The objective mind

[untermensche]

In the untermenche world of BS comes there is only one way to create the objective mind....

The dissonance is amazing.

The objective mind is that which creates the subjective mind.

Energy of some kind creates the objective mind.

Subjective is a unique state.

It is not like any state that a human can create.

Those that dismiss the subjective as some normal known phenomena have a blindness that is amazing.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

In the untermenche world of BS comes there is only one way to create the objective mind....

The dissonance is amazing.

Irony.

The objective mind brain is that which creates the subjective mind.

Fify. And now your "dissonance" assertion can be applied, because without an underlying mechanical process of some nature (e.g., conflicts arising from different regions of the brain) it is incoherent to even use the term. What, after all, would cause any kind of disharmony for dissonance to arise in the first place if "mind" is an objective condition that in turn creates a subjective sub-condition? The OM would necessarily have to be creating the disharmony--or the conditions for disharmony, which is effectively the same thing--as well as the capacity for disharmony in the SM, for the SM to be disharmonious against.

Iow, it would be a false, misleading and utterly pointless creation of the OM inflicted upon the SM for no reason and as such would still therefore not actually be dissonant, except in effect to the SM. It would merely be a constructed dissonance, but why in the world would the OM construct a false sense of disharmony in or for the SM?

Subjective is a unique state.

No, it's merely a descriptive term for a sentient individual's perspective.

It is not like any state that a human can create.

First of all, it's not a "state" it's a phenomenological condition. Second, even if it were a "state," your comment is tautological, nebulous nonsense. Depending on what you mean by "like", every "state" would be unlike and/or like any other state that a human can create. Dreams are unlike any other state that a human can create. Panic is unlike any other state that a human can create. Dissociation is unlike any other state that a human can create.

Conversely: Daydreams are like dreams. Anxiety is like panic. Compartmentalization is like dissociation. Etc., etc., etc.

You have a penchant for tenuous links based on equivocation of terms.

 

[untermensche]

Not more the heater is the same thing as the heat bullshit!

Your position is stupidity.

 

[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.

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.

Well, your hypothesis is interesting and I don't think it's nonsensical, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's any better than anything else. And, in the end, science is a question of utility so the current state of the art has a substantial advantage over your hypothesis presently.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Well, your hypothesis is interesting and I don't think it's nonsensical, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's any better than anything else. And, in the end, science is a question of utility so the current state of the art has a substantial advantage over your hypothesis presently.

It is not a hypothesis.

The hypothesis is that some kind of activity in the brain creates the mind.

Brain + Energy = Brain activity

Some subset of that objective brain activity (the objective mind) creates the subjective mind. It is a subset of the activity because the brain is doing more than creating the subjective mind.

We have no idea what that subset of brain activity is. We have no idea what the objective mind is.

We have no idea how neural tissue achieves any effect. We certainly don't know how it creates a subject.

These are facts, not a hypothesis.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Not more the heater is the same thing as the heat bullshit!

The heater generates heat. Just as the brain generates the mind. Or to put it into your terms, the objective brain generates the subjective mind.

Your position is stupidity.

Piercing counter-argument.

 

[untermensche]

Not more the heater is the same thing as the heat bullshit!

The heater generates heat. Just as the brain generates the mind. Or to put it into your terms, the objective brain generates the subjective mind.

Some subset of brain activity generates a subjective mind.

The activity is the objective mind not the instrument producing the activity.

The vibration of air is the music not the violin and not the vibration of strings.

Your position is stupidity.

Piercing counter-argument.

It is all that is necessary. You are quite lost.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Some subset of brain activity generates a subjective mind.

Yes.

The activity is the objective mind

Equivocation. You just established that “the activity” is brain activity. Brain activity generates a subjective mind.

The vibration of air is the music not the violin and not the vibration of strings.

Innacurate. “Vibration of strings” is the violin activity. “Music” is the vibration of air.

Thus, the violin activity generates the music, just as the brain generates the subjective mind.

 

[excreationist]

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!

Why can't you call it the "right hemisphere"? Why must you only be able to call it "the single mind"?

 

[untermensche]

Yes.

The creation of the subjective mind is not all the brain is doing.

Equivocation. You just established that “the activity” is brain activity. Brain activity generates a subjective mind.

Brain + energy + nutrients = brain activity.

Brain and brain activity are two different things.

The vibration of air is the music not the violin and not the vibration of strings.

Innacurate. “Vibration of strings” is the violin activity.

The violin is inert. It has no activity.

The human causes the strings to vibrate.

The strings are given activity by a human. The strings have activity.

“Music” is the vibration of air.

Not exactly.

To clarify. Music is a subjective experience in the mind.

Vibrating air is not music.

No mind = no music. No possibility of music.

- - - Updated - - -

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!

Why can't you call it the "right hemisphere"? Why must you only be able to call it "the single mind"?

The right hemisphere is a large location.

The objective mind may be microscopic.

Why are you trying to say things about a normal mind using a horribly damaged brain?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Well, your hypothesis is interesting and I don't think it's nonsensical, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's any better than anything else. And, in the end, science is a question of utility so the current state of the art has a substantial advantage over your hypothesis presently.

It is not a hypothesis.

The hypothesis is that some kind of activity in the brain creates the mind.

Brain + Energy = Brain activity

Some subset of that objective brain activity (the objective mind) creates the subjective mind. It is a subset of the activity because the brain is doing more than creating the subjective mind.

We have no idea what that subset of brain activity is. We have no idea what the objective mind is.

We have no idea how neural tissue achieves any effect. We certainly don't know how it creates a subject.

These are facts, not a hypothesis.

Yeah, well, everyone loves their own theories.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The creation of the subjective mind is not all the brain is doing.

