The objective mind

[untermensche]

Answer the question.

You seem to think there is something more mysterious about seeing a bird in a cage compared to just seeing a bird that isn't there.

What is the big difference?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Answer the question.

You answer my question.

You seem to think

What is your endgame? Brain generates mind. So the fuck what?

 

[untermensche]

There are no end games here. Where do you think you are?

This is a thread about the objective mind.

I have defined the objective mind. It is the specific activity that produces the subjective mind.

Discovery of the objective mind is a goal for science.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I have defined the objective mind.

Horseshit. This:

It is the specific activity that produces the subjective mind.

Is not a definition, but it is endlessly ironic, because you just stated that the mind IS the activity.

Discovery of the objective mind is a goal for science.

Discovery of how brain activity generates the subjective mind is a goal, but no scientist on the planet has ever stated, "The goal 'for science' is the discovery of the objective mind."

What a total waste of everyone's time. Again.

Have fun. I'm finally done with this pointlessness.

 

[untermensche]

I hope you are able to keep your word.

You have added absolutely nothing to this conversation.

You think the heat is the same thing as the heater.

Ignorance that deep is such a waste of time.

 

[fromderinside]

I just did what I should have done early on. the only subjective mind stuff I could find was some reference to that as the unconscious mind

What I did find that fit your OP was  Subjective consciousness

So now you have two problems. In my world there is neither subjective nor consciousness beyond being placer holders for what some scientists are studying in terms brain function covering what persons think or believe and what are the machines through which those things are accomplished.

 

[DBT]

How does knowing the mind needs autonomy for me to type the words my mind chooses make the objective mind bogus?

Nothing happens without a brain that acquires information, processes and responds to it, be that consciously or unconsciously.

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.

You are not in a position to make mention of the term 'rational position.' There is no separation between brain and brain activity. Brain activity is the brain acting. The architecture of a brain has evolved to act, acquiring and processing information and responding to it in both conscious and unconscious forms.

Your irrational belief being that conscious brain activity somehow gains independence from brain activity in general, your so called autonomy of mind.

 

[fromderinside]

Really you think it's juntermenche's 'rational' belief. What I see when I read his stuff is a person relating what 'he heard'.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Of course all our definitions are subjective.

All is subjective.

We are subjects completely isolated from anything objective.

The objective mind however is whatever it is that causes the subjective.

I am saying, subjectively, that it is unlikely the subjective exists without something objective as the cause.

Why would that be "unlikely". There's no test sample for that kind of likelihood. All we can say is that we all usually believe the brain is somehow necessary to the mind and not the other way around, but "likelihood" is an irrelevant notion in this juncture. This suggests you assume that subjective experience is subject to causality but there's no good reason for that. Causality is a category of the physical world and it remains to be demonstrated that subjective experience is in any way physical, although maybe it is.

And you are effectively contradicting yourself. If "we are subjects completely isolated from anything objective" then we can't be caused by "something objective" like a brain.
EB

 

[untermensche]

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.

You are not in a position to make mention of the term 'rational position.' There is no separation between brain and brain activity. Brain activity is the brain acting. The architecture of a brain has evolved to act, acquiring and processing information and responding to it in both conscious and unconscious forms.

Your irrational belief being that conscious brain activity somehow gains independence from brain activity in general, your so called autonomy of mind.

There is a huge separation between brain and activity.

They are two completely different things.

The brain can be held and weighed.

What does the activity weigh?

What color is it?

And there is another huge chasm that separates activity and an intricate and continuous creation of that activity.

These two are totally different things.

And some intricate structure that is totally different from activity can have a feedback on that activity.

There is nothing to prevent it.

Except some absolute ignorance that says a brain is the same thing as activity.

 

[untermensche]

Of course all our definitions are subjective.

All is subjective.

We are subjects completely isolated from anything objective.

The objective mind however is whatever it is that causes the subjective.

I am saying, subjectively, that it is unlikely the subjective exists without something objective as the cause.

Why would that be "unlikely". There's no test sample for that kind of likelihood.

Considering no matter the cause of the subjective the cause would always be called the objective the likelihood is in contrast to the subjective having no cause.

 

[DBT]

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.

You are not in a position to make mention of the term 'rational position.' There is no separation between brain and brain activity. Brain activity is the brain acting. The architecture of a brain has evolved to act, acquiring and processing information and responding to it in both conscious and unconscious forms.

Your irrational belief being that conscious brain activity somehow gains independence from brain activity in general, your so called autonomy of mind.

There is a huge separation between brain and activity.

There is no separation. Brain activity is activity performed by a brain in relation to its evolved function of acquiring information and responding to that information in both unconscious and conscious ways, regulating bodily functions, responding to external events, generating thoughts, feelings and actions.

They are two completely different things.

Nope, the composition of an active brain includes electrical and chemical activity, chemical signals, ion flow/impulse transmission of information.

The brain can be held and weighed.

Irrelevant for the reasons given above; information content/processing activity.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Of course all our definitions are subjective.

All is subjective.

We are subjects completely isolated from anything objective.

The objective mind however is whatever it is that causes the subjective.

I am saying, subjectively, that it is unlikely the subjective exists without something objective as the cause.

