boy in a world the brain makes him think is the real (external) world--but he actually (objectively) is not and it actually (objectively) is not.

This is exactly the same condition as in your thesis; i.e., that the "things" the "mind" is aware of are "experiences" that the brain creates for the "mind" to experience. The brain creates the experience: mind thinks it's ordering the hand to pick up the cup, but in reality, it is not. It is the brain that actually "orders" the hand to pick up the cup. The brain just makes the "mind" think it is the one--i.e., creates the experience for the "mind" that it is the one--but according to your terms, the "mind" can only experience that which the brain creates for it to experience, which is why you always fuck yourself.

In my version, there is no issue with the analogue self experiencing a "virtual" reality that it does not necessarily know (i.e., is not necessarily aware) is virtual.

The game needs a human to control it.

You've never heard of a game playing itself? Such as in Chess programs or the movie Wargames?

 

[untermensche]

Baseless assertion. I can just as legitimately assert, "It takes a brain to come up with things like that" and it would be applicable to both of our theses.

You would somehow have to demonstrate a brain could "understand" anything.

All we know is that ideas can be understood by minds.

And to make a decision based on an idea requires the autonomy to do such things.

If you don't have the autonomy to choose what you want to believe then what you believe is meaningless.

Thanks for your meaningless statements that are not freely chosen opinions.

Break that down. "Something that can be aware" and "things it can be aware of." Ok. In this discussion, the "something" is the analogue "self" and the "things it can be aware of" are, essentially, replicas of external objects as well as internal associations/memories/stored information.

Blue is not a replica of anything. Music is not a replica of anything. Pain is not a replica of anything.

You've never heard of a game playing itself? Such as in Chess programs or the movie Wargames?

Show me the game that is not a product of a human mind and you will have a point.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You would somehow have to demonstrate a brain could "understand" anything.

I'll just use your method of assertion.

All we know is that ideas can be understood by minds.

Horseshit. You haven't ever established that there is a "mind" to begin with, let alone how it could be created by a brain with abilities that the brain supposedly does not have itself. Again, it's just a cosmological argument at this point.

And to make a decision based on an idea requires the autonomy to do such things.

Once again, the autonomy springs from the fact that in my thesis the algorithm for a "self" is distinct from the algorithms that constitute/construct the maps of the external--which means that of the two of us, only I have presented a coherent and logical basis for the illusion of autonomous agency by a construct of the brain--but the actual decision making is done by the brain. The brain uses the analogue self to "war game" optimal/beneficial survival/social scenarios prior to acting in the external world.

That is all that a "decision" entails, after all. Which choice of potential action benefits us the most. Aka, "problem solving/pattern recognition," which is what our brains excel at.

If you don't have the autonomy to choose what you want to believe then what you believe is meaningless.

Once again you are the victim of two-dimensional thinking. The "self" is an analogue. There is no separation between it and the brain. It's a way for the brain to plan out moves before it has to actually move the body in the real world.

Your problem is that you bizarrely refuse to accept that the brain is exactly what you keep insisting is the "mind" while at the same time misunderstanding or simply glossing over the fact that there is no such monolithic thing as "the brain" in the first place. The "brain" is our shorthand term for the many different components that make up our cognitive processing center.

Blue is not a replica of anything.*snip*

You missed this part: "as well as internal associations/memories/stored information."

Regardless, in YOUR thesis "blue" and "music" and "pain" would all be "experience packets" that the brain created for the "mind" to experience, so it's the same thing.

You've never heard of a game playing itself? Such as in Chess programs or the movie Wargames?

Show me the game that is not a product of a human mind and you will have a point.

Prove the existence of a "mind" or you will continue to have no point.

 

[untermensche]

I'll just use your method of assertion.

I'm not the one who invented the concept of the mind.

The mind is that which experiences but it is not only that which experiences. It is multi-functional. It is what we call the "will" as well. It can move the body and move thoughts and decide what is true and what is false.

You don't need a mind for a brain to understand blue. Since the brain has mechanisms to convert the neural signal from the eye into blue it has a mechanism available to recognize blue before the conversion.

If a conversion is being made it is not being made for a brain.

The brain wouldn't need it.

It could use the mechanism it uses for conversion for recognition and save the energy.

Your crazy idea defies biology.

Show me the game that is not a product of a human mind and you will have a point.

Prove the existence of a "mind" or you will continue to have no point.

There are individual minds. Not a mind.

Each thing with a mind has a mind unlike any other.

And only something with a particular mind can understand what I am writing.

It takes a lot more than a brain.

 

[DBT]

Invincible ignorance fallacy

''The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms (see ad lapidem fallacy).''

Fine.

Then tell me exactly what the body is?

In your own words.

We will see how well read you are.

There are any number of descriptions of biology and its functions and systems, these are freely available. None of these definitions, descriptions, categories - viruses, germs, single cells, multi cells, plants, animals or humans - point to autonomy of mind.

