-
Features
The objective mind
- Thread starter untermensche
- Start date
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Absolutely not. There isn't a subjective mind. One believes there is a subjective mind as a place holder for one not knowing why one hears one's voice as one experiences. Deceit all around. After all one needs excuses to be seen as talking to oneself.
BS about 'mind' all around. We've got a brain which we are trying to objectively understand. In the meantime we substitute belief for everything we experience. Its all the best stuff from the world of "I heard". Everything was exposed when Harry Harlow noted that recording electrical activity from cortex was analogous to martins hanging a microphone above Main Street NYC then interpreting what they heard as the reality of what was going on there.
Face it. Conducting objective experiments is hard. Easier to spend time constructing temple in the sky to explain what we don't know.
In your case you take the subjective mind notion and insist it must have an objective correlate because failing to do wso would reveal your model as a farcical fantasy. ...and as you know two absurdities don't make a fact.
untermensche
Contributor
What is this "one" (signifying a unity) that believes in the mind?
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
It is the entity to which the mythology of beliefs are attached for this conversation's purposes. It could be a Cycanth or a Human or an Octopus. Nice thing about neutral attribution is our choices are mostly open.
untermensche
Contributor
What exactly created this mythology and what exactly believes it?
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
No, actually, it's not. Regardless, it's a meaningless distinction. All you have said is that one function of the brain (a term we use to refer to a collection of organs encased in our skulls) is, apparently, to generate a "mind" (a term we use to refer to an illusory, animated analogue and its superimposition on a "virtual space" apparently mirroring the external world).
In short, you've just asserted that an objectively existing brain generates a subjectively oriented mind; on ongoing, animated narrative reflection of a certain threshold of information gathered by the body's numerous sensory input devices (e.g., eyes, nose, skin, etc).
Which, again, even if granted doesn't really add anything to the conversation. Brain generates mind. Ok. And....?
untermensche
Contributor
To get you to recognize meaningful distinctions is like pulling teeth.
Finally you have understood it is a fraction of the brain activities creating a subjective mind.
Getting you to understand the distinction between activity and something created by that activity may be impossible.
Some ignorance is so dense it isn't worth caring about.
Finally you have understood it is a fraction of the brain activities creating a subjective mind.
Getting you to understand the distinction between activity and something created by that activity may be impossible.
Some ignorance is so dense it isn't worth caring about.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
No, you just have to actually provide something meaningful.
Case in point. That is not meaningful. Once again, all you have asserted is that brain generates mind.
Funny, because getting you to understand what a category error consists of is clearly not possible. Regardless, I have repeatedly granted--for the sake of argument--that an objectively existing brain generates a subjectively oriented mind. So...?
Where are you going with that? So far all you have done is insert an as yet incoherent redundancy in the middle ("objective mind"), but all it really boils down to is: brain generates mind. And....?
And resorting to insult reveals the vacuity of your position and its lack of defense.
untermensche
Contributor
You think saying the words " category error" amount to a meaningful point.
The activity that creates a mind is not the same thing as a mind.
A heater is not the same thing as heat.
The activity that creates a mind is not the same thing as a mind.
A heater is not the same thing as heat.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
As would all rational, intelligent individuals when facing someone who consistently makes category errors, yes.
Which would be an example of a category error.
A heater's activity causes air molecules in a room to become excited, which in turn raises the temperature in that room. We call that change in state/increase in temperature "heat." Thus, we say "the heater causes the air to increase in temperature in that room," or, colloquially, "the heater generates heat."
And that, of course, can be broken down even further in regard to the fact that "heater" is likewise an inexact colloquial term for a device that is far more complicated and has other component parts that go into the COLLECTIVE term, "Heater."
"Heat" (on its own) can be a noun or a verb. The noun form (in this context) means: the quality of being hot; high temperature. But those are two different categories, hence the semicolon denoting they are related, but not the same. The "quality of being hot" is more abstract, whereas "high temperature" is a measurement on a scale. The verb form (in this context) means: make or become hot or warm, which, again, are two different categories (one is active the other passive).
