The human mind

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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

It’s not a “thing,” it isn’t being “transformed” and you clearly have no understanding of what binary thinking means, which is not surprising.

A stimulus that has nothing to do with blue

Horseshit.

is transformed into the experience of blue.

False.

A stimulus that triggers a particular category of stored information associated with the stimulus—i.e., encoded or otherwise “stamped” with the same wavelength—called “blue” that the brain then reviews and updates with the new association adding to the category “blue.”

That entire process is what goes into the experience of “blue” every time the wavelength hits the optical sensory input device.

This is painfully easy to comprehend, which means you are either mentally impaired in some fashion or willfully trolling. It's no more mysterious than the Dewey decimal system.

 

[untermensche]

It’s not a “thing,” it isn’t being “transformed” and you clearly have no understanding of what binary thinking means, which is not surprising.

The neural signal from the eye to the brain is a thing.

The experience of blue is a thing.

But they are two completely different things.

One thing is transformed into another thing.

A stimulus that has nothing to do with blue

Horseshit.

Your ignorance to what is happening is not an argument.

A stimulus that triggers a particular category of stored information...

You're guessing about how the transformation takes place.

You are admitting a transformation takes place with this wild speculation.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The neural signal from the eye to the brain is a thing.

No, it isn't. It is a process.

"Thing" is another word you are no longer allowed to use until you stop the constant fallacies of equivocation. Case in point:

The experience of blue is a thing.

No, it too is a process.

But they are two completely different things.

No, they are both the same "things"; they are both processes.

One thing is transformed into another thing.

Nothing is being "transformed" in any kind of substantive sense, unless by "transformed" you simply mean "added to." The wavelength stimulates (aka, "triggers") all of the stored memories associated with that wavelength. That category of stored information is called "Blue" (once we are taught this word and, again, associate it with the wavelength we see with our eyes on the card the teacher holds up years later in Kindergarten).

The triggered retrieval, review and adding-to process of updating the category of information we call "Blue" is what we refer to as the "experience of the color blue."

Again, just think of the Dewey decimal system and you--and every grade school child to have ever lived--have all you need to comprehend what's happening.

 

[untermensche]

No, it isn't. It is a process.

The actual signal, the transfer of information, is a thing.

It is cells acting in a specific way. The specific way they act is a specific thing. What they specifically do is a thing.

Cellular transfer of information is a thing.

But an experience is not a process to the thing that experiences. It is only a process to that which creates the experience by transforming neural information into something completely different.

The experience of blue is a thing.

No, it too is a process.

A process constructs the experience. But the experience is a very specific construction.

It is a very specific thing.

It has to be a specific thing for a mind to know what is blue and what is red.

They each have to be caused by very specific things.

Nothing is being "transformed." The wavelength stimulates (aka, "triggers") all of the stored memories associated with that wavelength.

The wavelength has absolutely NOTHING to do with blue.

The wavelength is turned to blue capriciously by evolved structures that in theory could have turned the stimulus to anything during the evolutionary process.

There is no memory of blue anywhere.

It is something that was constructed whole along the way.

There are structures in the brain that produce blue when a stimulus that has nothing to do with blue is recognized.

A transformation of a neural signal to an experience takes place.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The actual signal, the transfer of information, is a thing.

Once again, you are not allowed to use that word as you clearly and demonstrably do so for one purpose and one purpose only; to falsely equivocate.

It is cells acting in a specific way. The specific way they act is a specific thing process. What they specifically do is a thing process.

Cellular transfer of information is a thing process.

Done.

But an experience is not a process to the thing that experiences.

There is no such "thing" unless you mean a brain, but even that is not a "thing;" it is word we use to refer to a collection of things, but it is not a monolithic thing.

It is only a process to that which creates the experience

No more use of the word "creates" either. You keep desperately using terms that imply discreteness when in fact that is completely mischaracterizing the process and the phenomenon.

by transforming neural information into something completely different.

