The objective mind

[untermensche]

You don't know what the mind is so all you do is claim everything done by the mind is just done by the brain.

It is a position drawn from total ignorance.

It is laughable you make these absurd pronouncements yet do not have the slightest clue what the objective mind is.

All I say is I MUST do something with my mind. It takes an effort. To make my arm move.

It does not just move on it's own.

When we know what the objective mind is, we are nowhere close, we will understand what is going on objectively.

 

[DBT]

You don't know what the mind is so all you do is claim everything done by the mind is just done by the brain.

It is a position drawn from total ignorance.

It is laughable you make these absurd pronouncements yet do not have the slightest clue what the objective mind is.

All I say is I MUST do something with my mind. It takes an effort. To make my arm move.

It does not just move on it's own.

When we know what the objective mind is, we are nowhere close, we will understand what is going on objectively.

I have made no ''pronouncements'' - I'm just pointing out what is understood and what is not understood about the brain/mind relationship, supporting what I say with quotes and links to the relevant information, studies, experiments, evidence and analysis by researchers.

Which of course you ignore, only to repeat the above in a variety of versions.

 

[untermensche]

You don't know what the mind is so all you do is claim everything done by the mind is just done by the brain.

It is a position drawn from total ignorance.

It is laughable you make these absurd pronouncements yet do not have the slightest clue what the objective mind is.

All I say is I MUST do something with my mind. It takes an effort. To make my arm move.

It does not just move on it's own.

When we know what the objective mind is, we are nowhere close, we will understand what is going on objectively.

I have made no ''pronouncements'' - I'm just pointing out what is understood and what is not understood about the brain/mind relationship, supporting what I say with quotes and links to the relevant information, studies, experiments, evidence and analysis by researchers.

Which of course you ignore, only to repeat the above in a variety of versions.

You have claimed the mind has no autonomy.

Without even knowing what the objective mind is.

Without one observation of the objective mind.

It is a position from total ignorance.

Not a serious position.

Pop science.

 

[steve_bank]

You don't know what the mind is so all you do is claim everything done by the mind is just done by the brain.

It is a position drawn from total ignorance.

It is laughable you make these absurd pronouncements yet do not have the slightest clue what the objective mind is.

All I say is I MUST do something with my mind. It takes an effort. To make my arm move.

It does not just move on it's own.

When we know what the objective mind is, we are nowhere close, we will understand what is going on objectively.

I have made no ''pronouncements'' - I'm just pointing out what is understood and what is not understood about the brain/mind relationship, supporting what I say with quotes and links to the relevant information, studies, experiments, evidence and analysis by researchers.

Which of course you ignore, only to repeat the above in a variety of versions.

You have claimed the mind has no autonomy.

Without even knowing what the objective mind is.

Without one observation of the objective mind.

It is a position from total ignorance.

Not a serious position.

Pop science.

Short declarative sentences without a coherent framework. I call that pop intectualism.

The mind and the underlying biological processes are not observed. Behavior and verbalizations are observed and categorized as objective or subjective, The difference is not explicitly defined, it is learned by example and experience. As kids we learn language and meaning through observation and mimicry without any formal training in logic, language, meaning, and grammar.

 

[untermensche]

You have claimed the mind has no autonomy.

Without even knowing what the objective mind is.

Without one observation of the objective mind.

It is a position from total ignorance.

Not a serious position.

Pop science.

Short declarative sentences without a coherent framework.

There is a clear framework.

One thought leads to the next.

Clear and concise and with very simple words.

That you can't make sense of it is on you.

 

[steve_bank]

You have claimed the mind has no autonomy.

Without even knowing what the objective mind is.

Without one observation of the objective mind.

It is a position from total ignorance.

Not a serious position.

Pop science.

Short declarative sentences without a coherent framework.

There is a clear framework.

One thought leads to the next.

Clear and concise and with very simple words.

That you can't make sense of it is on you.

