The objective mind

[fromderinside]

Consciousness and intelligence are derivative. Neanderthals were probably quite intelligent. They didn't seem to be social learners though, they didn't learn outside their set of heritable activities. No icons, no symbols, no art, probably little speech and music. Modern humans had all these capabilities exhibed when they interacted with the Neanderthal. Had to be marvelous hunters given the everee conditions of their habitats, limited tools, and small numbers they maintained as groups.

 

[untermensche]

Brain- Objective
Mind - Subjective

Objective "mind" is a contradiction in terms.

'The peas are in the pot' - objective
'I like peas' - subjective...

I experience the sight and smell and attraction to peas - subjective

The specific activity of something, likely the brain, creating you (the mind) and your experiences and your ability to have likes - objective

To say there can be the subjective without something objective as the cause is an absurdity.

To say there can be the subjective mind without the objective mind is an absurdity.

But so-called neuroscience in terms of the mind is just one invented story after another. There is no understanding of the mind and how it is created at all.

To be plain: YES, whatever causes "mind" is objective. The easy answer is the brain - which I believe is what DBT has been arguing (not to speak for you, DBT).

It's not an answer. Not an easy answer or hard answer.

It is a hypothesis.

And I am not arguing the mind is created by some kind of activity in the brain. The mind arises as a phenomena due to some kind of activity. The mind is an entity that arises.

The question of this thread is how.

What specific activity creates the mind (what is the objective mind in other words) and what kind of an effect is it?

ETA: Just to be clear: I hear you with respect to will and control. I am not one to align myself to the theory that humans are wholly mechanical. Consciousness and intelligence exist.

Just so I am clear I don't say it is control when it comes to movement. I say it is initial command but initial command within very narrow limits.

The mind commands the arm to move. The brain controls the movement. A lot of the control is in the cerebellum and it is beyond consciousness. And there can be combinations of reflexive movements with willed commanded movements. It is not a clean situation and the mind is a sloppy commander unless a movement has been practiced.

A lot of control of language is also beyond conscious control. We have a language capacity that orders words in specific ways much like the cerebellum orders the necessary final commands so that movement is smooth. The mind works in conjunction with the language capacity to understand and create language similarly to the way it works with the cerebellum to create smooth movement. There are other things involved with understanding such as preparatory knowledge which brings in memory and the minds connection to memory. It is not simple.

 

[DBT]

You are lying if you say I can't be persuaded by evidence.

Not so. I have posted more than enough quotes and links to experiments and case studies, analysis by researchers, etc, but you reject it all in favour of your own unfounded beliefs.

Enjoy your faith. No amount of evidence can change your mind. Your mind is fixed.

You have posted studies. That is true.

Most of them you can't even understand and take the conclusions from the authors as holy gospel.

You have no ability to look beyond the self serving claims of the authors.

You have no ability to examine these studies.

Yes you have presented them, but it is nothing but hand waving.

There is no understanding of the objective mind in any of them.

It has been explained how and why your use of the term ''objective mind'' is bogus, yet you persist in your folly. Just as you persist in your folly of asserting that mind has autonomy......that it is 'smart mind' that operates a 'dumb brain'

You assert this fallacy without a shred of evidence to support your claim, you keep asserting your claim in the face abundant evidence that refutes your claim.

And please don't repeat 'lifting your arm at will'' as evidence for your claim. For the reasons given numerous times, it is not evidence for your claim of autonomy of mind.

 

[untermensche]

You have posted studies. That is true.

Most of them you can't even understand and take the conclusions from the authors as holy gospel.

You have no ability to look beyond the self serving claims of the authors.

You have no ability to examine these studies.

Yes you have presented them, but it is nothing but hand waving.

There is no understanding of the objective mind in any of them.

It has been explained how and why your use of the term ''objective mind'' is bogus,

You don't know the difference between explaining something and making a worthless claim.

The subjective mind exists. There is no doubt about that.

Since the subjective mind exists it must exist because of some objective activity. It is not a miracle.

That objective activity is the objective mind.

To deny the objective mind exists since it MUST exist is total irrationality.

