The objective mind

[DBT]

The premise of the OP is a case of hand waving.

Premise?

It is a question.

What specific objective activity (the objective mind) is the cause of the subjective mind?

I don't expect more than I'm getting.

That is the point.

Your question is based on the premises you outlined in your OP and in other threads. I think that all the regulars are familiar with these claims.

 

[DBT]

The mind is real, and with no material brain, there would be no mind, but the mind is not made of material. It's intangible.

The intangible, by definition, seemingly cannot interact with the tangible world of physical properties, objects and events.

 

[untermensche]

The premise of the OP is a case of hand waving.

Premise?

It is a question.

What specific objective activity (the objective mind) is the cause of the subjective mind?

I don't expect more than I'm getting.

That is the point.

Your question is based on the premises you outlined in your OP and in other threads. I think that all the regulars are familiar with these claims.

You have never once addressed anything related to this thread.

I am familiar with your nonsense.

You make absurd claims of having some understanding of the objective mind.

But have none.

As we all clearly see.

Prove me wrong.

Answer this question directly and specifically in your own words.

What specific activity happening in the brain creates the subjective mind?

Saying it is the result of electrochemical activity is not a specific activity. It is a non-specific catch-all phrase showing an ignorance to the specific activity. It is pretending to know something.

My sense is and the sense of many other respected scientists is that the mind is some kind of effect due to the quantum nature of the universe.

It is a quantum effect, not an electric or chemical effect. There is no known electrical or chemical effect that comes close to resulting in a mind.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The objective mind is the physical creation of the mind by a brain as opposed to the subjective mind which is the individual experience of a mind.

Therefore this thread should be in the science subforum.

So while we all have different subjective minds, sometimes very different, the objective creation of that mind should be the same in everyone.

Non sequitur.

There should only be one way to create a mind, not a different way in every different mind.

What if there are several ways? Who are you going to complain to?

To claim knowledge of the objective mind means you understand the specific activity that creates the subjective mind.

Me neither.

It is not an understanding of how doing things to the brain changes or creates subjective reports. That is not an understanding of the objective mind.

Oh no, surely not!

My claim is that the objective mind is not understood at all.

This would depend on what one means by "mind". We understand some of the neurological processes that underpin our mental activity. So "not understood at all" would be correct if the word "mind" was used to mean our subjective experience. Me, I don't use it this way.

To answer the claim requires talking about specific neurophysiology and specifically how this neurophysiology creates the subjective mind.

Therefore this thread should be in the science subforum.

Throwing in a bunch of stuff that is not a specific physiology and how that physiology leads to the subjective mind is a distraction and hand waving.

This is why this thread should be in the science subforum. In the philosophy subforum, you can only expect long but fuzzy answers.

Is the objective mind known and if so what specifically is it?

Well, that one is easy given your definition: "The objective mind is the physical creation of the mind by a brain". So, we just need to know the physical activity of the brain, which we do to some extent. Piece of cake. Go to the science subforum.

What specific brain activity is it that creates the subjective mind? How does this activity result in the subjective mind?

All of it. Even the neurons in my eyes contribute to my mind. Even the neurons in my body contribute to my mind, sometimes with painful clarity.

What is the objective mind?

What the brain and all the little squiggly neurons do.
Done.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

My sense is and the sense of many other respected scientists (...)

Oh? So... You're a respected scientist now? Gosh. Could you link your published papers? Should be fun to read.
EB

 

[untermensche]

My sense is and the sense of many other respected scientists (...)

Oh? So... You're a respected scientist now? Gosh. Could you link your published papers? Should be fun to read.
EB

Your English sucks.

I made no such claim.

In that sentence is me AND many others that are respected scientists.

Your English sucks.

You have no nuance. You read English narrowly and robotically.

 

[untermensche]

What is the objective mind?

What the brain and all the little squiggly neurons do.
Done.
EB

Ah. Thanks for the insight Einstein.

Now prove it.

 

[steve_bank]

Define objective. If your mind meets the definition it is objective. Is there something unobjective or undefined in the baring chemistry?

 

[DBT]

Your question is based on the premises you outlined in your OP and in other threads. I think that all the regulars are familiar with these claims.

You have never once addressed anything related to this thread.

I am familiar with your nonsense.

You make absurd claims of having some understanding of the objective mind.

