The human mind

[untermensche]

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.

The mind is an unexplained phenomena.

The ability to experience as a mind experiences is an unexplained phenomena.

But what is clear is the mind experiences giving the arm a command.

In the Libet-type studies they ask the subjects to guess when they think they are giving a command to move.

The experience of giving a command is a given.

Sometimes the commands are drudgery. Like when having to go to bed when half asleep on the couch. Why would the brain create the experience of drudgery? But in a mind that must do the moving, must actively will the movement, feeling drudgery is easy to understand.

You are claiming without knowing what the phenomena is that creates a mind that the experience of the mind giving a command and not just experiencing a command being given is a delusion.

Your psychosis model of the mind is absurd and based on no rational arguments.

 

[steve_bank]

I autonomize, therefore I am autonomous!

 

[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.

The mind is an unexplained phenomena.

The ability to experience as a mind experiences is an unexplained phenomena.

But what is clear is the mind experiences giving the arm a command.

In the Libet-type studies they ask the subjects to guess when they think they are giving a command to move.

The experience of giving a command is a given.

Sometimes the commands are drudgery. Like when having to go to bed when half asleep on the couch. Why would the brain create the experience of drudgery? But in a mind that must do the moving, must actively will the movement, feeling drudgery is easy to understand.

You are claiming without knowing what the phenomena is that creates a mind that the experience of the mind giving a command and not just experiencing a command being given is a delusion.

Your psychosis model of the mind is absurd and based on no rational arguments.

That's not an explanation for autonomy of mind.

You are merely repeating your claims and assertions.

Please try again.

This time include a working hypothesis and evidence, thanks.

 

[fromderinside]

Seeing DBT's post Maynard G. Krebs gasps "Work?" and faints.

 

[untermensche]

I autonomize, therefore I am autonomous!

If you do things that require autonomy, like decide if some idea is true or false, then you must have autonomy.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

The mind is an unexplained phenomena.

The ability to experience as a mind experiences is an unexplained phenomena.

But what is clear is the mind experiences giving the arm a command.

In the Libet-type studies they ask the subjects to guess when they think they are giving a command to move.

The experience of giving a command is a given.

Sometimes the commands are drudgery. Like when having to go to bed when half asleep on the couch. Why would the brain create the experience of drudgery? But in a mind that must do the moving, must actively will the movement, feeling drudgery is easy to understand.

You are claiming without knowing what the phenomena is that creates a mind that the experience of the mind giving a command and not just experiencing a command being given is a delusion.

Your psychosis model of the mind is absurd and based on no rational arguments.

That's not an explanation for autonomy of mind.

You are merely repeating your claims and assertions.

Please try again.

This time include a working hypothesis and evidence, thanks.

Give me an explanation for how the experience of blue is created.

You have total ignorance of every aspect of the objective mind yet have the balls (stupidity) to ask for explanations of how the mind works.

From ignorance comes stupidity like this.

And autonomy of mind is assumed. The whole of society is built around this assumption. Asking a person to guess about the timing of mental events assumes a person has the autonomy to do it.

To say autonomy is not there requires some serious explanations of how the mind actually works.

And you have NONE! You don't even know what the objective mind is. Yet you claim you know how it works. A joke.

 

[fromderinside]

You don't even know what the objective mind is. Yet you claim you know how it works. A joke.

DBT said nothing beyond your assertion of objective mind was just a list of your beliefs unsupported by evidence.

 

[untermensche]

You don't even know what the objective mind is. Yet you claim you know how it works. A joke.

DBT said nothing beyond your assertion of objective mind was just a list of your beliefs unsupported by evidence.

He's asking for a mechanism of the mind.

He's asking how some unknown phenomena works.

It's stupidity.

We can conclude, some of us, that it takes autonomy to decide if an idea is sound.

If you disagree then you are claiming your decisions about what is true were not made by you autonomously.

A cop out becomes your great achievement. And your conclusions become meaningless.

Yet you still fight for ideas which you didn't freely choose.

Not stupidity, insanity.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This is meaningless gibberish.

Our thoughts exactly.

There is no restraint.

How would a "mind" know this?

One thing the mind can experience is muscle tension.

Contradiction. All experience is created by the brain.

Once again, you have the brain doing EVERYTHING, including this completely unnecessary step of creating a "mind" just to issue "commands" it can't possibly know how to issue. It's not a matter of "trial and error;" it's a matter of mechanism and meta-understanding.

Your "mind" just is a god. It may fumble around at first not realizing its powers, but it is, nonetheless a god.

Golgi tendon organs allow the mind brain 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.

So, once again, what is the purpose of the "mind" if the brain and the golgi already do all of the work? You've here reduced "mind" down to a completely unnecessary, energy wasting decision maker.

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

Does not follow in any way.

This is pointless. You're a troll.

 

[untermensche]

Our thoughts exactly.

Your schizophrenia is clear.

How would a "mind" know this?

The absence of electrical activity in the muscles.

One thing the mind can experience is muscle tension.

Contradiction. All experience is created by the brain.

