The human mind

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I have no opponents.

True. Opposition implies an equal playing field. Here, we’re just right and you’re just wrong.

 

[untermensche]

I have no opponents.

True. Opposition implies an equal playing field. Here, we’re just right and you’re just wrong.

Yeah.

You're telling me the ideas you have freely chosen show that free choice is not possible.

I am the victim of a practical joke.

Very funny.

 

[steve_bank]

Who is this we?

I answer your arguments and the arguments of others.

I see no group arguments.

If mind is distinct from body as you assert how does it work and is it operating independent of brain.?

I specifically told you it is intimately connected to the brain.

Some kind of activity, we don't know what, is creating the mind.

But it is not a thing made of matter.

It is a capacity that arises from matter and can influence matter.

'intimately connected' is still inferring intendance of mind. Ad if self perception s an independent reality.

You still have not answered the question.

All feelings, thoughts, perceptions all things connected to the idea of mind are functions of chemical states in the brain, yes or no?

 

[DBT]

What poor response. When you say what you said about not knowing how movement is initiated, can't you see the irony of your own position?

Or maybe you would like to explain motor function according to your knowledge?

I have forgotten more about motor function than you will ever know about it.

And nobody has the slightest clue how the initiation of movement occurs.

You display an incredible ignorance on that subject.

Rather than answering my question, you turn to bragging. Why not just address the question?

Please explain motor action in relation to your autonomy of mind model.

 

[untermensche]

Please explain motor action in relation to your autonomy of mind model.

Where did these ideas come from?

Did you freely choose them? Do they have value?

Or did you not freely choose them? Are they worthless?

 

[untermensche]

'intimately connected' is still inferring intendance of mind.

Intimately connected means the mind can send information of some kind to the brain.

All feelings, thoughts, perceptions all things connected to the idea of mind are functions of chemical states in the brain, yes or no?

Nobody has the slightest clue what creates an experience or what an experience is except the subjective aspects of experience.

There is no objective understanding of the color blue. NONE. All we know about is the external stimulus that isn't even blue.

But if you drink whiskey your experience and your abilities will change.

Which tells us nothing about how the mind is created or what it is.

 

[steve_bank]

Please explain motor action in relation to your autonomy of mind model.

Where did these ideas come from?

Did you freely choose them? Do they have value?

Or did you not freely choose them? Are they worthless?

Babbling is an indication of frustration and inability to articulate coherent replies.

"Intimately connected means the mind can send information of some kind to the brain."

And what we are gnarly saying mind is the brain. The mind body problem has long been philosophical debate because we are stuck with self referential expressions like 'I' or 'I am'.

In electronics we commonly anthropomorphize because it is convenient. A systems sees an electrical signal. One system talks to annoyer. A computer thinks.

In the mind body debate we are essentially anthropomorphizing ourselves in a way.

So we can speak of brain communicating to the mind and voce versa for discussion , but the reality is mind is brain.

 

[DBT]

Please explain motor action in relation to your autonomy of mind model.

Where did these ideas come from?

Did you freely choose them? Do they have value?

Or did you not freely choose them? Are they worthless?

That's not an explanation for motor action as a mechanism in relation to your autonomous mind claim.

Please try again.

 

[untermensche]

Please explain motor action in relation to your autonomy of mind model.

Where did these ideas come from?

Did you freely choose them? Do they have value?

Or did you not freely choose them? Are they worthless?

That's not an explanation for motor action as a mechanism in relation to your autonomous mind claim.

Please try again.

I know what it is and why you dodge it.

 

[steve_bank]

'intimately connected' is still inferring intendance of mind.

Intimately connected means the mind can send information of some kind to the brain.

All feelings, thoughts, perceptions all things connected to the idea of mind are functions of chemical states in the brain, yes or no?

Nobody has the slightest clue what creates an experience or what an experience is except the subjective aspects of experience.

There is no objective understanding of the color blue. NONE. All we know about is the external stimulus that isn't even blue.

But if you drink whiskey your experience and your abilities will change.

Which tells us nothing about how the mind is created or what it is.

Ok. You remain a mind body dualist When you die dies your mind go on?.

We do not have a working model, but we know generally how the brain works. Damage to areas of the brain and drugs have specific effects o cognitive functions.

The brain is called a neural net. Computer nets can mimic speech and visual recognition. The retina in your eyes esemtialy digitizes an image conceptually like a digital video camera.

We know areas of the brain related to logic, emotion, sex, where we form our working map of reality, and impulse control.

You can find info o the met how brain logic works. Small critters have had the neural connections mapped.

It is not a mystery anymore.

or RGB for short. All perceived colors are a mix of thee wavelength sensitive sensors called cones in varying levels. The first color video cameras and TVs are based on the eye. It has been enhanced, but your video display is comprised of red, green, and blue emitters at each pixels. Varying relative intensity yields the perceived color spectrum.

Your eyes are essentially a digital color video camera.

We learn as kids at home and in school to associate words with various colors. To go further would require digging in as to how logic woks in the brain at nodes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision

 

[DBT]

That's not an explanation for motor action as a mechanism in relation to your autonomous mind claim.