FALSE. Even in your thesis, everything--mind especially included--is nothing more than "neural information." STOP MAKING THESE FUCKING CATEGORY ERRORS.

Do you just not understand what a "category" is? Is that concept too difficult for you to understand, is that it?

No, it too is a process.

A process constructs the experience.

False. There is no "construction" no "creation" no "thing" no discreteness. At least not in the equivocal fallacy you're constantly invoking in order to arrive at the notion of an independent object--aka, Descarte's Homunculus--that despite infinite regress just is and is fully self-aware with meta-understanding of its existence and abilities.

There is process and only process.

It has to be a specific thing

Or else your entire thesis collapses, yes, we know. We've all known this the whole fucking time and told you this repeatedly. Guess what? Your entire thesis collapses.

Or, I should say, Descarte's entire thesis collapses as that's all you've been regurgitating over and over and over in every one of these pointless threads.

for a mind to know what is blue and what is red.

They each have to be caused by very specific things.

Wavelengths. That are associated with respective categories of stored information that when triggered result in another process of review and further association and then updating and then storage again. ALL of which happens in a matter of milliseconds and constitutes the meta-category that we call either the "experience of blue" for the "blue" wavelength or the "experience of red" for the red wavelength.

Painfully fucking simple to comprehend.

Nothing is being "transformed." The wavelength stimulates (aka, "triggers") all of the stored memories associated with that wavelength.

The wavelength has absolutely NOTHING to do with blue.

False. It is the fundamental associative "code" that triggers the category of memories associated with the code, which in turn is called "blue" once a child learns the word.

There is no memory of blue anywhere.

Inaccurate. There are memories that are coded in various associative ways, one of which including the wavelength associated with the category "color = blue" or the like.

It is something that was constructed whole along the way.

Partially correct in that, when triggered, all of the associations coded are retrieved and reviewed and the category is updated with the new information from the current triggering and so on. Quintillions of associations and codes and more associations and updates and codes and more associations constantly all nude all night we never close until death or physical impairment whirling churling hurling around and around and around always as a form of nonstop ever dynamically altering and expanding and contracting PROCESS, with the larger than the sum of its parts illusion being the "I," which is simply an animated analogue of all of this process and the body and how it operates in toto maintained by the brain as a tool for survival and social interaction and a way to manage the presumably infinite amount of information that is our universe and that literally makes up its fabric and thus bombards the body constantly.

There are structures in the brain that produce blue when a stimulus that has nothing to do with blue is recognized.

Which only affirms the fact that it's a matter of process and the process can be artificially stimulated. Congratulations you've just completely disproved your thesis.

A transformation stimulation of a neural signal [aka, process, results in an] "experience."

As always, fify.

 

[untermensche]

A transformation stimulation of a neural signal [aka, process, results in an] "experience."

The stimulation is when the light energy passes into the eye and runs into the retina.

This stimulation creates a neural signal that travels up the optic nerve to the brain. The signal is split and various parts of the brain create an experience.

A neural signal is transformed by brain mechanisms into the experience of blue. But they are complex mechanisms and they rely on nearby information about light and color to construct the experience and blue can be experienced in various forms.

The wavelength has absolutely NOTHING to do with blue.

False. It is the fundamental associative "code" that triggers the category of memories associated with the code, which in turn is called "blue" once a child learns the word.

A memory is an experience stored. We are born with mechanisms not memories.

Blue is produced on first exposure.

And a person can be without the mechanisms to normally produce certain colors but can put on glasses and experience color for the first time with no memory of it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

A transformation stimulation of a neural signal [aka, process, results in an] "experience."

The stimulation is when the light energy passes into the eye and runs into the retina.

This stimulation creates a neural signal that travels up the optic nerve to the brain. The signal is split and various parts of the brain [are triggered, which results in a "review" of all associated stored information combined with the new information collected, which is a process that in turn] create[s a phenomenon we refer to as] an "experience."

Fify. Again.

A neural signal is transformed by brain mechanisms into the experience of blue.