So what--exactly--are you talking about; which category, because they are not all equivalent; all interchangeable?
Take the phrase: "the heater causes the air to increase in temperature in that room." Saying, "Temperature is a different thing than Heater" while obviously true, is a meaningless distinction to make. No one would confuse a "heater" (a device) with "temperature" (a measurement of thermal activity of air molecules).
And, likewise, because "heater" (the device) is actually a word that shorthands a deeper, more complicated structure, we could just use your language and say, "certain sub-activities of the heater cause the air molecules to release thermal activity, which raises the temperature in the room."
Ok. And we could further say, "an objective heater generates an objective temperature that generates a subjective heat." Ok. But at each step "heater" "temperature" and "heat" are terms that are denoting different categories. Heater (physical object); temperature (measurement of thermal activity in air molecules); heat (noun; 1. the quality of being hot; high temperature--or--verb; 1. make, or become, hot or warm).
And, again, the "objective temperature" middle part is unnecessary/redundant. All you really need to say, colloquially, is "a heater generates heat."
Yes, the "heater" is distinct from "heat" in the abstract sense, but you're leaving out the "generates" part of the equation every time you try to separate the two. Why? What does it get you to tautologically declare that "heater" is distinct and "heat" is distinct, when the context--the category--of the assertion is that the heater is the thing that is generating the heat?
Generating is the all important qualifier that links what you are trying to separate. Why? What is the endgame to relying on something being generated only to then remove that part of the equation?
It's like saying, "The heater in this room heated the air in this room, but Heat is a distinct concept and therefore the heater no longer matters." False. Without the heater you have no heat being generated in that room.
Everything is dependent on the heater's activity. The heat in the room is therefore essentially the activity of the heater. They are inseparable in function and function is what heating the room is all about. You are trying to separate them in form.
Category error.
untermensche
Contributor
An intelligent person would demonstrate how something is a category error.
A moron just says the words.
Over and over.
As we see.
A heater is a mechanical device. It has defined parts.
Hot and cold are experiences. They are totally subjective. They don't exist outside of minds.
What is objective is amount of energy.
To heat something is to increase it's energy. Increase the molecular movement.
So heat as a noun is an increase in the energy of a molecule.
Only the most simple fool would think a mechanical device is the same thing as an increase in the energy of a molecule.
They are separate and distinct "entities".
Even if one is the cause of the other.
Gravity is the cause of the ball falling.
A ball falling and gravity are not the same thing.
A brain is not the same thing as brain activity and brain activity is not the same thing as a mind.
DBT
Contributor
Nothing happens without a brain that acquires information, processes and responds to it, be that consciously or unconsciously.
When is the brain active; All the time
Consistency of brain activity; Brain is constantly receiving, processing and responding to sensory information from internal and external world
What arousal states can responses be classified under; Conscious or Unconscious
Unconscious Response; Reaction that does not involve awareness, is involuntary, unintentional, automatic and is not normally controlled
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
The same entity that had memory of previous experience and current experience and had the capability to use those facts to predict future experience. Except the entity used that information and capacity to chart lawfulness of the world the entity experienced. Some among that group weren't able to keep up so they invented stories with super entities to set things back to a level lower of fear for those disconcerting experiences that calmed them down. Enjoy your milk and cookies and yes you can leave on your light tonight.
untermensche
Contributor
The mind happens because of the activity of the brain, not merely the brain.
And the mind is a creation of the activity, not the activity.
As a creation and not the activity and not the brain there is no reason to think it can't have a feedback effect on the activity and thus the brain.
You have no rational position.
untermensche
Contributor
You are so tiresome.
You use your mind to form bad sentences and express bad ideas.
It is common to say we "have" a mind.
That is not true.
We "are" a mind.
I am a mind that has the power to form ideas and force hands to type them out.
