The objective mind

[DBT]

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.

A fine display of mock outrage.

A dummy spit is not a valid form of argument, just a childish display of emotion.

Try again when you have an actual argument that is supported by evidence.

 

[untermensche]

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.

A fine display of mock outrage.

A dummy spit is not a valid form of argument, just a childish display of emotion.

Try again when you have an actual argument that is supported by evidence.

A worthless dodge.

The homunculus argument is pure shit!

Since you have nothing to say, good luck.

Since you think you can even make an argument that matters without an autonomous mind to make it with, good luck.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Reality exists and it has no cause.

From where do you get this knowledge?

This is just good logic.

If you think not, let's discuss that. Just tell me how reality could be reality and still have a cause which is not reality. And how a cause which would not be reality could still be something real.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Reality exists and it has no cause.

From where do you get this knowledge?

This is just good logic.

If you think not, let's discuss that. Just tell me how reality could be reality and still have a cause which is not reality. And how a cause which would not be reality could still be something real.
EB

Nope.

Not interested.

It is total shit knowledge pulled from your ass.

Real completed infinities are the stuff of inferior minds.

 

[Speakpigeon]

This is just good logic.

If you think not, let's discuss that. Just tell me how reality could be reality and still have a cause which is not reality. And how a cause which would not be reality could still be something real.
EB

Nope.

Not interested.

It is total shit knowledge pulled from your ass.

Real completed infinities are the stuff of inferior minds.

QED. You're definitely unable to argue your case.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

So, apparently reality makes no sense to you...

Be warned that you are one of a very small elite.
EB

 

[untermensche]

We can understand a sun exists because of causes. Even if we don't know all the causes.

We cannot imagine a sun that forms for no cause.

No cause = nothing happening.

 

[Speakpigeon]

We can understand a sun exists because of causes. Even if we don't know all the causes.

We? You claim to only know your own mind and nothing else yet you can talk in the name of other people?!

We cannot imagine a sun that forms for no cause.

We? Non. Whether we can imagine anything is irrelevant. What matters is that we are unable to exclude the possibility of existence without cause. Reality exists without cause. Reality contradicts you're claim.

No cause = nothing happening.

So therefore reality doesn't exist?!
EB

 

[untermensche]

No cause = nothing happening.

So therefore reality doesn't exist?!
EB

That is not a rational conclusion of that statement.

 

[DBT]

A fine display of mock outrage.

A dummy spit is not a valid form of argument, just a childish display of emotion.

Try again when you have an actual argument that is supported by evidence.

A worthless dodge.

The homunculus argument is pure shit!

Since you have nothing to say, good luck.

Since you think you can even make an argument that matters without an autonomous mind to make it with, good luck.

Your autonomy of mind - smart mind operating a dumb brain (your own words) - is just another version of an homunculus operating within a brain;

The Homunculus Fallacy.

''I was taught as a boy that vision involves an image entering my head through my eyes. As the image is conducted through the lenses, it is flipped upside down and projected stereoscopically onto the back of my head. My brain then has to re-flip the image and interpret it. Putting the matter this way, however, assumes the presence of a little man inside my head who sees the image projected as if onto a screen – who would in turn have to have a little man inside his head, and so on ad infinitum.

This is called the “homunculus [or ‘little man’] fallacy.” Neuroscientists scoff at such a lack of sophistication.

On the other hand, we sometimes hear neuroscientists say things like the following: “Just as the CEO of a corporation delegates different tasks to different people occupying different offices, your brain parcels out different jobs to different regions” (V.S. Ramachandran, 2011, The Tell-Tale Brain, p. 95). This brain-as-bureaucracy metaphor is not far from a little person watching the screen at the back of your head, or an entire bureau of such little people, with a master homunculus as CEO.

With the homunculus fallacy in mind, please answer Question #1:

Which is more correct?