When I read this post I hear a monotonous drone drum beat and a monotone voice.

 

[untermensche]

There is a clear framework.

One thought leads to the next.

Clear and concise and with very simple words.

That you can't make sense of it is on you.

When I read this post I hear a monotonous drone drum beat and a monotone voice.

When I read your posts I hear a stammering fart.

So what?

 

[steve_bank]

There is a clear framework.

One thought leads to the next.

Clear and concise and with very simple words.

That you can't make sense of it is on you.

When I read this post I hear a monotonous drone drum beat and a monotone voice.

When I read your posts I hear a stammering fart.

So what?

He who smelt it dealt it. Plato.

 

[DBT]

You don't know what the mind is so all you do is claim everything done by the mind is just done by the brain.

It is a position drawn from total ignorance.

It is laughable you make these absurd pronouncements yet do not have the slightest clue what the objective mind is.

All I say is I MUST do something with my mind. It takes an effort. To make my arm move.

It does not just move on it's own.

When we know what the objective mind is, we are nowhere close, we will understand what is going on objectively.

I have made no ''pronouncements'' - I'm just pointing out what is understood and what is not understood about the brain/mind relationship, supporting what I say with quotes and links to the relevant information, studies, experiments, evidence and analysis by researchers.

Which of course you ignore, only to repeat the above in a variety of versions.

You have claimed the mind has no autonomy.

There is no evidence to support the idea of autonomy of mind. Very few, if any, who work in the field of neuroscience takes the idea seriously.

Without even knowing what the objective mind is.

Your use of the term 'objective mind' is bogus. But for the sake of argument, taken on face value, you yourself cannot know anything about it, hence you cannot claim that it is the mind, objective or not, that moves your limbs at will.

Plus of course you ignore all the research that has gone into motor function in relation to the brain and just repeat your fallacy.
Without one observation of the objective mind.

It is a position from total ignorance.

Not a serious position.

Pop science.

Not at all.

Yet again:


''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''

''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.''

 

[DBT]

You have claimed the mind has no autonomy.

Without even knowing what the objective mind is.

Without one observation of the objective mind.

It is a position from total ignorance.

Not a serious position.

Pop science.

Short declarative sentences without a coherent framework.

There is a clear framework.

One thought leads to the next.

Clear and concise and with very simple words.

That you can't make sense of it is on you.

What you say makes no sense in relation to the research and evidence on the brain and its functions as it stands......a body of information that you meticulously ignore in favour of your own ideas.

 

[untermensche]

There is a clear framework.

One thought leads to the next.

Clear and concise and with very simple words.

That you can't make sense of it is on you.

What you say makes no sense in relation to the research and evidence on the brain and its functions as it stands......a body of information that you meticulously ignore in favour of your own ideas.

Of course it does.

Because all the research is just preliminary research barely scratching the surface. The wild conclusions are just normal human pride.

The researchers have no clue what the objective mind is so they cannot study it in any way or make comments on it in any way.

Presently it is impossible to do ANY research on the objective mind.

You have to know what something is to research it.

They know what the brain is and they are researching it.

They have no clue what the objective mind is and they are not doing any research on it.

The research is trying to discover what the objective mind is at this stage. It is way too early to make comments on it's abilities.

There is no evidence to support the idea of autonomy of mind.

Only if you lie to yourself and pretend you did not construct that sentence in your mind and command your hands to type it out.

 

[DBT]

Only if you lie to yourself and pretend you did not construct that sentence in your mind and command your hands to type it out.

The lie is willfully ignoring brain research into the nature of motor action. That is an example of lying to yourself.

''A UC Santa Barbara researcher studying how the brain uses perception of the environment to guide action has a new understanding of the neural circuits responsible for transforming sensation into movement.''