False. The "experience of blue" is the result of the brain processing the new neural signal--and all of the other information collected at the same point in time by all of the other sensory input devices that make up the human body--that was stimulated by the wavelength associated with the category of stored information known as "blue" since Mrs. Crabbahple first held up a blue note card in Kindergarten and made you repeat the word "Blue" over and over again until it coded.

Here is the link to the Dewey Decimal system for starters. Read it and then welcome to your first day of grade school.

 

[untermensche]

False. The "experience of blue" is the result of the brain processing the new neural signal--and all of the other information collected at the same point in time by all of the other sensory input devices that make up the human body--that was stimulated by the wavelength associated with the category of stored information known as "blue" since Mrs. Crabbahple first held up a blue note card in Kindergarten and made you repeat the word "Blue" over and over again until it coded.

To process something that is not blue into the experience of blue requires one thing be transformed into another thing.

You are merely speculating how it may happen.

And are very ignorant to how language is acquired.

Most children learn a label on the first exposure.

Abstract concepts like saying "1" is a representation of a value in a value scheme take longer.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

To process something that is not blue into the experience of blue requires one thing be transformed into another thing.

Once again you are not allowed to use the word "thing."

ETA: I just noticed you had added (or I had missed) the bit about color blindness in a previous post. It's ironic because I am also color blind. I have a mild form, red/green colorblindness, meaning I have difficulty discerning subtle differences in hues; e.g., black and navy usually appear black.

The only way I can tell the difference is by putting something I know is black next to the navy. Which only proves the point that it's a matter of proper encoding to trigger the right category.

 

[untermensche]

To process something that is not blue into the experience of blue requires one thing be transformed into another thing.

Once again you are not allowed to use the word "thing."

I sure can.

Even if we just say process it is the transformation of one process, brain communication, into another process, experience.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

To process something that is not blue into the experience of blue requires one thing be transformed into another thing.

Once again you are not allowed to use the word "thing."

I sure can.

No, you cannot.

Even if we just say process it is the transformation

Or "transformation."

of one process, brain communication, into another process, experience.

Or "into experience."

An "experience" is the description we give to the totality of the processes after they have occurred.

Iow, here is the rough simplified sequence that makes up any given experience:

Experience = stimulus; triggered retrieval of memories associated with that stimulus; review of associated memories; update of the associated memories to include new information associated with the new stimulus; storage of the updated category of associated memories.​

In a nut. ALL of those processes are what is contained in any give "experience," a descriptive label that is only applied after all of the processes are completed and as referent to the totality of all of those processes.

 

[steve_bank]

unbdernench

Dies the mind exist after death?

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

Then how is mind separate and distinct from body as our example of the heart? Is mimed a separate and distinct organ?

 

[untermensche]

unbdernench

Dies the mind exist after death?

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

Then how is mind separate and distinct from body as our example of the heart? Is mimed a separate and distinct organ?

I keep telling you the mind must be intimately connected to the brain to act on it.

No separation.

But the mind can do things the brain cannot.

 

[untermensche]

I sure can.

No, you cannot.

A neural transmission that leads to the production of the experience of blue is a thing. It has to be a thing for there to be a specific thing produced from it. It has to be a thing if it is to produce blue and not yellow.

You can repeat bullshit all you want.

A neural transmission is a thing.

And the experience of blue is a thing. When blue is experienced a specific thing is experienced, blue. A process is not experienced.

When a neural transmission becomes an experience a transformation must have taken place since one thing became a completely different thing.

Even if we just say process it is the transformation

Or "transformation."

The neural signal to the brain is a very specific and controlled process which makes it a thing. Whatever happens to create the experience of blue is a different process, a different specific thing.

A stimulus begins one process. A neural transmission to the brain. That causes the brain to begin a different process. And information is contained in both processes. But the information of one process is not the information of the other. The information that cause the brain to produce blue is not the same information that allows the experience of blue.

The light that hits the eye is not blue. It has no color. If it becomes an experience of blue that means one kind of information has been transformed into a completely different kind of information.