Your eyes are reading this sentence. (Also, your anterior insula and/or limbic system may be feeling wary of a trick at this point in the blog post.)
Your brain is reading this sentence, using input from your eyes. (Perhaps your brain is sounding an alarm: “danger Will Robinson!”)
You are reading this sentence, through activity of your eyes and several visual, motor, and language processing pathways in your brain. (You were right to be suspicious, through processing in your brain’s anterior insula and/or limbic system. The question is loaded.)

Worried that we might look like pre-scientific animists if we explicitly attribute “will” to persons, we over-compensate and shift the real action down a level or two. To avoid implying there is a god in the mechanism, we assign organism functions to a physical organ or organ sub-system (eyes & visual cortex, anterior insula & limbic system, etc.). But this way of talking implies there is a little organism in the organ.

We do this in moral psychology when, for instance, we attribute judgments or reasoning to localized brain functions. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex makes moral judgments, or the anterior insula detects norm violations. But brains and their functional units do not judge, reason, feel, or act. The organisms whose brains they are do.''

 

[Speakpigeon]

No cause = nothing happening.

So therefore reality doesn't exist?!
EB

That is not a rational conclusion of that statement.

I suggested you justified yourself as to your claim that reality is not a case of something that has no cause but you declined. So, you now claim to be judge of what is rational without accepting the burden that comes with that which is to explain yourself. You're not a rational person.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You do not have rational positions.

You couldn't prove existence has no cause if you had infinite years to do it in.

I know this for a fact.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You do not have rational positions.

You couldn't prove existence has no cause if you had infinite years to do it in.

I know this for a fact.

Who cares what you think you know? What people care about is whether you can justify you views with an explanation that will look rational to them. It appears all you've been doing here for years and years is to claim "I know this for a fact". Well, nobody cares what you think you know.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Who cares what you think you know?

Smart people should.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Who cares what you think you know?

Smart people should.

No, smart people definitely shouldn't since you're incapable of articulating any rational explanation to your belief that reality itself necessarily has a cause. So, smart people should believe you on trust, then?! Er, no, that wouldn't be smart.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Who cares what you think you know?

Smart people should.

No, smart people definitely shouldn't since you're incapable of articulating any rational explanation to your belief that reality itself necessarily has a cause. So, smart people should believe you on trust, then?! Er, no, that wouldn't be smart.
EB

Again, real completed infinities are the stuff of inferior minds.

Those that believe in them are deluded.

No such thing can possibly exist.

Therefore everything real MUST be finite.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No, smart people definitely shouldn't since you're incapable of articulating any rational explanation to your belief that reality itself necessarily has a cause. So, smart people should believe you on trust, then?! Er, no, that wouldn't be smart.
EB

Again, real completed infinities are the stuff of inferior minds.

Those that believe in them are deluded.

No such thing can possibly exist.

Therefore everything real MUST be finite.

That's what you take to be a rational argument?! You're not going to impress any smart people just yet, I can tell you.
EB

 

[untermensche]

No, smart people definitely shouldn't since you're incapable of articulating any rational explanation to your belief that reality itself necessarily has a cause. So, smart people should believe you on trust, then?! Er, no, that wouldn't be smart.
EB

Again, real completed infinities are the stuff of inferior minds.

Those that believe in them are deluded.

No such thing can possibly exist.

Therefore everything real MUST be finite.

That's what you take to be a rational argument?! You're not going to impress any smart people just yet, I can tell you.
EB

Do you know any of them?

It is sufficient to show you have no rational position.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's what you take to be a rational argument?! You're not going to impress any smart people just yet, I can tell you.
EB

Do you know any of them?

I met a few in my life, yes. And you're not one of them.

It is sufficient to show you have no rational position.

Yes, that would be sufficient. What's stopping you?
EB

 

[untermensche]

I met a few in my life, yes. And you're not one of them.

I know a few things.

Like real completed infinities are absurdities.

They are not something that is possible.