Please try again.

I know what it is and why you dodge it.

You are the one dodging the question that I asked you to explain. Now you are trying to deflect. Is it desperation?

Here is it is again, a simple question: Please explain motor action in relation to your autonomy of mind model.

Can you address this question or not?

 

[untermensche]

That's not an explanation for motor action as a mechanism in relation to your autonomous mind claim.

Please try again.

I know what it is and why you dodge it.

You are the one dodging the question that I asked you to explain. Now you are trying to deflect. Is it desperation?

Here is it is again, a simple question: Please explain motor action in relation to your autonomy of mind model.

Can you address this question or not?

I asked you questions and you rudely ignored them.

When you specifically address them I will think about trying to further unravel your nonsense.

Where did these ideas come from?

Did you freely choose them? Do they have value?

Or did you not freely choose them? Are they worthless?

 

[untermensche]

Ok. You remain a mind body dualist When you die dies your mind go on?.

Your are a duelist too.

You are forming these ideas with your mind not your body.

The brain is called a neural net.

No it is not.

There are neurons and they are interconnected like a dense jungle.

Calling it a neural net explains nothing.

You can't explain anything about the mind by saying neurons are a net.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I have no opponents.

True. Opposition implies an equal playing field. Here, we’re just right and you’re just wrong.

Yeah.

You're telling me the ideas you have freely chosen show that free choice is not possible.

No, I very clearly did not tell you any such thing.

I am the victim of a practical joke.

If in your world “practical joke” translates into “lack of basic reading comprehension skills” then yes.

Very funny.

Not so much. Just tiresome.

 

[untermensche]

I agree you are tiresome.

You offer shit like you have no freedom of mind when you freely express opinions.

You have offered your shit.

You have nothing else.

You are done.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I agree you are tiresome.

I understand. Being shown your ass over and over and over and over must be difficult for you.

You offer shit like you have no freedom of mind when you freely express opinions.

One again, not my straw.

You have offered your shit. You have nothing else. You are done.

 

[untermensche]

I agree you are tiresome.

I understand. Being shown your ass over and over and over and over must be difficult for you.

You offer shit like you have no freedom of mind when you freely express opinions.

One again, not my straw.

You have offered your shit. You have nothing else. You are done.

You admit you offer absolutely nothing.

But some total shit about a mind not being able to have more than one function.

Some shit you pulled from your ass.

Mind to mind interactions are something that make life interesting.

You are a mind that doesn't even know you are a mind. You can't even join in. You stick out like a freak.

About as pathetic a creature as could exist.

And extremely tiresome.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You admit you offer absolutely nothing.

What planet do you live on?

But some total shit about a mind not being able to have more than one function.

Wrong. Again. The conditions of YOUR thesis do not allow for YOUR concept of a “mind” to have more than one function. According to your thesis, its function is to experience what the brain creates for it to experience. That makes it, at best, a passive observer of second-hand “experience packets” of information created by the brain.

Nowhere in that does autonomy or agency or ANY of the other things you just keep pulling out of your ass and assert its capable of follow.

You do nothing more than assert by definition. Everyone sees it. What the fuck is the point? You literally fool no one, not even yourself.

Fucking bizarre.

 

[untermensche]

The conditions of YOUR thesis do not allow for YOUR concept of a “mind” to have more than one function.

My concept of the mind is it is that which experiences all things and that which moves the arm at will.

This is derived through the experience of being a mind.

And when you are a mind you are very sure you are not cells communicating. That activity might create you but it would never be inferred through experience.

The mind is a sophisticated decision making device. And the only reason to make a decision is to act on it.

Like everybody in this forum acts upon the decisions about ideas they make.

Your strawman is tiresome.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The conditions of YOUR thesis do not allow for YOUR concept of a “mind” to have more than one function.

My concept of the mind is it is that which experiences all things and that which moves the arm at will.

Except that you can’t get to the second part and the first part is missing the fact that it is the brain that creates the “experience packets” of information for the “mind” to experience.

Iow, no, the “mind” is not “that which experiences all things” it is “that which experiences only that which the brain creates for it.” Which necessarily would mean that it does NOT move the arm “at will”; the brain creates the “experience packet” of “mind moving the arm at will” for the “mind” to experience.

It only thinks it is moving the arm at will, but this is false. It is the brain creating the experience “mind moves arm at will.”

This necessarily must be the case according to the conditions of your own thesis no matter how many times you petulantly stamp your foot and just demand that there are other conditions. Your thesis DOES NOT ALLOW OTHER CONDITIONS.

In short and once again for auld lang syne, you are repeatedly fucking yourself.

This is derived through the experience of being a mind.

Which is blatantly circular, fallacious logic of the post hoc, ergo proptor hoc variety and the very thing you need to prove, not just keep asserting not to mention directly contradicted—once again—by the fact that, at best and in accordance with your thesis, it could only be yet another “experience packet” that the brain created for the mind to experience.

Iow, “you” did not derive anything; your brain created the experience of “you” deriving something for “you” to experience.

This condition of your thesis will always always always fuck you in the ass every single time. You cannot ever avoid it or just assert your way out of it.