DBT
Contributor
Precisely! And I am sure that most readers know who that Clown is.
-
Features
The human mind
- Thread starter Speakpigeon
- Start date
Precisely! And I am sure that most readers know who that Clown is.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Some people, for lack of better words, are mindless.
Anyone care to try and describe what mindless means?
Anyone care to try and describe what mindless means?
untermensche
Contributor
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
You used to argue that mind was separate from brain-body.
Have you had a philosophical epiphany?
DBT
Contributor
It happens to be you who rejects all research, experiments, case studies, analysis by experts in their field, only to make an unfounded claim of your own.
It is you who is making a claim in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
You are the odd man out.
untermensche
Contributor
The mind is distinct from the brain therefore distinct from the rest of the body. The mind is not the liver. It is not the spleen.
But the mind is also a part of the body. A part not made of cells. A part that is not understood at all.
There is no problem of dualism in saying the brain creates an autonomous mind.
- - - Updated - - -
What is the body?
It is made of matter.
What is matter?
In Quantum Theory it reduces to a bunch of probability equations.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
We have working and successful theory for that.
That works too. Perhaps you should catch up.
... observing the corpse while blowing off the smoke from my just fired pistol before I holster it.
untermensche
Contributor
We have no theory that tells us what matter is.
All we have are theories that explain how some parts of matter BEHAVE.
Nothing we know presents a problem of dualism with the mind.
Talk of dualism became worthless with Newton's explanation of gravity.
Some are behind the times. Still talking about problems that don't exist anymore.
All we have are theories that explain how some parts of matter BEHAVE.
Nothing we know presents a problem of dualism with the mind.
Talk of dualism became worthless with Newton's explanation of gravity.
Some are behind the times. Still talking about problems that don't exist anymore.
untermensche
Contributor
The mind is not merely my assertion.
It has been asserted as long as humans have been asserting things.
Your lack of insight into what you are and what you are doing is not interesting or an argument.
To be a mind is to know you are a mind.
It is to know you are not made up of cells.
It is to know you can scratch your nose or not.
It is to know you can believe whatever you want to believe.
Even this new age nonsense asserted by minds that the mind does not exist. As stupid an idea as has ever existed.
DBT
Contributor
Red Herring.
Red Herring.
Red Herring.
The issue is the relationship between our conscious experience of the world and self, and the brain...the role of the brain in relation to our conscious experience.
As it stands, all the evidence points to brain agency as the source of conscious experience of the world and self, and nothing to suggest autonomy of mind.
Consequently you have no case to argue.
As a result, we get the Red Herrings.
untermensche
Contributor
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
If mind is separate and distinct from body, what is it made up of and how does it work?
DBT
Contributor
You are the dualist.
That is your claim.
Are you claiming that there is nothing wrong with Dualism?
If so, prove it.
Assuming for the sake of argument that you say here is right.....how does it help establish your claim for autonomy of mind?
Can you explain?
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
untermensche
Contributor
It is connected to the body, connected to the brain, not separate.
It is something that arises from some activity in the brain but that includes a lot of things. Is the blood flow a necessary component? You won't have a mind without it.
The mind is a product of activity it is not the activity.
We are only at a stage where we can observe the activity.
We have no idea how or which activity is creating the mind.
untermensche
Contributor
Nope.
That tells you how things like quarks behave within a model.
It does not tell you what they are.
At one time the model said that the atom was indestructible.
The models are not an ultimate understanding. They are a description of observed behavior limited by our abilities to observe.
Is a quark indestructible?
How far can matter be broken?
What is matter?
untermensche
Contributor
untermensche
Contributor
If the mind does not have autonomy then talk of "belief" is meaningless.
Talk of "logic" is meaningless. Talk of "justice" is meaningless.
If a mind is not free to decide what to believe, what is logical, or what is just then the judgements are meaningless.
If the human mind does not have the freedom to design a car or building or paint a picture that has never existed then those things could not exist.
Autonomy is a given if the world makes sense.
That is why it is a given in the real world where people are punished for their decisions.
You only punish that which could have done differently.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
That’s not “autonomy.” That’s “choice.” Being able to choose between different actions prior to making them only requires the ability to abstract and “role play” with an analogue of the individual superimposed into those abstractions.
Iow, exactly my thesis.
In YOUR thesis, however, the “mind” is just a passive observer, capable only of “experiencing” that which the brain creates for it. Which necessarily requires that it is the brain that is doing the choosing for what the “mind” experiences.
You then, of course, completely discard that fact only after the brain has chosen the various “experience packets” and just assert that the “mind” somehow magically has the power of command, conveniently ignoring the fact that this too would just be another “experience packet” that the brain creates for it.
And round and round you go.
Iow, exactly my thesis.
In YOUR thesis, however, the “mind” is just a passive observer, capable only of “experiencing” that which the brain creates for it. Which necessarily requires that it is the brain that is doing the choosing for what the “mind” experiences.
You then, of course, completely discard that fact only after the brain has chosen the various “experience packets” and just assert that the “mind” somehow magically has the power of command, conveniently ignoring the fact that this too would just be another “experience packet” that the brain creates for it.
And round and round you go.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
That may or may not be true, for any given definition of "meaningless", but it's not an argument about the state of the world. There's no a priori reason to assume that it is meaningful.
That's not an argument, that's a proclamation. Plate tectonics creates ridges, coast lines, wind erosion dune patterns that have "never existed" too - every day. Either that implies that plate tectonic and the wind have an autonomous mind, or there's a hole in your argument.
The world is under no obligation to "make sense" (to you).
If that is so (and there are philosophies that consider the goal of punishment to be primarily determent, in which case it doesn't follow because with a change of pull- and push factors, someone who could not have done differently could maybe only have done differently), it shows at best that punishment is irrational.