One kind of information must be transformed into a completely different kind of information for a mind to experience it.

Experience = stimulus; triggered retrieval of memories associated with that stimulus

You are not born with memories.

You are born with potential processes that need exposure to excite and allow to grow normally

On your first exposure to blue these processes will produce the experience of blue.

The light stimulus must be transformed into blue.

A process to do that must exist.

 

[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?

Looks like it's a no show. Can't be done, it appears.

Didn't think it could or would happen. I just asked for the sake of it.....expecting my request to be either ignored or danced around. This time it was the former option.

It's a change from the numerous displays of dancing, I guess.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This is precisely why you are not allowed to use the word "thing":

A neural transmission that leads to the production of the experience of blue is a thing. It has to be a thing for there to be a specific thing produced from it. It has to be a thing if it is to produce blue and not yellow. A neural transmission is a thing. And the experience of blue is a thing. When blue is experienced a specific thing is experienced, blue. A process is not experienced.

All idiotic binary drivel a fucking five year old could see through, driven home by the following non-sequitur:

When a neural transmission becomes an experience a transformation must have taken place since one thing became a completely different thing.

And contradicted by the following concession:

The neural signal to the brain is a very specific and controlled process which makes it a thing.

Wrong. You are trying to artificially mandate--through nothing more than equivocation--that a "very specific and controlled process" is a "thing" when in fact what you mean is that it can be categorized as a "thing" but only when the definition of "thing" is esoteric, thus allowing you to equivocate at will.

Process is a "thing." Things are distinct. Mind is a thing. Mind is distinct. Etc.

Here, however, is the definition of "thing" from Webster's:

Definition of thing

1 : an object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated
use this thing

2a : an inanimate object distinguished from a living being
b : a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity
c : the concrete entity as distinguished from its appearances
d : a spatial entity

3 : INDIVIDUAL
not a living thing in sight

4a : a matter of concern : AFFAIR
many things to do
b things plural : state of affairs in general or within a specified or implied sphere
things are improving
c : a particular state of affairs : SITUATION
look at this thing another way
d : EVENT, CIRCUMSTANCE
Meeting her was a wonderful thing.

5a things plural : POSSESSIONS, EFFECTS
pack your things
b : whatever may be possessed or owned or be the object of a right
c : an article of clothing
not a thing to wear
d things plural : equipment or utensils especially for a particular purpose
bring the tea things

6a : DEED, ACT, ACCOMPLISHMENT
do great things
b : a product of work or activity
likes to build things
c : the aim of effort or activity
the thing is to get well

7a : something (such as an activity) that makes a strong appeal to the individual : FORTE, SPECIALTY
letting students do their own thing
— Newsweek
I think travelling is very much a novelist's thing
— Philip Larkin
b : a mild obsession or phobia
has a thing about driving
also : the object of such an obsession or phobia

8a : DETAIL, POINT
checks every little thing
b : a material or substance of a specified kind
avoid fatty things

9a : IDEA, NOTION
says the first thing he thinks of
b : a piece of news or information
couldn't get a thing out of him
c : a spoken or written observation or point

10 : the proper or fashionable way of behaving, talking, or dressing —used with the

So exactly which one of these definitions are you applying? You aren't. That's the problem.

Plus there is no need to force the word "thing" just so you can equivocate when the word "PROCESS" already specifies.

The only reason to force "thing" is because when you use "PROCESS" you forfeit distinctness. Here, I'll show you (again) using your own words:

A neural transmission that leads to the production of the experience of blue is a process. It has to be a process for there to be [an experience] produced from it. It has to be a process if it is to produce [the experience of] blue and not yellow. A neural transmission is a process. And the experience of blue is a process. When blue is experienced a specific process is experienced, blue. A process is not experienced.

And now here is the crux of why your fallacious, binary thinking truly fails you (and why equivocating "thing" just fucks you):

A stimulus begins one process. A neural transmission to the brain. That causes the brain to begin a different process. And information is contained in both processes. But the information of one process is not the information of the other.