But have none.

As we all clearly see.

Prove me wrong.

Answer this question directly and specifically in your own words.

What specific activity happening in the brain creates the subjective mind?

Saying it is the result of electrochemical activity is not a specific activity. It is a non-specific catch-all phrase showing an ignorance to the specific activity. It is pretending to know something.

My sense is and the sense of many other respected scientists is that the mind is some kind of effect due to the quantum nature of the universe.

It is a quantum effect, not an electric or chemical effect. There is no known electrical or chemical effect that comes close to resulting in a mind.

Where is your evidence for autonomy of mind?

Evidence that the mind has autonomy and acts independently within the brain?

Show me the evidence!

 

[untermensche]

Define objective. If your mind meets the definition it is objective. Is there something unobjective or undefined in the baring chemistry?

The experience is the subjective.

How the experience is created is the objective.

- - - Updated - - -

Your question is based on the premises you outlined in your OP and in other threads. I think that all the regulars are familiar with these claims.

You have never once addressed anything related to this thread.

I am familiar with your nonsense.

You make absurd claims of having some understanding of the objective mind.

But have none.

As we all clearly see.

Prove me wrong.

Answer this question directly and specifically in your own words.

What specific activity happening in the brain creates the subjective mind?

Saying it is the result of electrochemical activity is not a specific activity. It is a non-specific catch-all phrase showing an ignorance to the specific activity. It is pretending to know something.

My sense is and the sense of many other respected scientists is that the mind is some kind of effect due to the quantum nature of the universe.

It is a quantum effect, not an electric or chemical effect. There is no known electrical or chemical effect that comes close to resulting in a mind.

Where is your evidence for autonomy of mind?

I move my arm at will with my mind.

You lie if you say I don't.

 

[DBT]

I move my arm at will with my mind.

You lie if you say I don't.

You are lying to yourself. The evidence tell us that it is the brain that initiates motor actions, limb movement, that it is the brain that mentally represents awareness of the action, the reason for it and the will to carry it out.

 

[untermensche]

I move my arm at will with my mind.

You lie if you say I don't.

You are lying to yourself. The evidence tell us that it is the brain that initiates motor actions, limb movement, that it is the brain that mentally represents awareness of the action, the reason for it and the will to carry it out.

There is no evidence about the timing of actions by the mind.

You have to know what something is to time it.

What you're talking about is subjective guesses not objective evidence.

It is worthless.

 

[DBT]

I move my arm at will with my mind.

You lie if you say I don't.

You are lying to yourself. The evidence tell us that it is the brain that initiates motor actions, limb movement, that it is the brain that mentally represents awareness of the action, the reason for it and the will to carry it out.

There is no evidence about the timing of actions by the mind.

It is not the mind that acts. It is the brain that acts. It is the brain that generates both the motor action and the awareness of that action....unless it's an unconscious action, in your sleep, while attention is distracted and so on.

You have to know what something is to time it.

We know what a motor action such as moving your arm is, we know what being aware of moving your arm is, we are able to measure response time.

What you're talking about is subjective guesses not objective evidence.

It is worthless.

You ignore many decades of experiments and research. You ignore the analysis of researchers. You repeat your own home brand of assertions.

 

[untermensche]

There is no evidence about the timing of actions by the mind.

It is not the mind that acts.

It requires knowing what the objective mind is to make this claim.

You have no clue what the objective mind is.

You are selling nonsense.

You should be ashamed.

We know what a motor action such as moving your arm is, we know what being aware of moving your arm is, we are able to measure response time.

We subjectively know what being aware of using the mind to move the arm is.

You ignore many decades of experiments and research.

I do not.

I ignore you. You can only speak for yourself. You have never once defended any of the things you post.

You have no clue what the objective mind is.

But we all know we use our mind to move our arm.

To deny it is an absurdity.

 

[steve_bank]

untermenche

You miss the point. Whatever you say about subjective/objective originates in your brain. Either word is an arbitrary definition.

The best that can be done is define characteristics what objective and subjective should be and categorize as to the arbitrary definitions. There are no absolutes that are possible. For a definition to be absolute you need an absolute unambiguous reference point. Impossible in philosophy. That is why without Natural Philosophy which became modern science, philosophy became endless convoluted debate without resolution.