Irrelevant.

Brain and brain activity are two different things.

Sigh. Another category error on the verge...

The violin is inert.

The brain is inert.

The human causes the strings to vibrate.

The human causes the brain to be active.

The strings are given activity by a human.

The brain is given activity by a human.

The strings have activity.

The brain has activity.

“Music” is the vibration of air.

Not exactly.

To clarify. Music is a subjective experience in the mind.

Vibrating air is not music.

No mind = no music. No possibility of music.

Irrelevant clarification of your own analogy.

 

[untermensche]

Irrelevant.

Whether all brain activity is devoted to the mind is irrelevant to the fact that the mind is a subset of brain activity?

Insane!

Go away.

The human causes the brain to be active.

Insane!

The brain is either active or inactive.

The one is a living human the other a dead.

The human has no say.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Whether all brain activity is devoted to the mind is irrelevant to the fact that the mind is a subset of brain activity?

Strawman and category error. “Subset” is an unnecessary qualification. “Brain activity generates the subjective mind” is a properly basic statement.

Go away.

Eat shit.

The human causes the brain to be active.

Insane!

Ironic hyperbole.

The brain is either active or inactive.

The brain is an object. It can be either active or inactive.

The one is a living human the other a dead.

Category error. A living human can remain living even when the brain is inactive.

The human has no say.

Incoherent.

Thanks for playing.

Thank you for playing. Sorry you lost.

 

[untermensche]

Strawman and category error. “Subset” is an unnecessary qualification. “Brain activity generates the subjective mind” is a properly basic statement.

Strawman?

Go away.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Strawman?

Yes.

You asked:

Whether all brain activity is devoted to the mind is irrelevant to the fact that the mind is a subset of brain activity?

Implying that is what I argued. I never argued that “all brain activity is devoted to the mind” or that such a condition, should it exist, would be “irrelevant” to the notion—not “fact”—of “mind” being a “subset of brain activity.”

“Subset” is an unnecessary qualification. “Brain activity generates the subjective mind” is sufficient.

Go away.

Eat shit.

 

[untermensche]

Here is the order of things.

1. Brain. The brain is tissues, cells, including blood vessels.

2. Brain activities. There are numerous activities occurring in the brain. There is cellular communication via transmitters. There is electrical activity that arises from this activity. There is magnetic activity if there is electrical activity. There is the blood rushing through. A lot of activities and more I have not mentioned like the internal activity of the cells.

3. Subset of all this activity that creates a subjective mind: The objective mind.

4. The subjective mind: That which experiences and all it experiences.

These are all separate and distinct.

To confuse one with the other is the only error.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Here is the order of things.

1. Brain. The brain is tissues, cells, including blood vessels.

2. Brain activities. There are numerous activities occurring in the brain. There is cellular communication via transmitters. There is electrical activity that arises from this activity. There is magnetic activity if there is electrical activity. There is the blood rushing through. A lot of activities and more I have not mentioned like the internal activity of the cells.

3. Subset of all this activity...

You were fine until this point in 3. There is no reason to categorize any such activity as a “subset.” You are clearly doing so in order to use “subset” as a special category in order to equivocate. Here’s proof:

that creates a subjective mind: The objective mind.

Word games, nothing else. The objective brain generates the subjective mind. That is sufficient; that is properly basic. There is no need or justification for going beyond that statement. It is clear and coherent.

These are all separate and distinct.

Again, equivocation. You break everything into special categories that are not necessary in order for you to “arrive” at this non sequiter. They are not, in fact, “separate” or “distinct.” The objective brain generates the subjective mind. Without brain, there can be no mind. Entirely dependent, not separate or distinct.

To confuse one with the other is the only error.

See? You are aware of what it is you’re TRYING to redefine, but can’t.

Brain can be active or inactive. An inactive objective brain, however, generates no subjective mind. Thus it is incoherent to claim that “subjective mind” is separate or distinct from “objective brain.”

 

[untermensche]

...You break everything into special categories that are not necessary in order for you to “arrive” at this non sequiter....

Nonsense.

You ignore clear distinctions for unknown reasons.

A brain is distinct from the many activities that occur in a brain. A violin is distinct from vibrating air.

Brain activities are distinct from a subset of the activities doing a specific thing, creating a subjective mind.

The activity that creates the subjective mind (the objective mind) is distinct from the product of that activity, the subjective mind.

The subjective mind experiences pain. The brain does not experience pain. The activity of the brain does not experience pain. The specific activity that creates a subjective mind does not experience pain.

To ignore clear distinctions is just stupidity. There is nothing else to say about it.

 

[excreationist]

Why can't you call it the "right hemisphere"? Why must you only be able to call it "the single mind"?

The right hemisphere is a large location.

But many parts of the right hemisphere are involved in the spoon example. The areas that let the hemisphere "see" (the left visual field), areas that let it "hear" (the researcher giving it instructions), areas that let it "touch" and "feel" (to grab the spoon) but it can't "talk".

The objective mind may be microscopic.

It is quite well known how the right hemisphere vs the left hemisphere is working in the spoon example. I don't understand why you prefer an explanation where you don't even know the size (let alone the location?) of the objective mind.

Why are you trying to say things about a normal mind using a horribly damaged brain?

https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/split.html
"After surgery, these people appeared quite "normal" - they could walk, read, talk, play sports and do all the everyday things they did before surgery. Only after careful experiments that isolated information from reaching one hemisphere, could the real effects of the surgery be determined."

So under most circumstances it isn't a "horribly damaged brain".

BTW you might be interested in this - the Stroop Effect:
https://imotions.com/blog/the-stroop-effect/
It's as if the mind is fighting against itself - how can that be if there is a single unified mind?