 

[untermensche]

The idea of a mind is not something invented. The mind is experienced not invented.

It is a catch all phrase to describe all that is involved in being a subject, an entity that has subjective experiences.

To have a subjective experience requires that which can experience, the subject, and all the subject can experience.

The term mind encompasses all of this.

And as a thing that experiences, the mind, there must be some way in which it exists.

To say there is no objective cause (the objective mind) to the subjective mind is a strange strange religion.

 

[fromderinside]

Something is experienced. Unfortunately it can't be mind. Being evolved randomly there are many solutions resident for impelling action in every individual that are genetically different and mostly unconnected. Calling a conglomerate, not even a conglomerate, but, rather a cacophony of drivers mind is a bit like saying there is something like gravity for such as the behaving brain. Nice to have it there's a God. But there is no supernatural faerie ergo there is nothing bringing all those voices together into a thing.

If one were to find something like the hyoid complex as a lynch pin for the complex of muscle, connections for tongue and larynx subserving speech attribute one might have something. There may be some sets of gathering in frontal cortex one might point to tand say there is lynch pin pin for consciousness, but, to date, that hasn't been found adequate or even partially explanatory for multiple attendings, and awareness foci and coordinators.

Crick found certain things necessary for the possibility of consciousness. That's admirable, but, not anywhere close to having the making of a an aware decider.

 

[DBT]

You have posted studies. That is true.

Most of them you can't even understand and take the conclusions from the authors as holy gospel.

You have no ability to look beyond the self serving claims of the authors.

You have no ability to examine these studies.

Yes you have presented them, but it is nothing but hand waving.

There is no understanding of the objective mind in any of them.

It has been explained how and why your use of the term ''objective mind'' is bogus,

You don't know the difference between explaining something and making a worthless claim.

I know that what you claim here is the very thing that you are doing.

Where is your evidence for autonomy of mind?

Where is your explanation for how autonomy of mind is achieved and how your autonomous, 'smart mind,' in your own words, operates a ''dumb brain?''

And why is it that there are no neuroscientists who seriously argue for such a proposition?

No Papers, no peer review, nothing, zip, zilch. Why, well, because there is no case to present.

 

[excreationist]

Consciousness and intelligence are derivative. Neanderthals were probably quite intelligent. They didn't seem to be social learners though, they didn't learn outside their set of heritable activities. No icons, no symbols, no art, probably little speech and music. Modern humans had all these capabilities exhibed when they interacted with the Neanderthal. Had to be marvelous hunters given the everee conditions of their habitats, limited tools, and small numbers they maintained as groups.

"Neanderthals were probably quite intelligent"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
They were a species of human and some say they were a subspecies - i.e. the same species as us! They lived until 40,000 years ago. I think they would be capable of art, etc, if they had been taught.

 

[untermensche]

Something is experienced. Unfortunately it can't be mind. Being evolved randomly there are many solutions resident for impelling action in every individual that are genetically different and mostly unconnected. Calling a conglomerate, not even a conglomerate, but, rather a cacophony of drivers mind is a bit like saying there is something like gravity for such as the behaving brain. Nice to have it there's a God. But there is no supernatural faerie ergo there is nothing bringing all those voices together into a thing.

If one were to find something like the hyoid complex as a lynch pin for the complex of muscle, connections for tongue and larynx subserving speech attribute one might have something. There may be some sets of gathering in frontal cortex one might point to tand say there is lynch pin pin for consciousness, but, to date, that hasn't been found adequate or even partially explanatory for multiple attendings, and awareness foci and coordinators.

Crick found certain things necessary for the possibility of consciousness. That's admirable, but, not anywhere close to having the making of a an aware decider.

The leg evolved randomly yet it is a single functional unit. Various muscles work in tandem to create functional locomotion. Just to balance takes incredible synchronicity of many parts.

The eyes evolved randomly yet they work as a single functional unit. There is only one visual field and it is complete and seamless when things are functioning properly.

The mind evolved randomly yet it works as a single functional unit. It is complete and seamless and not fractured.

You have no argument.

