The human mind

[fromderinside]

non sequitor. Every brain is unique because it is not in the same place or of the identical particles.

What you suggest isn't justified by your comments nor are your comments accurate on their own.

 

[untermensche]

That does not exclude the brain being unique in other ways.

Logic is a bit too much for you, isn't it?

Better to just stick with pretending you know things.

 

[fromderinside]

Better to just stick with pretending you know things.

No. I've left that little task to you and you are doing just fine.

 

[untermensche]

I don't pretend that a mind is required to arrange ideas.

I know it.

 

[fromderinside]

Fine.

You do that in the face of evidence that there is no disembodied thing in the human or living things for that matter.

 

[untermensche]

The mind is not disembodied. It is created by some kind of activity within the body and acts on the body.

 

[DBT]

You are just guessing. Basing you guess on your subjective experience, meanwhile ignoring the means by which your experience is being shaped, formed and generated by the activity of the brain....which you vaguely allude to.

 

[untermensche]

I am saying that the science has to actually explain experience.

Not pretend experience is not right there and clear.

 

[fromderinside]

How about awareness of process? There is evidence for memory and recall mechanisms and locations in the brain yano. In fact I think I described one I found in my electrode study of learning in the acoustic tract. In that we found evidence of both upward and downward interaction in colliculus and geniculate and at inner hair cell descending neural processes. We found this by recording and comparing signals at all three sites across signal presence episodes. We proposed engrams are formed by such communications.

 

[DBT]

I am saying that the science has to actually explain experience.

Not pretend experience is not right there and clear.

But that is exactly what you are trying to do when you make your assertions about the relationship and role of mind to the brain....yet never seeing the irony of your claims.

 

[untermensche]

I am saying that the science has to actually explain experience.

Not pretend experience is not right there and clear.

But that is exactly what you are trying to do when you make your assertions about the relationship and role of mind to the brain....yet never seeing the irony of your claims.

The experience is clear.

I freely decide to move the arm in some manner. Nothing forces the decision. The movement can be totally frivolous and meaningless.

Why would an evolved brain make frivolous movements?

It is irrational to say the brain would do things like this.

Basically all you have done, and also many in the so-called "neurosciences", is take everything the mind does and merely CLAIM it is really done by a dumb reflexive brain.

It is not interesting or believable and there is no reason to think it.

It is an absurd claim made from total ignorance of the objective workings of a mind.

 

[fromderinside]

So how does a mind arise from what you describe as a dumb reflexive brain composed of reflexive neural components? From your assertions it's not rational at all.

 

[untermensche]

It is an interesting question.

And the only way to answer it is to first think there is an answer.

 

[DBT]

You claim to have an answer, you repeat your answer, your assertion, over and over and over.....but when it comes to the crunch, like now, it is quite clear that you have no answer, only assertion.

 

[WAB]

So how does a mind arise from what you describe as a dumb reflexive brain composed of reflexive neural components? From your assertions it's not rational at all.

That ^ is the hard problem of consciousness presented by David Chalmers in 1995, and not sufficiently answered since. Dennet avoided it, didn't answer it.

In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), the philosopher and physician John Locke argued:

Divide matter into as minute parts as you will (which we are apt to imagine a sort of spiritualizing or making a thinking thing of it) vary the figure and motion of it as much as you please—a globe, cube, cone, prism, cylinder, etc., whose diameters are but 1,000,000th part of a gry, will operate not otherwise upon other bodies of proportionable bulk than those of an inch or foot diameter—and you may as rationally expect to produce sense, thought, and knowledge, by putting together, in a certain figure and motion, gross particles of matter, as by those that are the very minutest that do anywhere exist. They knock, impel, and resist one another, just as the greater do; and that is all they can do... t is impossible to conceive that matter, either with or without motion, could have originally in and from itself sense, perception, and knowledge; as is evident from hence that then sense, perception, and knowledge must be a property eternally inseparable from matter and every particle of it.[9]

[emphasis mine] - Wikipedia

The polymath and philosopher Gottfried Leibniz wrote in 1714, as an example also known as Leibniz's gap:

Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception.[10]

[emphasis mine] - Wikipedia

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

 

[fromderinside]

Not a description of hard problem at all. Neurons communicate both up and down tracts so what has been modifies what is being or is to be. The name for that is neural processes.

Neural Processes https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.01622

 

[untermensche]

Neurotransmitters, or a flow of electricity, not neurons, can cause reflexive action in neurons. One neuron never has any direct experience of another neuron.

To say they communicate is a crude metaphor not a description of how anything happens.

How this reflexive activity results in the ability to experience is not understood in any way.

And the ability to experience always contains two components.

1. That which can experience

2. That which can be experienced

 

[Treedbear]

Neurotransmitters, or a flow of electricity, not neurons, can cause reflexive action in neurons. One neuron never has any direct experience of another neuron.

To say they communicate is a crude metaphor not a description of how anything happens.

How this reflexive activity results in the ability to experience is not understood in any way.

And the ability to experience always contains two components.

1. That which can experience

2. That which can be experienced

It's clear that experience is a myth. It's a way of imagining what should be rather than what is or has been. It's perfectly clear.

 

[untermensche]

To us all is experience.

We are not bodies.

We are minds that experience.

And we are not imagining what is happening. We are experiencing a brain created representation of what is happening.

You are saying all is a myth.

 

[Treedbear]

To us all is experience.

We are not bodies.

We are minds that experience.

And we are not imagining what is happening. We are experiencing a brain created representation of what is happening.

You are saying all is a myth.

In a nutshell, yes. A brain created representation. That's what brains do. How is that not a product of the imagination? It's part of the specification. Consciousness is "what it's like" to be something. The basic operation of describing one thing in terms of others things.