The objective mind

[untermensche]

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."

In that you will notice there is only ONE "person".

Massive brain damage will have effects on consciousness but it will still be one consciousness.

 

[untermensche]

..the brain is a multitasking assemblage or peices evolved to serve successfully in multitudes of differing situations...

And it creates a unified mind.

This is all hand waving on your part since you do not have the slightest clue how that unified mind is created.

You know absolutely nothing about the objective mind.

 

[untermensche]

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?

I do not claim the unified single mind knows all things at all times.

It can be confused or mistaken or it can lack accurate information.

You are talking about a situation where massive damage has occurred, communication has been massively severed.

All that tells you is what the brain damaged mind is like.

It tells you nothing about what the normal mind is like.

It tells you nothing about your mind.

 

[fromderinside]

..the brain is a multitasking assemblage or peices evolved to serve successfully in multitudes of differing situations...

And it creates ....

- nm

 

[untermensche]

..the brain is a multitasking assemblage or peices evolved to serve successfully in multitudes of differing situations...

And it creates ....

- nm

Your unified mind shows it can command to do and to not do.

 

[fromderinside]

An attempt to convince by projection? Are things that bad?

 

[untermensche]

It is an attempt to educate based on reason.

And reason only matters to minds.

 

[fromderinside]

I see. So even if I don't agree you presume i do agree and you are all cozy and warm about that? How did your clan survive?

Show

Untermenche of the great tundra, a tale of whoa

"Daddy look outside our igloo. See all those cedars. I can go out and play now?"

"Yes child. We accept what you think here. Go out and play."

Thirty minutes later our hero, the child is frozen by temperatures of minus 50 degrees Celsius in the barren wasteland snowfield.

 

[untermensche]

More hand waving because you don't have the slightest clue what the objective mind is.

That's all right.

Nobody does.

 

[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?

I do not claim the unified single mind knows all things at all times.

It can be confused or mistaken or it can lack accurate information.

You are talking about a situation where massive damage has occurred, communication has been massively severed.

All that tells you is what the brain damaged mind is like.

It tells you nothing about what the normal mind is like.

It tells you nothing about your mind.

What is controlling the left hand? The subjective mind? The objective mind? Note that whatever is controlling it, it is intelligent.

 

[untermensche]

I do not claim the unified single mind knows all things at all times.

It can be confused or mistaken or it can lack accurate information.

You are talking about a situation where massive damage has occurred, communication has been massively severed.

All that tells you is what the brain damaged mind is like.

It tells you nothing about what the normal mind is like.

It tells you nothing about your mind.

What is controlling the left hand? The subjective mind? The objective mind? Note that whatever is controlling it, it is intelligent.

The objective mind is the activity that creates the subjective mind. They are not two minds. The objective mind is activity, not a mind. A mind is a unified result of activity, something that experiences and the things it experiences, not the activity itself. The activity that creates the representation of the tree is not the same thing as the experience of the tree.

The unified mind picks up the spoon but has a form of aphasia and can't talk about it.

 

[DBT]

The objective mind is the activity that creates the subjective mind. They are not two minds. The objective mind is activity, not a mind. A mind is a unified result of activity, something that experiences and the things it experiences, not the activity itself. The activity that creates the representation of the tree is not the same thing as the experience of the tree.

The unified mind picks up the spoon but has a form of aphasia and can't talk about it.

That makes no sense. You have no evidence for your version of cognition. It's some sort of New Age Philosophy, Flower Power, Hippy Revolutionary ideas conjured up in a mental haze of Hooch and Hops.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

The objective mind is the activity that creates the subjective mind. They are not two minds. The objective mind is activity, not a mind. A mind is a unified result of activity, something that experiences and the things it experiences, not the activity itself. The activity that creates the representation of the tree is not the same thing as the experience of the tree. The unified mind picks up the spoon but has a form of aphasia and can't talk about it.

That makes no sense. You have no evidence for your version of cognition. It's some sort of New Age Philosophy, Flower Power, Hippy Revolutionary ideas conjured up in a mental haze of Hooch and Hops.

I think it does make some sense. It's definitely reified in an unusual way, and I'm not sure how useful it is to think of it this way but it's not like anyone else has a better description.

 

[excreationist]

I think it does make some sense. It's definitely reified in an unusual way, and I'm not sure how useful it is to think of it this way but it's not like anyone else has a better description.

https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/split.html

Surely the explanation about the right hemisphere not being able to speak but still having access to the left side of the body is a far better explanation than there being a single unified mind that has some mysterious aphasia.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I think it does make some sense. It's definitely reified in an unusual way, and I'm not sure how useful it is to think of it this way but it's not like anyone else has a better description.

https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/split.html

Surely the explanation there about the right hemisphere not being able to speak but still having access to the left side of the body is a far better explanation than there being a single unified mind that has some mysterious aphasia.