Why would that be "unlikely". There's no test sample for that kind of likelihood.

Considering no matter the cause of the subjective the cause would always be called the objective the likelihood is in contrast to the subjective having no cause.

Er, no.

We cannot rely on objective evidence to compute the likelihood of something objective being the cause of our subjectivity and it is also conceivable that something not objective would be the cause, for example another subjective thing, like perhaps God, or even something else altogether, not subjective and not objective, in the sense that we wouldn't have any notion of it like we do for subjective thing like our own qualia and objective things like trees and planets. The point is we can't assess the respective likelihood of these diverse possibilities. They are just logical possibilities and there is nothing likely or unlikely about logical possibilities as such.

Now, of course, if you redefine as you seem to be doing the term "objective" as everything that is not subjective I have to grant that what you say becomes trivially true. Yet, even in this case your claim is still straightforwardly idiotic since in this case it's just not that it's, as you claimed, "unlikely the subjective exists without something objective as the cause" but tautologically certain that any cause would be objective. So, no, nothing "unlikely".

Please, acknowledge and retract your claim to show you're not beyond reprieve.
EB

 

[untermensche]

There is a huge separation between brain and activity.

There is no separation....

BULLSHIT!!!

There is always a separation between two completely different things.

A brain is a brain whether it is active or not.

A dead brain can be held and appreciated and it is still fully a brain.

Activity is something a brain does. Not something it is.

The failure to see obvious and clear distinctions like this leads to many irrational conclusions.

It takes a special kind of "education" to not see them.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering no matter the cause of the subjective the cause would always be called the objective the likelihood is in contrast to the subjective having no cause.

Er, no.

We cannot rely on objective evidence...

No such thing.

All evidence is a subjective experience of some kind.

Objective is a mental hypothesis, not a physical observation. All observation is subjective.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Considering no matter the cause of the subjective the cause would always be called the objective the likelihood is in contrast to the subjective having no cause.

Er, no.

We cannot rely on objective evidence...

No such thing.

All evidence is a subjective experience of some kind.

Objective is a mental hypothesis, not a physical observation. All observation is subjective.

No surprise there. You're so dogmatic and narrow minded you can't even parse English sentences properly. By the expression "Objective evidence" I was obviously just referring to what me and every sane English speaking person understands as whatever evidence we routinely take, although it is I agree subjective in nature, as evidence of the existence of an objective thing, like a tree or a planet. The notion of likelihood doesn't make sense outside the context of objective evidence in this sense. So, please go back to my post and read it again in light of this clarification.
EB

 

[untermensche]

No such thing.

All evidence is a subjective experience of some kind.

Objective is a mental hypothesis, not a physical observation. All observation is subjective.

No surprise there. You're so dogmatic and narrow minded you can't even parse English sentences properly. By the expression "Objective evidence" I was obviously just referring to what me and every sane English speaking person understands as whatever evidence we routinely take, although it is I agree subjective in nature, as evidence of the existence of an objective thing, like a tree or a planet. The notion of likelihood doesn't make sense outside the context of objective evidence in this sense. So, please go back to my post and read it again in light of this clarification.
EB

The object cannot be seen. It cannot be felt.

Seeing and feeling are subjective experiences, not anything objective.

If we agree that the objective is merely a hypothesis in some, the people that actually think about the matter, and something just taken for granted without any thought involved in most, then we are done.

Thanks.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No such thing.

All evidence is a subjective experience of some kind.

Objective is a mental hypothesis, not a physical observation. All observation is subjective.

No surprise there. You're so dogmatic and narrow minded you can't even parse English sentences properly. By the expression "Objective evidence" I was obviously just referring to what me and every sane English speaking person understands as whatever evidence we routinely take, although it is I agree subjective in nature, as evidence of the existence of an objective thing, like a tree or a planet. The notion of likelihood doesn't make sense outside the context of objective evidence in this sense. So, please go back to my post and read it again in light of this clarification.
EB

The object cannot be seen. It cannot be felt.

Seeing and feeling are subjective experiences, not anything objective.

If we agree that the objective is merely a hypothesis in some, the people that actually think about the matter, and something just taken for granted without any thought involved in most, then we are done.

Thanks.

That's not a proper response to my post. That's just pathetic irrelevancies. This is your typical untermensche, forever and a day dodging with irrelevancies all the comments he doesn't want to answer. Are you so pathologically dogmatic you can't even get yourself to provide a response that's not a pathetic irrelevance? You have used a term, "likelihood", which was entirely nonsensical in the context. When are you going to acknowledge you now understand this point? Would you still claim that "it is unlikely the subjective exists without something objective as the cause"?
Thanks.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Incoherent.

Good day.

 

[DBT]

BULLSHIT!!!

There is always a separation between two completely different things.

Not if it is the brain that generates activity, not on the outside, but a part of its very architecture and chemical makeup. Chemical messengers are a part of the brain, ion flow through pathways in the brain is a part of the brain....these being the means by which a brain processes information, which is is the evolved function of a brain.

Act outraged if it makes you feel better, but you are still wrong.

 

[excreationist]

untermensche:
Check this out - it looks like they have two minds: