The objective mind

[untermensche]

The single mind can be conflicted. Most are. Many are horribly conflicted. Especially when insanity like religion is involved.

But split brain victims have incredible brain damage.

To make conclusions about the normal from the severely damaged is folly.

What we would say is that the severe brain damage we see in split brain victims destroys the normal unity of the mind.

Religion is a topic that the mind is in severe conflict with to begin with.

Using something like religion muddies the water.

You can't show me how a normal computer works by showing me how severely damaged computers work.

 

[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.

Incoherent.

Yes, it is.

Good day.

No.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

....A motivated brain covers all your intervening gibberish. Motivation is an operational term for dealing with more global squirt effects associated with brain work.

This would be based on things for it to seek and avoid. And these would be based on fundamental pleasures and pains.

Nah, he won't buy that. Pleasure and pain are much too subjective for fromderinside to possibly have an existence, meaning to him, an objective existence. I still don't know after all these years what his ontology is, if any, but pleasure and pain ain't no part of it.

Seek and avoid, yeah, I think he should be OK with that, at least to the extent that you can put flesh and blood subjects through quantifiable tests objectifying seek and avoid. Good, that.

Pain just doesn't register on the metre. All we know is that people shout, make wild frenetic gestures and contorted faces if we keep increasing the current we deliver to their genitals.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Yes, it is.

Good day.

No.
EB

This is the product of a dishonest mind.

 

[Speakpigeon]

This is the product of a dishonest mind.

You're the recognised expert around here.
EB

 

[untermensche]

This is the product of a dishonest mind.

You're the recognised expert around here.
EB

You mean recognized by three dimwits?

My positions are nothing the people around here have ever rationally disputed.

There is no knowledge of any object.

There is knowledge of subjective experience and nothing else. That is all a mind could know.

 

[Speakpigeon]

This is the product of a dishonest mind.

You're the recognised expert around here.
EB

You mean recognized by three dimwits?

My positions are nothing the people around here have ever rationally disputed.

There is no knowledge of any object.

There is knowledge of subjective experience and nothing else. That is all a mind could know.

That's irrelevant to my point. Look here:

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.

My point is that the term "unlikely" you used there is just wrong. I asked you to explain repeatedly and there you go again talking about something else.
EB

 

[untermensche]

If you think it is unlikely that there is something objective behind the subjective experiences of the table that is a position you need to prove.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you think it is unlikely that there is something objective behind the subjective experiences of the table that is a position you need to prove.

???

EB

 

[untermensche]

If you can't comprehend that is not my problem.

You are whining that something is not likely.

So it must be unlikely.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you can't comprehend that is not my problem.

You are whining that something is not likely.

So it must be unlikely.

Bad logic.

Nothing new in that.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Bad opinion.

Once again.

Good luck.

 

[DBT]

This is the product of a dishonest mind.

You're the recognised expert around here.
EB

You mean recognized by three dimwits?

My positions are nothing the people around here have ever rationally disputed.

There is no knowledge of any object.

There is knowledge of subjective experience and nothing else. That is all a mind could know.

Your set of claims relating to autonomy of mind - in your words, an independent smart mind operating a dumb brain - are contradictory and incoherent.

It's an idea, a homunculus, that was thrown out long ago. The claim has no merit, a fringe belief held by a few eccentrics, hippies and New Age Gurus.

 

[untermensche]

You mean recognized by three dimwits?

My positions are nothing the people around here have ever rationally disputed.

There is no knowledge of any object.

There is knowledge of subjective experience and nothing else. That is all a mind could know.

Your set of claims relating to autonomy of mind - in your words, an independent smart mind operating a dumb brain - are contradictory and incoherent.

No they are not.

You are full of shit.

Your claim that the brain is the same thing as the mind is the idiocy here.

You have chosen a position.

Positions only exist in the mind.

This proves the mind can do things. It proves it has the ability to act freely.

Unless you want to spew the incoherent nonsense that you are typing out words but have not taken a position.

You are on the wrong side of reason.

Your position has no validity or coherence.

t's an idea, a homunculus, that was thrown out long ago.

Strawman.

The active mind is not a homunculus. It does not have an arm. It has a way to influence the brain to make the arm move.

Bringing up the idea of a homunculus just proves how bad your position is.

 

[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.

So, please explain how it could be "unlikely the subjective exists without something objective as the cause". If "all is subjective" as you also claim here, there's nothing objective and therefore nothing objective to be the cause of the subjective. Yet, you also say, "it unlikely the subjective exists without something objective as the cause".

Still, assuming there are objective thing, you also say "We are subjects completely isolated from anything objective". If you believe so, how could you, as a subjective thing, know what's likely or unlikely. This is incoherent.

So, all is subjective but there's an objective mind?! That's logically incoherent.

You say you are a subjective thing completely isolated from anything objective and yet you think you can tell an objective cause is likely?! That's logically incoherent.
EB

 

[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.

So, please explain how it could be "unlikely the subjective exists without something objective as the cause"....

Again.

ANY ultimate cause of the subjective would be labeled the "objective".

On one side you have something that exists with a cause.

On the other, something that exists with no cause.

It is not likely a thing can exist with no cause.

How would something, anything, exist if it had no cause?

Please be specific.

We can understand things existing due to a cause.

Things existing without a cause makes no sense.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How would something, anything, exist if it had no cause?

Please be specific.

Reality itself.
EB

 

[untermensche]

How would something, anything, exist if it had no cause?

Please be specific.

Reality itself.
EB

If you can't understand that that is no explanation at all then this will go nowhere.

You have explained nothing about how something could exist with no cause.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How would something, anything, exist if it had no cause?

Please be specific.

Reality itself.
EB

If you can't understand that that is no explanation at all then this will go nowhere.

You have explained nothing about how something could exist with no cause.

All I have to do is produce a counterexample to your claim. I produced a counterexample. It is obviously true. Reality exists and it has no cause. This contradicts your claim and shows it is wrong.

You think reality must have a cause?
EB

 

[untermensche]

Reality exists and it has no cause.

From where do you get this knowledge?