Depends what you are explaining. But also what we decide to explain has a lot to do with what we already assume. See: paradigm

 

[excreationist]

I think it does make some sense. It's definitely reified in an unusual way, and I'm not sure how useful it is to think of it this way but it's not like anyone else has a better description.

https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/split.html

Surely the explanation there about the right hemisphere not being able to speak but still having access to the left side of the body is a far better explanation than there being a single unified mind that has some mysterious aphasia.

Depends what you are explaining. But also what we decide to explain has a lot to do with what we already assume. See: paradigm

It is about explaining "What is controlling the left hand?"

The right hemisphere vs a single unified mind with mysterious aphasia.

 

[DBT]

The objective mind is the activity that creates the subjective mind. They are not two minds. The objective mind is activity, not a mind. A mind is a unified result of activity, something that experiences and the things it experiences, not the activity itself. The activity that creates the representation of the tree is not the same thing as the experience of the tree. The unified mind picks up the spoon but has a form of aphasia and can't talk about it.

That makes no sense. You have no evidence for your version of cognition. It's some sort of New Age Philosophy, Flower Power, Hippy Revolutionary ideas conjured up in a mental haze of Hooch and Hops.

I think it does make some sense. It's definitely reified in an unusual way, and I'm not sure how useful it is to think of it this way but it's not like anyone else has a better description.

It makes no sense. . Untermensche is claiming autonomy of mind, in his own words a 'smart mind' operating a 'dumb brain' It's an idea that was rejected long ago.

He bases his idea on the subjective experience of moving one's limbs at will, as if it is our experience of will that is moving our will instead of the related brain regions, motor cortex, etc.

That idea is not supported by evidence, experiments, case studies or anything else.....studies which do support the brain as the agency of mind/consciousness, that it is the physical state of a brain that is being reflected in its conscious activity and movement.

 

[untermensche]

The objective mind is the activity that creates the subjective mind. They are not two minds. The objective mind is activity, not a mind. A mind is a unified result of activity, something that experiences and the things it experiences, not the activity itself. The activity that creates the representation of the tree is not the same thing as the experience of the tree.

The unified mind picks up the spoon but has a form of aphasia and can't talk about it.

That makes no sense. You have no evidence for your version of cognition. It's some sort of New Age Philosophy, Flower Power, Hippy Revolutionary ideas conjured up in a mental haze of Hooch and Hops.

I have as much evidence as you have since you have no evidence of the objective mind.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends what you are explaining. But also what we decide to explain has a lot to do with what we already assume. See: paradigm

It is about explaining "What is controlling the left hand?"

The right hemisphere vs a single unified mind with mysterious aphasia.

I did.

The single mind is controlling it.

Unfortunately the brain of that mind has been so damaged the single mind can't talk about it.

You are trying to use the severely damaged to explain the intact. Absurdity!

 

[untermensche]

The objective mind is the activity that creates the subjective mind. They are not two minds. The objective mind is activity, not a mind. A mind is a unified result of activity, something that experiences and the things it experiences, not the activity itself. The activity that creates the representation of the tree is not the same thing as the experience of the tree. The unified mind picks up the spoon but has a form of aphasia and can't talk about it.

That makes no sense. You have no evidence for your version of cognition. It's some sort of New Age Philosophy, Flower Power, Hippy Revolutionary ideas conjured up in a mental haze of Hooch and Hops.

I think it does make some sense. It's definitely reified in an unusual way, and I'm not sure how useful it is to think of it this way but it's not like anyone else has a better description.

The dissonance is so thick I can smell it.

What he calls Hippy Dippy New Age stuff is actually explaining what the mind is in physiological terms.

The subjective mind is the experienced correlate of the physical objective mind.

He seems to think the subjective mind can just exist with no objective correlate. Without an objective mind.

Talk about Hippy Dippy bullshit.

 

[fromderinside]

In the untermenche world of BS comes there is only one way to create the objective mind. Now there's a thought. There is physics and there is uncertainty and there is The One Way. Think of that. The One Way to create the objective mind and evolution has managed it. Only question is is if the objective mind can only be created one way then everybody, by necessity, have exactly the same objective mind.

Since science has never found any part of any brain to be exactly the same it must be the case that The Objective Mind must be of something other.

OK now we can start the woo woo again.