The human mind

[untermensche]

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.

How exactly is saying the mind is that which experiences missing how the experience is created? Of course the experience must be created too.

And what does it mean I can't get to the mind controlling the arm?

The mind is capable in some way of transferring information to the brain.

No miracle is required, merely something we don't understand yet because we don't have the slightest idea what activity is creating the mind or what a mind is objectively. If we actually understood anything about the objective mind you might have a point.

the “mind” is not “that which experiences all things” it is “that which experiences only that which the brain creates for it.”

If something is experienced it is experienced by a mind. There is no evidence of anything but a mind experiencing.

If a brain could experience it wouldn't create a mind.

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.

Saying something is an "experience packet" is not in any way saying more than saying something is an experience. A ridiculous unneeded addition to something we already fully understand from the aspect of being that which experiences.

You are saying the experience of directing the arm at our will is a delusion.

Again the psychosis theory of the mind.

Nonsense and tedious.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

How exactly is saying the mind is that which experiences missing how the experience is created?

Omission.

Of course the experience must be created too.

By the brain. And thus the fatal flaw to your thesis.

And what does it mean I can't get to the mind controlling the arm?

"Mind controlling arm" would be an experience, correct? That experience must be created too, correct? The brain creates that experience, correct? Thus, the "mind" is not actually controlling the arm; it is the brain creating the experience (packet): "mind controlling arm."

Iow, in your thesis, the "mind" is being tricked by the brain into experiencing something it did not actually do.

The mind is capable in some way of transferring information to the brain.

So you keep asserting. Regardless, it is the brain that creates all of the experiences for the "mind," so if the "mind" were to experience the act of controlling the arm, that experience necessarily must have been created by the brain for it to experience.

Otherwise, you are asserting that the brain creates the experiences for the "mind," but also it does not, which is a fundamental contradiction and thus fatal flaw in your thesis.

merely something we don't understand yet

It's truly remarkable how you get to assert something just is out of one side of your mouth while out of the other you concede that "we don't have the slightest idea" of what is going on.

If we actually understood anything about the objective mind you might have a point.

It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the fact that your thesis can't ever get beyond the fact that the "mind's" experiences are created by the brain.

If something is experienced it is experienced by a mind.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy-based assertion by definition.

There is no evidence of anything but a mind experiencing.

To use your own words against you once again, we don't have the slightest idea what activity is creating the "mind" or what a "mind" is.

If a brain could experience it wouldn't create a mind.

Once again, as you already conceded, we don't have the slightest idea what activity is creating the "mind" or what a "mind" is objectively. You don't get to say that and then completely contradict it with your own assertions about a brain or why it would (or would not) create a "mind."

You also, once again, keep making blatant category errors in assuming that a brain is monolithic and a "mind" is some sort of thing that is "created," rather than a phenomenon that is generated, or, even simpler, the name we give to a process of mapping--or maintaining--a pertinent facts only representation of the external world.

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.

Saying something is an "experience packet" is not in any way saying more than saying something is an experience.

False. It better clarifies what your thesis entails and properly delineates against the equivocation you keep trying to slip in; i.e, that the "mind" can experience anything directly, when in fact your own thesis holds that the "mind" only experiences that which the brain creates for it. I.e., "experience packets" of particular information.

You are saying the experience of directing the arm at our will is a delusion.

False. The conditions of your thesis are saying that the experience of directing the arm at the "will" of a brain-created "mind" is something that is created by the brain.

Once again and always, your thesis never allows your concept of a "mind" to experience anything other than what the brain has created for it to experience. That would necessarily entail the experience (packet) of: mind controlling arm.

 

[untermensche]

The experience of moving the arm is the experience of having to do "something" with the mind to make the arm move. It is the experience of the arm never moving on it's own and always needing the command.

But all the mind knows is the command is needed and how to give the command.

The actual command is not experienced because that is mind activity not brain activity.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

 

[steve_bank]

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.

Ubless you are making a pun it is dualist not duelist.

A dualist believes mind exists independent of body. A separate reality. The mind body debate traces back to pre mpdern sconce when nothing was known of how the brain works. Without science metaphysical abstractions were the only tools available. I forget who, a philosopher thought 'the brain secretes thoughts'.

You are dwelling in pre 20th century philosophy.

There are good science books out there that do not use math. That you appear to not understand how color vison works taught in schools for maybe 100 years tells where you are at.

From a scientific base my thoughts, feelings, and percptions are all based in physical chemical brain activity.

Up through the 19th century some believed drilling a hole in the skull of sick person would allow the bad spirits causing the disease to leave. We have progressed somewhat.

