The objective mind

[Speakpigeon]

I experience the arm moving. I can see and feel the movement.

And I KNOW there is no experience of the arm moving as I desire it to move until I do something with my mind. It doesn't happen without me doing something.

I know I am doing something, willing something because I am doing it not just experiencing it.

Just like I know I am forcing the experience of my hands to type these words.

Please, just stop being so slovenly in your use of language. It's not fit for any rational conversation.

The mind knows what it is experiencing and what it is doing.

The rest is faith.

And you think this "message" is justification enough of itself that you should make yourself such a pain in the ass for all of us and for so long?!

You should take example on Descartes: He already said it all: I think, therefore I am. See, much shorter.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Whining and lying that clear statements are "slovenly" is just a sick pathetic dodge.

You have no fucking point.

 

[DBT]

You cannot experience the mechanisms and means of your conscious experience. That being the critical part that you meticulously ignore. That being the problem. This willful ignorance of the means and mechanisms of conscious experience being the source of your misconceptions.

What specific mechanisms might those be?

You mean the mechanisms you know nothing about?

Never claimed to be able to experience the mechanisms.

You can only experience giving the command and then experience the arm moving as desired after the command is given. Never before.

Because the contemplative controlling mind is just giving the command. The dumb slave reflexive brain is doing the moving.

A wasted effort....however;

The Anatomy of Movement.

''Almost all of behavior involves motor function, from talking to gesturing to walking. But even a simple movement like reaching out to pick up a glass of water can be a complex motor task to study. Not only does your brain have to figure out which muscles to contract and in which order to steer your hand to the glass, it also has to estimate the force needed to pick up the glass. Other factors, like how much water is in the glass and what material the glass is made from, also influence the brains calculations. Not surprisingly, there are many anatomical regions which are involved in motor function.''

Figure 1a: Principal cortical domains of the motor system. The primary motor cortex (M1) lies along the precentral gyrus, and generates the signals that control the execution of movement. Secondary motor areas are involved in motor planning.


''The primary motor cortex, or M1, is one of the principal brain areas involved in motor function. M1 is located in the frontal lobe of the brain, along a bump called the precentral gyrus (figure 1a). The role of the primary motor cortex is to generate neural impulses that control the execution of movement. Signals from M1 cross the bodys midline to activate skeletal muscles on the opposite side of the body, meaning that the left hemisphere of the brain controls the right side of the body, and the right hemisphere controls the left side of the body. Every part of the body is represented in the primary motor cortex, and these representations are arranged somatotopically — the foot is next to the leg which is next to the trunk which is next to the arm and the hand. The amount of brain matter devoted to any particular body part represents the amount of control that the primary motor cortex has over that body part. For example, a lot of cortical space is required to control the complex movements of the hand and fingers, and these body parts have larger representations in M1 than the trunk or legs, whose muscle patterns are relatively simple.''

 

[untermensche]

Where is the specific activity (the objective mind) that creates the subjective mind in that diagram?

The subjective mind has to arise in some way.

 

[DBT]

These are your own terms and references. Your terms and references - as pointed out numerous times - are bogus.

 

[untermensche]

These are your own terms and references. Your terms and references - as pointed out numerous times - are bogus.

The term "objective" is not my term.

The term "mind" is not my term.

No terms here have been invented by me.

You don't know the difference between defining something and inventing something.

You have no point. You have no understanding.

Just some delusion you can explain the workings of the mind without even knowing what it is.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Whining and lying that clear statements are "slovenly" is just a sick pathetic dodge.

You have no fucking point.

It's a fact that you persist in expressing your views in a way too slovenly for any kind of rational conversation.

And if all you have to say is that the mind doesn't know anything about anything not itself, well, sure, I agree, but Descartes already said so more than three centuries ago. So, what are you going to do about it?

Well, you're obviously not doing much given the time you spend here just repeating the same mantra ad nauseum.

And you're view doesn't stop you being dogmatic about it. Which is the summum of irrationality.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You have been reduced to making subjective esthetic comments about style that are worthless.

You have nothing to say about any content.

I experience the arm moving. I can see and feel the movement.

And I KNOW there is no experience of the arm moving as I desire it to move until I do something with my mind. It doesn't happen without me doing something.

I know I am doing something, willing something because I am doing it not just experiencing it.

Just like I know I am forcing the experience of my hands to type these words.

 

[fromderinside]

 

[untermensche]

Yes the Captain controls the hand and places it over the face.

Based on ideas in the mind not chemicals in the brain.

Thanks for the clear depiction of how it occurs.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You have been reduced to making subjective esthetic comments about style that are worthless.

This assertion shows you don't understand English.

You have nothing to say about any content.

I just did so I can only infer either you don't understand English or you can't express yourself properly.

I experience the arm moving. I can see and feel the movement.

And I KNOW there is no experience of the arm moving as I desire it to move until I do something with my mind. It doesn't happen without me doing something.

I know I am doing something, willing something because I am doing it not just experiencing it.

Just like I know I am forcing the experience of my hands to type these words.

That's logically inconsistent. You don't know you're willing something. You just experience the will to do something. You don't know there's an actual will just as you don't know there's an arm. All you know is the impression you want to move your arm. It's nothing but an impression. Your subjective experience is nothing but a spectacle of impressions. Your claim that you possess will is vacuous."Will" here is a metaphysical construct.

Is that enough of a comment about content?