You can read all the scientific literature you like but you will not find a thing to support your autonomy of mind notion.

You are the one making the claim. It is you who should be supporting your own claim by posting a rational argument with evidence to justify your claim.

You are trying your best to deflect your own responsibility onto me.

So, one more time: if you have a rational argument supported by evidence for your autonomy of mind claim to offer, please post it.

 

[bilby]

To give just one example of how ridiculous it is to ask 'exactly what the body is' in a forum like this one, the undergraduate textbook The Molecular Biology of the Cell, now in its sixth edition, costs $150+, and runs to more than 1,400 pages.

And that's just going to give a BSc level understanding of the foundations of the interactions in a cell - it doesn't have the scope to consider in detail the way that cells organise into tissues, or the way that tissues assemble to form an organism; nor does it do more than touch on the various interactions, both physical and chemical, between cells and their neighbours and other substrates, such as tissue fluid and the chemicals therein.

It's completely futile to have a discussion in a forum like this one at that level of detail, unless and until all parties to the discussion understand and comprehend in detail all of the ground covered by such basic works, and the various texts that deal with the interactions of the cells thus described with their environments can be taken as read.

It's very obvious that anyone who asks 'exactly what the body is' in this context either has no grasp of the sheer volume of information they are requesting; Or is requesting the impossible in order to make a cheap debating point with an ignorant audience.

It's not a request that can be made in good faith. Only a complete ignoramus, or a person who is play-acting for the benefit of an audience he hopes are completely ignorant, would ask such a thing.

 

[DBT]

Yes, exactly, it was just a cheap debating point.

 

[untermensche]

To give just one example of how ridiculous it is to ask 'exactly what the body is' in a forum like this one, the undergraduate textbook The Molecular Biology of the Cell, now in its sixth edition, costs $150+, and runs to more than 1,400 pages.

And that's just going to give a BSc level understanding of the foundations of the interactions in a cell - it doesn't have the scope to consider in detail the way that cells organise into tissues, or the way that tissues assemble to form an organism; nor does it do more than touch on the various interactions, both physical and chemical, between cells and their neighbours and other substrates, such as tissue fluid and the chemicals therein.

It's completely futile to have a discussion in a forum like this one at that level of detail, unless and until all parties to the discussion understand and comprehend in detail all of the ground covered by such basic works, and the various texts that deal with the interactions of the cells thus described with their environments can be taken as read.

It's very obvious that anyone who asks 'exactly what the body is' in this context either has no grasp of the sheer volume of information they are requesting; Or is requesting the impossible in order to make a cheap debating point with an ignorant audience.

It's not a request that can be made in good faith. Only a complete ignoramus, or a person who is play-acting for the benefit of an audience he hopes are completely ignorant, would ask such a thing.

Asking "What is a body" in a philosophy discussion is not asking about cells or anatomy.

It is asking about what something ultimately is.

We are the age of quantum theory to explain how things behave.

But what is a body?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, exactly, it was just a cheap debating point.

Not when some clown starts talking about imaginary mind/body problems without even knowing what either are.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm not the one who invented the concept of the mind.

Irrelevant to the fact that your entire thesis is based on nothing more than petulant assertion.

The mind is that which experiences but it is not only that which experiences. It is multi-functional. It is what we call the "will" as well. It can move the body and move thoughts and decide what is true and what is false.

That is your (esoteric) and merely asserted definition, not a proof nor even a very compelling or even coherent argument.

You don't need a mind for a brain to understand blue.

You have never established that a "mind" does understand "blue." You have merely asserted that the brain creates the experience packet of "blue" for the "mind" to experience.

Since the brain has mechanisms to convert the neural signal from the eye into blue

"Convert" is yet another one of your two dimensional/binary words. "Associate" would be the more proper term and "blue" should be in quotes to denote that it is the stored category of all pertinent information associated with the wavelength. This is not difficult stuff to understand, so why, once again, are you deliberately wallowing in such obvious ignorance?

it has a mechanism available to recognize blue before the conversion.

Again, that "mechanism" is nothing more than "association;" the result of forming hierarchical categories as a function of our evolved problem solving/pattern recognition capabilities.

The wavelength as picked up by the sensory input devices we call "eyes" simply triggers everything stored in the brain that the body in toto has ever previously experienced--either directly or indirectly--when seeing that wavelength previously. This happens nearly instantaneously with over a quintillion "scans" for any such information conducted in less than a second with the end result of those calculations being the "updated to current and total experience packet" we categorize under the word "Blue."

The only "conversion" that happens is in the culling of associated information as it relates to the current trigger from the eyes seeing the wavelength. Iow, what is newly added to that "packet" of "Blue."

Prove the existence of a "mind" or you will continue to have no point.

There are individual minds. Not a mind.

Each thing with a mind has a mind unlike any other.

And only something with a particular mind can understand what I am writing.

All baseless assertions.

It takes a lot more than a brain.

Non sequitur.