 

[untermensche]

A dualist believes mind exists independent of body. A separate reality.

There are many kinds of dualists.

Some just think the mind and the brain are not the same thing.

The mind body debate traces back to pre mpdern sconce when nothing was known of how the brain works.

Nothing is known now about how a mind arises.

The mind/body problem predates Newton.

Back then the body was considered mechanical. The whole universe was considered mechanical. So there was a problem with saying a spiritual mind could effect a mechanical body.

But the mechanical universe went out the window with Newton and with the notion of a force of gravity that works at a distance and is not mechanical. One body does not have to touch another to have an influence on it.

The mind/body problem has not existed since Newton.

You are dwelling in pre 20th century philosophy.

No, that is where the mind/body problem exists.

Now we have no idea what a body is or what a mind is.

We have no way to claim there is a problem.

 

[DBT]

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.

I don't think so. This issue has been going for a long time, and I am sure that I have addressed all of your questions.....all of which is routinely dismissed or ignored by you.

You are making excuses. Trying to deflect. Avoiding the question.

Again, can you address this issue, or not?

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

 

[untermensche]

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?

 

[DBT]

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?

It has been explained enough times that, according to evidence, the brain is the sole agency of consciousness/mind.

As conscious mind is an expression of brain activity, it is the brain that generates ideas, decisions and actions.

Ideas range in value, from hair brained ideas with no value, maybe even harmful, to pure genius and everything in between.

Now can you address the issue?


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

 

[untermensche]

Bullshit.

You have not answered these questions.

You have not addressed them.

You have not even acknowledged them.

You have ignored them.

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?

I only talk to people who say they freely chose their opinions and stand behind them.

Fools that say they have no power to chose their own opinions, no autonomy of belief, I ignore.

 

[DBT]

Still avoiding the issue. Still trying to deflect in order to avoid the question of how autonomous mind is able to control the brain.


Ideas come from a body of information that has been acquired by a brain and brought to a point of an understanding of some sort of possibility, a new way of producing a product, an insight into the world, physics, commerce or whatever. A carpenter who knows little about physics does not get ideas or insights into the workings of quantum physics, a theoretical physicist with no practical skills does not get ideas relating to better methods of carpentry.

It is the brain as an information processor that recognizes patterns in the information it has available and generates ideas based on this information.

Quote;
''Neuroscientists have repeatedly pointed out that pattern recognition represents the key to understanding cognition in humans. Pattern recognition also forms the very basis by which we predict future events, i e. we are literally forced to make assumptions concerning outcomes,and we do so by relying on sequences of events experienced in the past.

Huettel et al. point out that their study identifies the role various regions of prefrontal cortex play in moment-to-moment processing of mental events in order to make predictions about future events. Thus implicit predictive models are formed which need to be continuously updated, the disruption of sequence would indicate that the PFC is engaged in a novelty response to pattern changes. As a third possible explanation, Ivry and Knight propose that activation of the prefrontal cortex may reflect the generation of hypotheses, since the formulation of an hypothesis is an essential feature of higher-level cognition.
A monitoring of participants awareness during pattern recognition could provide a test of the PFC’s ability to formulate hypotheses concerning future outcomes.''

Now, can you address the issue that I asked you to address or not?

 

[untermensche]

Ideas come from a body of information that has been acquired by a brain and brought to a point of an understanding...

I agree.

It is an active process where the mind "brings" ideas places. Drags ideas from here to there. Shuffles ideas around to try to make ideas conform to beliefs.

But first there are beliefs. There must always be beliefs first. All knowledge begins with faith. The beliefs may be something good like: What I see I should assume is there. The young infant isn't so sure. But over time this belief prevents a lot of pain and frustration. And this belief is constantly reinforced. I see something and I reach out and I can touch it. When I bump into things I can see what it is I'm bumping into.

Then there are bad beliefs like: If a study was published and some people think it is true then it must be true.

A very unwise belief. Especially if the study is so inherently flawed logically it can't possibly produce something. Like asking a person to guess about the timing of mental activity and then concluding a person does not have the autonomy to make guesses.

And again because I will ask until you actually address the question and not say absurd nonsense like you understand the objective mind in any way.

You don't even believe in the objective mind.

You think a mind can exist without an objective cause.

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?

To address these ideas is called philosophy.

To post other people's work I doubt you understand is something a first grader could do.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The experience of moving the arm is the experience of having to do "something" with the mind to make the arm move. It is the experience of the arm never moving on it's own and always needing the command.