What is happening in this forum is minds are coming together to do what minds want to do.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
untermensch said:
Category error. The CONTEXT we are talking about is a mechanical device’s activity generating the increase in energy. The category is generation of the thing itself, not the thing itself.
CAUSE being, once again, the operative term.
Wrong category. For it to be in the same category, you would have to say “gravity generates a falling ball” which is obviously false.
A brain is not a thing, it is the term we use for a collection of things.
Wrong category. A mind is an illusory state; the equivalent of the illusion of a bird inside the cage, but there is no bird inside the cage. The activity of twirling the thaumatrope is what generates the illusion. No activity, no illusion gets generated.
Thus, the activity is the illusion, for all practical purposes. Exactly the same as the brain’s activity generating the illusiory “mind.”
The word “Film” can refer to something physical (i.e., the celluloid that ran through a camera and is now loaded into the projector) or illusory (i.e., the effect of projection, which is the activity of the projector). So there is a distinct physical object (the celluloid) and a distinct illusory phenomenon (the illusion of movement generated by the activity of the projector).
Physical object and illusory phenomenon. Two distinct categories that the word “Film” can be used to refer to.
You, however, want to ironically remove their distinctive qualities and put them both in the same category of “things,” which is misleading and incoherent, especially because the physical object creates the illusory phenom only as a result of the activity of the film running through a projector.
So, yes, there is celluloid. And there is an illusory phenom. But the second doesn’t exist without the activity of a projector.
So the proper order is: Celluloid running through a projector generates illusory phenom.
So we’re back at brain generates mind. AT NO TIME can any “mind” exist without being generated by a brain. If you want to talk about various theories as to how the brain generates this illusory phenom and the like, by all means.
But stop trying to separate out the generation from the equation, because that is the category: illusory phenom that are generated by brain activity for $100.
untermensche
Contributor
The context is talking about things over the internet.
And a heater is not the activity of the heater and it is not what happens because of the activity.
These are each separate and distinct.
It is just a total waste of my time to try to convince somebody that a machine made of parts is not the same thing as an increase in the energy of air molecules.
They have a relationship but they are completely different things.
To deny it is just stupidity.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
FFS. You keep avoiding the fact that what you are actually referring to is the generation of a particular "mind" via brain activity.
You want the "mind" to be like a soap bubble. Once created, it exists on its own. But that is not the case in regard to mind. It is entirely dependent for every nano-second of its existence on brain activity. Effectively, it IS brain activity, nothing more nor less.
It is precisely the illusion of the bird in the cage, but there is NO bird in the cage at any step in the process. Never at any point does there exist a bird inside a cage, only the ILLUSION of a bird inside the cage.
So, once again, you have the following categories:
1. Physical: (a) object (thaumatrope); (b) activity (spinning the thaumatrope).
2. Illusion: the mistaken belief that there is a bird inside the cage due to the physical activity.
If you want to talk about category 1, then you are talking explicitly about the physical components that generate category 2.
If you want to talk about category 2, then you are talking explicitly about the illusory effect/phenomenon generated by category 1.
At no point are categories 1 and 2 the same category. The only commonality between those two different categories is the verb to generate.
The general category of an Illusion is distinct. The general category of a Physical object or action is distinct.
The generation of a particular illusion through the activity of a particular physical object/action is not and cannot be distinct. The illusion depends entirely on the continued activity for its "existence."
REGARDLESS, even if we grant that "Mind" is like a soap bubble (once created, it exists autonomously and no longer requires the activity that created it to "exist"), so what?
WHERE DOES THAT GO TO NEXT? You think you can extract an intact mind or something? That you can cut into the brain and find the mind? What is your endgame to all of this tortured blather?
Last edited:
untermensche
Contributor
When you look at a picture of a bird there never actually is a bird.
So fucking what?
So fucking what?
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
You are the one that used terms like "objective brain" and "objective mind" and the like and keep equivocating disparate categories.
My thought exactly to everything you are blathering about. What is your endgame?