Not a contradiction. The experience of muscle tension is something the brain creates for the mind.

The mind experiences muscle tension. But the experience is not muscle tension. The experience will not get a sprain if the muscle has too much tension.

So, once again, what is the purpose of the "mind" if the brain and the golgi already do all of the work? You've here reduced "mind" down to a completely unnecessary, energy wasting decision maker.

The mind is that which experiences. It is all that experiences. You need a mind to have experiences.

And the brain is the constant slave to the mind it has created. It is constantly trying to give that mind information in any way it can.

Something that can make decisions based on experience, a mind that has experiences, has a great evolutionary advantage. And a lot of energy will go into such a device.

Does not follow in any way.

This is pointless. You're a troll.

The poor quality of your objections does not make me anything but bored.

The butter melting is the activity of the heat, not the activity of the heater.

A thing created can have have effects beyond the activity that creates it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The mind is that which experiences.

Argument via definition is not an argument. The brain is that which experiences. End of discussion.

 

[untermensche]

The mind is that which experiences.

Argument via definition is not an argument. The brain is that which experiences. End of discussion.

It is an argument that starts by recognizing a phenomena.

There is experience.

For there to be experience one thing must be experiencing some other thing.

If the other thing is a construction, a creation, like the visual field then the thing that experiences it must also be constructed to be able to experience the construction.

If you find a key that has been constructed (blue) you need a constructed lock (mind) for it to have function.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The mind is that which experiences.

Argument via definition is not an argument. The brain is that which experiences. End of discussion.

It is an argument that starts by recognizing a phenomena.

There is experience.

For there to be experience one thing must be experiencing some other thing.

You keep repeating this idiotic nonsense. The body experiences; the brain interprets the experiences. Done.

 

[untermensche]

It is an argument that starts by recognizing a phenomena.

There is experience.

For there to be experience one thing must be experiencing some other thing.

You keep repeating this idiotic nonsense. The body experiences; the brain interprets the experiences. Done.

Blue is not an interpretation.

Nothing about the universe is blue.

Pain is not what damaged skin is like. Damaged skin is not like anything. Pain is something completely different. A creation.

Sound is not sound waves. Sound is something completely different.

The brain is creating things for a mind to experience.

It has to interpret stimuli for this to happen.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Blue is not an interpretation.

It is a category of stored/associated previous experiences that gets triggered any time the wavelength hits the optic sensory input devices. The brain interprets the new information in light of the old and updates the category "Blue."

It is this process that we call an "experience."

 

[untermensche]

Blue is not an interpretation.

It is a category of stored/associated previous experiences that gets triggered any time the wavelength hits the optic sensory input devices. The brain interprets the new information in light of the old and updates the category "Blue."

It is this process that we call an "experience."

The previous experiences were all of a creation.

Blue is not something about the world.

It is only an experience.

It is the end product after one thing is transformed into something completely different.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Blue is not an interpretation.

It is a category of stored/associated previous experiences that gets triggered any time the wavelength hits the optic sensory input devices. The brain interprets the new information in light of the old and updates the category "Blue."

It is this process that we call an "experience."

The previous experiences were all of a creation.

Irrelevant even if accepted as true. If the "mind" can learn through trial and error, so can the brain. In the case of "blue" the brain would simply be storing numerous experiences associated with the wavelength that it did not yet have a specific name for until years later--in grade school--when taught the word, thus forever associating the word with the category of past experiences.

It is only an experience.

It is a category of particular past experiences combined and updated with the new information triggered by the sensory input devices registering the wavelength in a new situation or context.

It is the end product *snip repetition*

Binary equivocational thinking.

 

[untermensche]

Yes if one thing is transformed into another that is two things.

Just because two things are discussed that does not make it binary thinking. It just makes it an understanding of what is happening.

A stimulus that has nothing to do with blue is transformed into the experience of blue.

Fact.

 

[steve_bank]

unbdernench

Dies the mind exist after death?

 

[untermensche]

unbdernench

Dies the mind exist after death?

I don't see how. It is something that arises from brain activity.

 

[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.

The mind is an unexplained phenomena.

The ability to experience as a mind experiences is an unexplained phenomena.

But what is clear is the mind experiences giving the arm a command.

In the Libet-type studies they ask the subjects to guess when they think they are giving a command to move.

The experience of giving a command is a given.

Sometimes the commands are drudgery. Like when having to go to bed when half asleep on the couch. Why would the brain create the experience of drudgery? But in a mind that must do the moving, must actively will the movement, feeling drudgery is easy to understand.

You are claiming without knowing what the phenomena is that creates a mind that the experience of the mind giving a command and not just experiencing a command being given is a delusion.

Your psychosis model of the mind is absurd and based on no rational arguments.

This is not about 'my model' or anything I may have said...it is about you and your claim for autonomy of mind.

It is you who needs to describe how autonomy of mind could possibly work and provide evidence for it.

It is you who needs to provide a working hypothesis for autonomy of mind and provide a rational argument to support your own hypothesis.

Never mind anyone else. Support your own claims.

Can you do that?