According to your thesis, it is the brain that creates the following experiences for the "mind" to experience:

1. arm never moving on its own;
2. arm always needing the command to move; and
3. moving the arm having to do "something" with the mind to make the arm move

Correct? I want you to be crystal clear.

So, all you've done here is presented one action potential (between 1 and 2) and then some vague experience of "do something."

But all the mind knows

Nope. You don't get to use the word "knows." All the "mind" experiences...

is the command is needed

False. It experiences that "something" is needed. Fatal flaw 1.

Even if this were coherent, however, it could not possibly make the leap from "something" is needed to "a command is needed" to "I know what a command is" to "I know how to issue a command" to "I am the autonomous agent to issue such a command." Fatal flaws 2-5.

and how to give the command.

False. It has not experienced: how to give the command. Nor has the brain given it instructions on how to "give" a command or even what a "command" even is. Fatal flaws 6-8.

The actual command is not experienced

Contradiction. Making a command is most definitely an experience and therefore must be created by the brain. Fatal flaw 9.

because that is mind activity not brain activity.

Category error. ALL activity is brain activity. Fatal flaw 10.

Cataclysmic failure. You've fucked yourself. Again.

 

[untermensche]

According to your thesis, it is the brain that creates the following experiences for the "mind" to experience:

Of course. An experience is a construction. The visual experience is a construction. We know this beyond doubt.

arm never moving on its own;

Under certain circumstances. If you fall your arm will stretch out. If you are startled your arms may move. If you are sleeping and moving around in the bed the arms will move. There is reflexive movement. I am talking about would be called "voluntary movement".

I'm saying there is an experiment we can do right now. We can let our right hand rest on our lap or table or armrest and wait for it to move without giving it the mental command. The command is a subtle thing that is beyond experience because it is mind activity, not brain activity. When it actually begins is not really known.

arm always needing the command to move;

The resting arm in our experiment minus any mental command.

moving the arm having to do "something" with the mind to make the arm move

Mental activity, which is not experienced because it is not brain activity, is required.

Nope. You don't get to use the word "knows." All the "mind" experiences...

If you are a mind and do something you know you are doing it. You know this beyond doubt.

If you are seeing green you know this beyond doubt.

There is experience and the knowledge of having the experience.

All I'm talking about is what has been called the "will" for millennia. It is nothing new and strange.

And a mind knows it takes a lot of mental energy to push a lot weight and much less mental energy to push a little and very little to walk around.

The will is what creates a bodybuilder.

It's effects can be seen.

is the command is needed

False. It experiences that "something" is needed. Fatal flaw 1.

In the little experiment do you not know a mental command is needed to move the arm?

and how to give the command.

False. It has not experienced: how to give the command.

No. It has a lifetime of trial and error of giving mental commands to create movement.

It learns HOW to give the right command.

The mind, the will, learns how to give the command for the arm to move and how to give the command for the leg to move. Different commands.

We do not experience the commands because they are mind activity, not brain activity, so they are dark and mysterious.

The mind only knows, through a lifetime of trial and error, HOW to give the command and the command is needed.

The actual command is not experienced

Contradiction. Making a command is most definitely an experience and therefore must be created by the brain. Fatal flaw 9.

The giving of the command is experienced, but the command itself is not.

because that is mind activity not brain activity.

Category error. ALL activity is brain activity. Fatal flaw 10.

Total bullshit.

Some kind of activity in the brain and maybe something else creates a mind that has it's own activity.

A whole that is greater than it's parts is created.

No miracle.

No flaws at all.

Just a very poor reader.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I am talking about would be called "voluntary movement".

I know, but that's not part of the action potential you set up in 1 and 2, that's exclusive to 3.

We can let our right hand rest on our lap or table or armrest and wait for it to move without giving it the mental command.

Assumptive binary thinking. How does the "mind" know that the brain isn't restraining the arm from moving until the "mind" gives it the command to stop restraining the signal to move?

The command is a subtle thing that is beyond experience because it is mind activity, not brain activity.

Category error. ALL activity in the brain is axiomatically brain activity.

arm always needing the command to move;

The resting arm in our experiment minus any mental command.

Once again, assumptive binary thinking. The "mind" has no way of knowing that a "resting arm" is a condition of inaction. Nor could it even fathom the concept of "mental command" to the point of being able to discern whether or not giving a "mental command" or not giving a "mental command" constituted action or inaction.

moving the arm having to do "something" with the mind to make the arm move

Mental activity, which is not experienced because it is not brain activity, is required.

Non-responsive to the point. The experience the brain creates is "something." That is incoherent and impossibly vague.

Nope. You don't get to use the word "knows." All the "mind" experiences...

If you are a mind and do something you know you are doing it.