Misleading. The mechanism of processing information is the same. Just think in terms of a sewage drain, since this nonsense is so full of shit to begin with. The process is: sewage travels through the pipe. The information is: any sewage in the pipe.

It does not matter how much sewage/information or what kind of sewage/information or whether or not sewage/information from one pipe is being combined with sewage/information from ten other connected pipes, ALL of the sewage/information is being processed the same way.

Adding or subtracting sewage/information does not fundamentally transform the sewage/information into some other thing. Shunting some sewage/information into another pipe/process likewise does not "transform" the sewage/information into some other "completely different" thing in any substantive manner.

Take out twenty tons of sewage/information from the pipe/process and you still have forty tons of sewage/information in the pipe/process. The finer details of what constitutes "sewage/information" likewise does not fundamentally transform anything.

Whatever is sewage/information remains sewage/information no matter which pipe/process it uses or however much additional sewage/information is added or subtracted from the pipe/process.

Iow, there is no distinct sewage that is being transformed into a "completely different thing." It is NOT binary. One distinct thing being turned into another distinct thing. No. False. Wrong.

It is the process of information being combined with other information that in turn gets associated with other information and then stored in updated categories of information and it is this processing of information that generates what we call an "experience" of any given aspect of the information.

The categories of "information" and "process" do not fundamentally change. The details of what constitute the information being processed at any given time and by any given organ/nerve/sensory input/output device can be up, down, backwards, forwards, whatever the fuck, but the category of "information" does not fundamentally change. Iow, it is not "one thing that becomes a completely different thing."

That's just fundamentally wrong thinking.

The information that cause the brain to produce blue is not the same information that allows the experience of blue.

Now you see why that's a completely irrelevant--and once again fallaciously binary-way of thinking--and why you need to comprehend what CATEGORIES ARE. Why the fuck can't your understand how categories work?

Experience = stimulus; triggered retrieval of memories associated with that stimulus

You are not born with memories.

You are born with potential processes that need exposure to excite and allow to grow normally

On your first exposure to blue these processes will produce the experience of blue.

EQUIVOCATION. What you are here trying to get away with is shifting subjects. Here is the proper way to word that construct:

On a child's first exposure to the wavelength adults have labeled "blue," these processes will produce an experience that the brain will initially encode to that wavelength.

From that point forward, any time the child sees that wavelength it will trigger the previous stored experience(s) and the brain will then add this new experience with the same code for that particular wavelength to the category of "experiences previously had that are associated with this wavelength."

Years later--in kindergarten--the teacher will hold up a flash card that emits that wavelength and she will make the children pronounce the word "blue" such that their brains will now encode the word "blue" to both the wavelength and the category of "experiences previously had that are associated with this wavelength" such that, from that point forward, the wavelength will trigger the new meta-category "Blue" which will then cause the retrieval of all of the previous experiences and the child will have a new experience in the review, combining, updating and storing process, fold, spindle, mutilate ad infinitum (or until death).

Pedantic, but straightforward and pretty much exactly the steps and this all happens in a nano-second, which is why it's an experience; because it's a thousand different associations (and their own associations) with a thousand different memories of a thousand different emotions, etc, etc, etc. all suddenly exploding at once that in turn combine with the new information and trigger new emotional and logistical responses, etc, etc., etc. An avalanche of associated past and present information all being vomited up at once to cause a whole new combination of information to react to.

"Blue" was the wavelength of the dress your first girlfriend was wearing when you lost your virginity at 15, but it also the wavelength of the dress your mother was buried in when you were 48.

Associated memories--with two very different emotional associations--triggered together when you walk down the street and see some young woman in a blue dress, creating the experience of inexplicable joy and sadness that makes you miss both your previous girlfriend and your mother and your childhood and a dozen other associations all at once.

That is what we mean when say the "experience of blue."

A process to do that must exist.

It does and that--not "thing"--is the proper, non-ambiguous, non-fallacious--word to use. So use it.