 

[untermensche]

You don't know the difference between explaining something and making a worthless claim.

I know that what you claim here is the very thing that you are doing.

Where is your evidence for autonomy of mind?....

Are you claiming you did not choose those words autonomously?

Prove it.

If they are not chosen autonomously then why do you believe them?

If they just arrived as a spastic reflex why should anybody believe them?

I choose my words autonomously. Nothing compels me but my desire to get my chosen ideas expressed.

I chose which ideas I accept and which I reject.

I could believe everything or nothing.

But I choose what I will and what I will not accept.

This is my autonomous mind telling you the ideas it has freely chosen.

 

[fromderinside]

Something is experienced. Unfortunately it can't be mind. Being evolved randomly there are many solutions resident for impelling action in every individual that are genetically different and mostly unconnected. Calling a conglomerate, not even a conglomerate, but, rather a cacophony of drivers mind is a bit like saying there is something like gravity for such as the behaving brain. Nice to have it there's a God. But there is no supernatural faerie ergo there is nothing bringing all those voices together into a thing.

If one were to find something like the hyoid complex as a lynch pin for the complex of muscle, connections for tongue and larynx subserving speech attribute one might have something. There may be some sets of gathering in frontal cortex one might point to tand say there is lynch pin pin for consciousness, but, to date, that hasn't been found adequate or even partially explanatory for multiple attendings, and awareness foci and coordinators.

Crick found certain things necessary for the possibility of consciousness. That's admirable, but, not anywhere close to having the making of a an aware decider.

The leg evolved randomly yet it is a single functional unit. Various muscles work in tandem to create functional locomotion. Just to balance takes incredible synchronicity of many parts.

The eyes evolved randomly yet they work as a single functional unit. There is only one visual field and it is complete and seamless when things are functioning properly.

The mind evolved randomly yet it works as a single functional unit. It is complete and seamless and not fractured.

You have no argument.

..and again, like always, you're wrong. From Seeing it all: Convolutional network layers map the function of the human visual system https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811916305481




.... and this doesn't even need reference to illusion processing .....

As usual I think your head is fixated because you haven't reasoned out what you are talking about. Putting things together as an instantaneous consciousness is an after the fact rationalization of just a tad of what is cognitively going on for your entertainment and believing.

What you believe is your mind is a sampling of biases put together after you have experienced it into a scenario, a very narrow scenario, after your lying self has built an argument to justify it. No empirical justification there at all.

What you are presenting is a very strong argument for doing empirical research rather than depending on personal testimony.

Is it any wonder that flat world was the way things were until the notion that a sail disappearing over the horizon was evidence of earth curvature, an observation that took over three thousand years to gain control of belief.

The following article may help you recover your balance. Contributions of low- and high-level properties to neural processing of visual scenes in the human brain http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/1714/20160102

 

[untermensche]

In simple words what the hell do you think that demonstrates?

The mind is a whole.

One thing sees. One thing feels.

"I" see. "I" feel pain. The "I" is a whole entity seeing and feeling, not a fraction of something.

Yes, the underlying mechanics is complicated.

The objective mind is unknown likely because of it's complexity. It may never be understood.

 

[excreationist]

In simple words what the hell do you think that demonstrates?

The mind is a whole.

One thing sees....

What about split brain experiments?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

 

[untermensche]

In simple words what the hell do you think that demonstrates?

The mind is a whole.

One thing sees....

What about split brain experiments?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

Is that two things seeing?

Or one thing seeing things strangely?

The word "I" symbolizes our sense of a unified mind.

From your link:

"Scientists have often wondered whether split-brain patients … are 'of two minds'" (Zilmer, 2001). However, recent evidence has emerged that despite lack of communication between the two cerebral hemispheres, consciousness appears to still take a unified state.[3]

 

[excreationist]

https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/split.html
What about this?