In science there are definitions that are arbitrary but unambiguous and not subject to interpretation. Kilograms, seconds, and meters.

 

[DBT]

I do not.

Yes you do.

I ignore you

I am simply pointing to the research. I say nothing more than what the research supports or what the researchers themselves are saying.

Therefore you are in fact ignoring not only the research into brain function and motor initiation but the principles of Physics; that response cannot precede input, that awareness cannot precede unconscious transmission, processing and integration of information prior to conscious representation of that information.

Your model of autonomy of mind is based on magic, not physics.

You can only speak for yourself. You have never once defended any of the things you post.

You know very well that I have.

A very small sample;

Movement Intention After Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans;
''Parietal and premotor cortex regions are serious contenders for bringing motor intentions and motor responses into awareness. We used electrical stimulation in seven patients undergoing awake brain surgery. Stimulating the right inferior parietal regions triggered a strong intention and desire to move the contralateral hand, arm, or foot, whereas stimulating the left inferior parietal region provoked the intention to move the lips and to talk. When stimulation intensity was increased in parietal areas, participants believed they had really performed these movements, although no electromyographic activity was detected. Stimulation of the premotor region triggered overt mouth and contralateral limb movements. Yet, patients firmly denied that they had moved. Conscious intention and motor awareness thus arise from increased parietal activity before movement execution.''

A parietal-premotor network for movement intention and motor awareness
''It is commonly assumed that we are conscious of our movements mainly because we can sense ourselves moving as ongoing peripheral information coming from our muscles and retina reaches the brain. Recent evidence, however, suggests that, contrary to common beliefs, conscious intention to move is independent of movement execution per se. We propose that during movement execution it is our initial intentions that we are mainly aware of. Furthermore, the experience of moving as a conscious act is associated with increased activity in a specific brain region: the posterior parietal cortex. We speculate that movement intention and awareness are generated and monitored in this region. We put forward a general framework of the cognitive and neural processes involved in movement intention and motor awareness.''

 

[untermensche]

Yes you do.

I am simply pointing to the research.

There is no research that understands the objective mind.

It is not understood in any way.

The research cannot possibly say anything about the objective mind.

Nobody has the slightest clue what it is.

You lie when you claim there is any research that understands what the objective mind is.

 

[untermensche]

untermenche

You miss the point. Whatever you say about subjective/objective originates in your brain. Either word is an arbitrary definition.

Neither are arbitrary.

The subjective mind is what you experience.

The objective mind is the specific activity, probably in the brain, that gives rise to the subjective mind.

Presently we don't have the slightest clue what specific activity creates the subjective mind or how it arises.

We do not have any clue how to start to understand the phenomena of subjective experience. Nothing we build could be claimed to have a subjective experience.

 

[Speakpigeon]

My sense is and the sense of many other respected scientists (...)

Oh? So... You're a respected scientist now? Gosh. Could you link your published papers? Should be fun to read.
EB

Your English sucks.

I made no such claim.

In that sentence is me AND many others that are respected scientists.

Your English sucks.

You have no nuance. You read English narrowly and robotically.

I read as you write. You wrote "My sense is and the sense of many other respected scientists" and this just means you count yourself as a respected scientist. So if that's not what you meant then your English sucks. And I don't read "robotically". I perfectly understood what you meant but wanted to point out that your English suck.

In that sentence is me AND many others that are respected scientists.

Yeah, sure, that's obviously what you meant, but it's definitely not what you wrote. Your English sucks.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What is the objective mind?

What the brain and all the little squiggly neurons do.
Done.
EB

Ah. Thanks for the insight Einstein.

Now prove it.

If your looking for proofs then ask mathematicians. If your looking for evidence, I think it's all there for you to see. If you really wanted specifics, then you should have posted your thread in the science subforum. Here, it is the philosophising crowd. We don't know shit.

And of course, your question is the wrong one. That it's the whole brain that produces the mind is now pretty much obvious if it wasn't necessarily already so in the past. The "objective mind" as the physical "creation" of the mind by a brain is not completely understood but it's wrong to say as you do it's not understood at all. You'll get specific answers in this respect in any science forum. Even me I could give specifics, and not big deal.

What isn't understood at all isn't the mind, it's the qualia and the subjective experience of the qualia. So, I don't know... Try again?
EB