 

[untermensche]

All idiotic binary drivel a fucking five year old could see through, driven home by the following non-sequitur:

The only drivel here is your worthless criticism and constant ignorance.

Example:

When a neural transmission becomes an experience a transformation must have taken place since one thing became a completely different thing.

To this you make the empty unsupported in any way claim:

And contradicted by the following concession:

The neural signal to the brain is a very specific and controlled process which makes it a thing.

So in the first I say that a neural transmission is a specific thing.

It is a specific series of events of very specific elements. A very specific neurotransmitter is released from a specific part of the cell and is moving in a very specific direction and it is binding to a specific receptor. These specific events are happening in many places all over the brain. Other specific events are taking place like cell membranes are being depolarized in a specific manner with a specific charge and at a specific time.

Countless events have to be synchronized to bring information gathered at the eye to the brain. If these events are not synchronized with great precision the brain will not recognize the signal.

Information contained in carefully synchronized activity is a thing.

From your argument by definition.

Thing:

4 c : a particular state of affairs : SITUATION
look at this thing another way

A neural signal is a thing.

We know something about a neural signal.

We know nothing about how a brain creates the experience of blue from it.

But we know for certain that one thing, a neural transmission, must be changed to another thing, the generation of an experience, for it to happen.

"Blue" was the wavelength of the dress your first girlfriend was wearing when you lost your virginity at 15, but it also the wavelength of the dress your mother was buried in when you were 48.

Blue has nothing to do with wavelengths.

The wavelength of light is a stimulus that is converted to the experience of blue.

Light has wavelengths. Experiences, like blue, do not.

 

[DBT]

The experience of seeing the colour blue is not arbitrary. It is related to wavelength. Any number of people are able to agree that something is blue because colour, as experienced by the vast majority of people, is related to a wavelength.

If the odd person does not agree, they are probably colour blind.

That does not mean that other species or even other individuals see colour in the same way. But they can agree that they are seeing the same colour, however it is being labelled, because it is based on wavelength.

 

[steve_bank]

Then how is mind separate and distinct from body as our example of the heart? Is mimed a separate and distinct organ?

I keep telling you the mind must be intimately connected to the brain to act on it.

No separation.

But the mind can do things the brain cannot.

If mind is a function of brain meaning chemical states, how can mind di something aside from brain? That is like saying software can do things not based in the processor hardware on your PC.

You obviously do not see your contradiction. On one hand you appear to reject body mind duality and then appear to reinforce it.

What dies mind do independent of brain?

 

[steve_bank]

What dies it mean to perceive or experience blue?

Is it associating seeing the color with the word blue? Objective.
Does it it mean how the color blue makes you feel? Subjective.

In music there is a technique called a break down with chord changes. When performed well it can make you feel like you are in a plane which suddenly looses altitude. The bottom falls out of your stomach. The blue grass song Foggy Mountain Breakdown.

In philosophy perception of art and music is called aesthetics.

In music there the' blue note'. A particular sequence of notes that creates that down feeling. On the other hand there is the William Tell Overture.

Certain chords, chord sequences, and note sequences evoke specific emotions. It is all a function of the brain, mind being a useful abstraction to talk about the brain and how it works.

MC Escher's impossible drawings and other sketches evoke feelings. My favorite is Gravity. Foe me it evokes human society. What does your mind say to you untermenche?

https://store.mcescher.com/gravity-large-poster-color

You are maintaining a very limited debate on mind when it encompasses both subjective aesthetics and neuroscience. You can not separate the two.

An artist I knew back in the 7os asked me to look at a color strip that had smooth change across the color spectrum and asked me to say how many shades I saw. I said something like 5 or 6. She said something like a dozen. Perception of color varies.

I watched a PBS show that talked about a phenom[VBMISC][/VBMISC]ena where some people's nervous system is crosswired. When they hear sounds it modulates perceived colors.

It is argued that painters like Van Gough were actually painting what they saw. Starry Night.

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=van+gogh...272956&tag=googhydr-20&ref=pd_sl_3n4gnrk1vj_b