Let's see what what you do with it.
EB

 

[untermensche]

This assertion shows you don't understand English.



I just did so I can only infer either you don't understand English or you can't express yourself properly.

I experience the arm moving. I can see and feel the movement.

And I KNOW there is no experience of the arm moving as I desire it to move until I do something with my mind. It doesn't happen without me doing something.

I know I am doing something, willing something because I am doing it not just experiencing it.

Just like I know I am forcing the experience of my hands to type these words.

That's logically inconsistent. You don't know you're willing something. You just experience the will to do something. You don't know there's an actual will just as you don't know there's an arm. All you know is the impression you want to move your arm. It's nothing but an impression. Your subjective experience is nothing but a spectacle of impressions. Your claim that you possess will is vacuous."Will" here is a metaphysical construct.

Is that enough of a comment about content?

Let's see what what you do with it.
EB

Of course you know when you are willing something.

You just don't what exactly you are doing. It is something in the mind but not something the mind can "see".

But you know you are doing something with your mind before the arm moves.

You know you are doing something beyond doubt.

You know you are not doing nothing and then experiencing the arm move.

You know this beyond doubt.

 

[DBT]

These are your own terms and references. Your terms and references - as pointed out numerous times - are bogus.

The term "objective" is not my term.

The term "mind" is not my term.

No terms here have been invented by me.

You don't know the difference between defining something and inventing something.

You have no point. You have no understanding.

Just some delusion you can explain the workings of the mind without even knowing what it is.

The words exist, no doubt, but the way you put them together makes it bogus.

 

[DBT]

Yes the Captain controls the hand and places it over the face.

Based on ideas in the mind not chemicals in the brain.

Thanks for the clear depiction of how it occurs.

 

[untermensche]

These are your own terms and references. Your terms and references - as pointed out numerous times - are bogus.

The term "objective" is not my term.

The term "mind" is not my term.

No terms here have been invented by me.

You don't know the difference between defining something and inventing something.

You have no point. You have no understanding.

Just some delusion you can explain the workings of the mind without even knowing what it is.

The words exist, no doubt, but the way you put them together makes it bogus.

You have said nothing but the brain creates the mind.

If the brain creates the subjective mind it must do it in a specific way.

That specific way I label the "objective mind".

There is nothing bogus with defining a term.

That you think it is bogus shows you don't think very well.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes the Captain controls the hand and places it over the face.

Based on ideas in the mind not chemicals in the brain.

Thanks for the clear depiction of how it occurs.

That's the last gasp of somebody with no argument.

 

[DBT]

The words exist, no doubt, but the way you put them together makes it bogus.

You have said nothing but the brain creates the mind.

If the brain creates the subjective mind it must do it in a specific way.

That specific way I label the "objective mind".

There is nothing bogus with defining a term.

That you think it is bogus shows you don't think very well.

Your claim that mind somehow has inexplicable autonomy from the brain, in your own words, a 'smart mind operating a dumb brain' is bogus. Mind/consciousness is a subjective phenomena. An activity of a brain.

That is what the evidence shows - which is not just a matter of the experience of moving at will, but how this experience is produced - and why your terminology and your claim for autonomy of mind is bogus

That's the last gasp of somebody with no argument.

You never had an argument. You reject all research, evidence and analysis. That is the problem, and the reason for the facepalms.

 

[untermensche]

So the term isn't bogus anymore?

The term says nothing about autonomy or your contention: absolute slavery with the delusion of autonomy.

- - - Updated - - -

Either the mind has autonomy or the mind is severely deluded.

Because the mind thinks it has autonomy.

 

[DBT]

So the term isn't bogus anymore?

The term says nothing about autonomy or your contention: absolute slavery with the delusion of autonomy.

- - - Updated - - -

Either the mind has autonomy or the mind is severely deluded.

Because the mind thinks it has autonomy.

It's bogus for the reasons already given numerous times. You ignore the means and mechanisms that produces your experience of conscious mind, which is a subjective experience.

 

[untermensche]

So the term isn't bogus anymore?

The term says nothing about autonomy or your contention: absolute slavery with the delusion of autonomy.

- - - Updated - - -

Either the mind has autonomy or the mind is severely deluded.

Because the mind thinks it has autonomy.

It's bogus for the reasons already given numerous times. You ignore the means and mechanisms that produces your experience of conscious mind, which is a subjective experience.

The term is not bogus.

If there is a subjective mind there must be objective activity creating it, the "objective mind". The term describes specific activity that results in a subjective mind.

That you think the subjective mind can exist without objective activity creating it is a religious magical delusion.

 

[DBT]

So the term isn't bogus anymore?

The term says nothing about autonomy or your contention: absolute slavery with the delusion of autonomy.

- - - Updated - - -

Either the mind has autonomy or the mind is severely deluded.

Because the mind thinks it has autonomy.

It's bogus for the reasons already given numerous times. You ignore the means and mechanisms that produces your experience of conscious mind, which is a subjective experience.

The term is not bogus.

If there is a subjective mind there must be objective activity creating it, the "objective mind". The term describes specific activity that results in a subjective mind.

That you think the subjective mind can exist without objective activity creating it is a religious magical delusion.

Nobody is denying that the experience of conscious mind - which is a subjective experience - is being generated by the objective brain and objective brain activity, electrical impulses, chemical messengers, etc......the contention is related to your unsubstantiated autonomy of mind claim, that an autonomous mind operates the brain.

Please read more carefully