Non sequitur. That requires meta-level self awareness. Once again you are invoking a cosmological argument.

You know this beyond doubt.

False assertion.

If you are seeing green you know this beyond doubt.

False. The "mind" can only experience the "current green association" experience package. That does not necessarily mean it knows--i.e., understands in a meta-sense--the details of how the brain has created all of that package for it to experience and certainly not to the level of autonomous action.

There is experience and the knowledge of having the experience.

Equivocation. Knowledge in the epistemological sense means directly experiencing, NOT having meta-self-awareness. So in the epistemological sense, you just said that experience is experience.

All I'm talking about is what has been called the "will" for millennia.

No, that's very clearly not all you are talking about, nor is that exhaustively examined or even defined in anything you've presented.

It is nothing...strange.

Horseshit.

And a mind knows

You are no longer allowed to use that word.

is the command is needed

False. It experiences that "something" is needed. Fatal flaw 1.

In the little experiment do you not know a mental command is needed to move the arm?

As I showed, no, the "mind" could not possibly understand what a "command" is let alone what "command" would be needed to move the arm let alone the notion that the arm is "at rest" and not "restrained from movement" or the like.

and how to give the command.

False. It has not experienced: how to give the command.

No. It has a lifetime of trial and error of giving mental commands to create movement.

Ahhh, so it's the omniscient ghost in the machine homunculus trying to figure out how to operate the robot, that is also magically patterned after itself, which is how it ultimately figures out how to operate the robot (i.e., like for like).

So we're back to a cosmological argument.

It learns HOW to give the right command.

Now it learns too!? Don't you mean it experiences the brain-created sensation of "giving the right command"?

Boy, brain sure does a shit-load of very specific and smart choices to get its own creation to do "something" yet somehow doesn't know what that something is or how to act on its own in relation to that something.

That's an incredibly smart dumb brain you have there.

We do not experience the commands because they are mind activity, not brain activity

Once again, that's not possible. ALL activity in the brain is axiomatically "brain activity."

The mind only knows, through a lifetime of trial and error, HOW to give the command and the command is needed.

And the brain creates ALL of that--including the "mind"--why?

The actual command is not experienced

Contradiction. Making a command is most definitely an experience and therefore must be created by the brain. Fatal flaw 9.

The giving of the command is experienced, but the command itself is not.

So the keys of the car are found by "trial and error" but that's somehow not an experience while inserting and turning the keys in the ignition is experience. Got it.

because that is mind activity not brain activity.

Category error. ALL activity is brain activity. Fatal flaw 10.

Total bullshit.

More words you are not allowed to use unless ironically.

Some kind of activity in the brain and maybe something else creates a minds that has it's own activity.

"And maybe something else." The tenuous hinge of your true thesis.

A whole that is greater than it's parts is created.

Much much greater in fact. Like an omni-capable being that just is as a "necessary first mover" in fact.

No miracle.

No, of course not. Just a magically self-aware meta-entity separate and distinct yet created and dependent. Almost like some sort of trinity of sorts; the Brain, Mind and Holy Shit.

Got it.

 

[steve_bank]

There are many kinds of dualists.

Some just think the mind and the brain are not the same thing.



Nothing is known now about how a mind arises.

The mind/body problem predates Newton.

Back then the body was considered mechanical. The whole universe was considered mechanical. So there was a problem with saying a spiritual mind could effect a mechanical body.

But the mechanical universe went out the window with Newton and with the notion of a force of gravity that works at a distance and is not mechanical. One body does not have to touch another to have an influence on it.

The mind/body problem has not existed since Newton.

You are dwelling in pre 20th century philosophy.

No, that is where the mind/body problem exists.

Now we have no idea what a body is or what a mind is.

We have no way to claim there is a problem.

The mind body problem exists in your mind and no where else. Let's play a more challenging game like find your foot.

Do you think your mind persist when body dies? Yes or no.

 

[DBT]

Ideas come from a body of information that has been acquired by a brain and brought to a point of an understanding...

I agree.

It is an active process where the mind "brings" ideas places. Drags ideas from here to there. Shuffles ideas around to try to make ideas conform to beliefs.

But first there are beliefs. There must always be beliefs first. All knowledge begins with faith. The beliefs may be something good like: What I see I should assume is there. The young infant isn't so sure. But over time this belief prevents a lot of pain and frustration. And this belief is constantly reinforced. I see something and I reach out and I can touch it. When I bump into things I can see what it is I'm bumping into.

Then there are bad beliefs like: If a study was published and some people think it is true then it must be true.