So, say a "typical" (language in the LEFT hemisphere) split-brain patient is sitting down, looking straight ahead and is focusing on a dot in the middle of a screen. Then a picture of a spoon is flashed to the right of the dot. The visual information about the spoon crosses in the optic chiasm and ends up in the LEFT HEMISPHERE. When the person is asked what the picture was, the person has no problem identifying the spoon and says "Spoon." However, if the spoon had been flashed to the left of the dot (see the picture), then the visual information would have traveled to the RIGHT HEMISPHERE. Now if the person is asked what the picture was, the person will say that nothing was seen!! But, when this same person is asked to pick out an object using only the LEFT hand, this person will correctly pick out the spoon. This is because touch information from the left hand crosses over to the right hemisphere - the side that "saw" the spoon. However, if the person is again asked what the object is, even when it is in the person's hand, the person will NOT be able to say what it is because the right hemisphere cannot "talk." So, the right hemisphere is not stupid, it just has little ability for language - it is "non-verbal."

 

[DBT]

You don't know the difference between explaining something and making a worthless claim.

I know that what you claim here is the very thing that you are doing.

Where is your evidence for autonomy of mind?....

Are you claiming you did not choose those words autonomously?

Prove it.

That just shows that you have no idea about the nature of cognition. Sensory input, distribution of information throughout neural networks/regions/lobes, processing, conscious representation and motor response, all being a physical processes from beginning to end, from information input to response.

You, yourself appear to prefer Magic. An autonomous mind that works a 'dumb brain'

Plus you have not provided evidence to support your claim.....where are the studies, the experiments, the case studies, the analysis by experts in their field?

Where is your evidence?

 

[fromderinside]

Is that two things seeing?

Or one thing seeing things strangely?

The word "I" symbolizes our sense of a unified mind.

From your link:

"Scientists have often wondered whether split-brain patients … are 'of two minds'" (Zilmer, 2001). However, recent evidence has emerged that despite lack of communication between the two cerebral hemispheres, consciousness appears to still take a unified state.[3]

Consciousness is the makeup and lipstick on the face. woo woo.

the brain person acts according to whence the information comes. From left person acts one way from right one acts another way. What one thinks one is doing is changing according to what one is doing not a thing controlling anything at all. Makeup.

The "I" is an actor reading what is presented, often wrongly, from what the brain has accomplished.

 

[fromderinside]

In simple words what the hell do you think that demonstrates?

The mind is a whole.

One thing sees. One thing feels.

"I" see. "I" feel pain. The "I" is a whole entity seeing and feeling, not a fraction of something.

Yes, the underlying mechanics is complicated.

The objective mind is unknown likely because of it's complexity. It may never be understood.

It demonstrates what the authors and many other authors are reporting similarly all along, that the brain is a multitasking assemblage or peices evolved to serve successfully in multitudes of differing situations.

The 'thing' you think is in control is actually a bad reporter of just the surface headlines, incomplete snippets, as seen at any particular moment.

Your bias is why science has replaced your methods with those that are physically verifiable and repeatable. You are the flat earther here, the Trump, here.

 

[excreationist]

untermensche:
About the spoon again:
https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/split.html

...Now if the person is asked what the picture was, the person will say that nothing was seen!! But, when this same person is asked to pick out an object using only the LEFT hand, this person will correctly pick out the spoon. This is because touch information from the left hand crosses over to the right hemisphere - the side that "saw" the spoon. However, if the person is again asked what the object is, even when it is in the person's hand, the person will NOT be able to say what it is because the right hemisphere cannot "talk."...

You say there is only one mind... I assume it is the thing that is being asked what the object is yet says it does not know. But what is it that controls the left hand?

 

[untermensche]

Are you claiming you did not choose those words autonomously?

Prove it.

That just shows that you have no idea about the nature of cognition. Sensory input, distribution of information throughout neural networks/regions/lobes, processing, conscious representation and motor response, all being a physical processes from beginning to end, from information input to response.

You, yourself appear to prefer Magic. An autonomous mind that works a 'dumb brain'

Plus you have not provided evidence to support your claim.....where are the studies, the experiments, the case studies, the analysis by experts in their field?

Where is your evidence?

That is about as big a dodge as I have ever seen.

Do you chose YOUR words autonomously?

If not why should I care about them and why do you care if they are said?