A very unwise belief. Especially if the study is so inherently flawed logically it can't possibly produce something. Like asking a person to guess about the timing of mental activity and then concluding a person does not have the autonomy to make guesses.

And again because I will ask until you actually address the question and not say absurd nonsense like you understand the objective mind in any way.

You don't even believe in the objective mind.

You think a mind can exist without an objective cause.

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?

To address these ideas is called philosophy.

To post other people's work I doubt you understand is something a first grader could do.

You ask the same questions immediately upon getting a description that deals with your questions, completely ignoring whatever does not suit your own belief in autonomy of mind.

Far go, I answered your questions, now it's your turn.

Again, please describe the mechanism of motor action initiation in relation to your autonomy of mind model.

Thank you.

 

[untermensche]

I know, but that's not part of the action potential you set up in 1 and 2, that's exclusive to 3.

This is meaningless gibberish.

Assumptive binary thinking. How does the "mind" know that the brain isn't restraining the arm from moving until the "mind" gives it the command to stop restraining the signal to move?

There is no restraint. An EMG can be done. You don't know what that is but it can clearly be seen that the muscles are in a relaxed state. There is a lack of stimulation to the muscles not an active holding back of movement.

One thing the mind can experience is muscle tension. Golgi tendon organs allow the mind to experience the amount of tension in a muscle. The mind knows when the muscles are relaxed just like it knows when the light is turned on. It experiences what the brain creates for the mind to experience.

Category error. ALL activity in the brain is axiomatically brain activity.

Does not follow in any way.

Heat can melt a candle. The activity of the heater cannot melt the candle.

Activity occurs beyond the activity creating the heat.

Of course a mind is not the same thing as heat. It is organized and acts very specifically. The command to move the arm is not the same command to move the leg.

What you claim does not follow at all.

As I showed, no, the "mind" could not possibly understand what a "command" is let alone what "command" would be needed to move the arm let alone the notion that the arm is "at rest" and not "restrained from movement" or the like.

The mind actively gives the command.

And the mind has to give one command to move the arm and a different command to move the leg.

The mind knows HOW to give the command.

The mind knows when it has given the command. The mind knows beyond doubt when it acts and when it commands and knows what it is trying to command.

When you are a thing that can act you know beyond doubt when you have acted.

Claiming this knowledge is a delusion is pathetic nonsense.

You are no longer allowed to use that word.

You prove you are a waste of time.

The mind KNOWS it is experiencing green when it is experiencing green

The mind knows when it is giving the command for the arm to move.

It knows the arm will not move without the command.

it knows the command to move the arm is not the same command to move the leg.

The mind knows many many things.

Just a magically self-aware meta-entity separate and distinct yet created and dependent.

A mind, yes.

An amazing thing that some take for granted as if they understand how it is created.

 

[untermensche]

Ideas come from a body of information that has been acquired by a brain and brought to a point of an understanding...

I agree.

It is an active process where the mind "brings" ideas places. Drags ideas from here to there. Shuffles ideas around to try to make ideas conform to beliefs.

But first there are beliefs. There must always be beliefs first. All knowledge begins with faith. The beliefs may be something good like: What I see I should assume is there. The young infant isn't so sure. But over time this belief prevents a lot of pain and frustration. And this belief is constantly reinforced. I see something and I reach out and I can touch it. When I bump into things I can see what it is I'm bumping into.

Then there are bad beliefs like: If a study was published and some people think it is true then it must be true.

A very unwise belief. Especially if the study is so inherently flawed logically it can't possibly produce something. Like asking a person to guess about the timing of mental activity and then concluding a person does not have the autonomy to make guesses.

And again because I will ask until you actually address the question and not say absurd nonsense like you understand the objective mind in any way.

You don't even believe in the objective mind.

You think a mind can exist without an objective cause.

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?

To address these ideas is called philosophy.

To post other people's work I doubt you understand is something a first grader could do.

You ask the same questions immediately upon getting a description that deals with your questions, completely ignoring whatever does not suit your own belief in autonomy of mind.

Far go, I answered your questions, now it's your turn.

Again, please describe the mechanism of motor action initiation in relation to your autonomy of mind model.

Thank you.

You did not acknowledge the facts inherent to the questions.

If an opinion is not freely made it is worthless.

Are your opinions worthless?

The problem with your claims is we can never trust anything you say since you are a thing that has no power to autonomously choose your claims. They just erupt because a brain for some reason cares about it.

You can't explain why a brain would care about any ideas or why it would create something aware of them.

 

[DBT]

It's clear that you cannot explain your autonomy of mind belief. Just make the claim and assert. That's why you avoid all inconvenient questions.