Using a powerful laser-scanning microscope, the team was able to detect the signals from calcium indicators expressed in the neurons well below the brain's surface. Neurons normally have very low concentrations of intracellular calcium, but when they become active, calcium levels rise, increasing the fluorescence of the indicator and enabling measurement of neuron activity. In this way, the scientists were able to see which neurons were active while the mice performed the delayed response task.

"As expected, we found many neurons that responded only during the visual stimulus or the licking action, but we also found a lot of neurons that responded during other parts of the task," said Goard, an assistant professor in UCSB's Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences and Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology. "In the frontal motor cortex, we found quite a few neurons that were active during the delay period between the visual stimulus and motor response. This led us to several new interpretations of the role that different brain regions were playing during performance of the task."

 

[untermensche]

Only if you lie to yourself and pretend you did not construct that sentence in your mind and command your hands to type it out.

The lie is willfully ignoring brain research into the nature of motor action.

There is no research where the objective mind's relation to motor activation is known.

There is no research of the objective mind.

There is some brain research which produces more questions than answers.

The "answers" concerning the objective mind some draw from this research are religious babble.

You have to know what something is to say what it can and cannot do.

Nobody has the slightest clue what the objective mind is.

That paper you just presented was written by people that have no clue what the objective mind is and how it fits into the picture.

 

[steve_bank]

Only if you lie to yourself and pretend you did not construct that sentence in your mind and command your hands to type it out.

The lie is willfully ignoring brain research into the nature of motor action.

There is no research where the objective mind's relation to motor activation is known.

There is no research of the objective mind.

There is some brain research which produces more questions than answers.

The "answers" concerning the objective mind some draw from this research are religious babble.

You have to know what something is to say what it can and cannot do.

Nobody has the slightest clue what the objective mind is.

That paper you just presented was written by people that have no clue what the objective mind is and how it fits into the picture.

Hmmm...very insightful. Perhap no region is identified because s there is no specific region of the brain which is 'objective' and maybe objective is just an arbitrary category?

 

[untermensche]

Again.

The subjective mind is what we experience.

The objective mind is specifically how what we experience is produced.

There have been many many theories and they change over time.

But none have panned out.

We still have no clue what the objective mind is.

It is some kind of very stable activity.

We can experience with our mind for hours non-stop.

 

[DBT]

Only if you lie to yourself and pretend you did not construct that sentence in your mind and command your hands to type it out.

The lie is willfully ignoring brain research into the nature of motor action.

There is no research where the objective mind's relation to motor activation is known.

There is no research of the objective mind.

There is some brain research which produces more questions than answers.

The "answers" concerning the objective mind some draw from this research are religious babble.

You have to know what something is to say what it can and cannot do.

Nobody has the slightest clue what the objective mind is.

That paper you just presented was written by people that have no clue what the objective mind is and how it fits into the picture.

It is your use of the term ''objective mind that is bogus and not that the researchers ''have no clue what the objective mind is''

What we call mind/consciousness is a subjective experience generated by a brain. Mind is subjective.

The objective component of subjective mind being information that can be shared amongst minds, information about the external world that can be verified and tested.

That, briefly, is why your claims have no merit.

 

[untermensche]

The subjective mind is all we subjectively experience using that which can experience.

The objective mind is how it all specifically occurs. It is the specific activity, most likely something happening in the brain, that gives rise to the subjective mind.

The subjective mind definitely exists.

Therefore the objective mind must exist.

Nobody has a clue what the objective mind is.

There is no scientific information about it.

There is a lot of information about the brain but NONE about the objective mind.

And it is impossible to know what something can do without even knowing what it is.

So of course we cannot know how the mind influences the brain.

All we know is we do something with our mind and our arm moves.

That is all the evidence we have. We have no understanding what is going on when actively and purposefully we do that something.

 

[DBT]

You are making up your own rules and conditions. Rules and conditions that are not being used in the field because they are based on the assumption that mind has autonomous control over the brain, decisions and motor actions.

The evidence does not support your rules and conditions.

''If you were someone who understood brain anatomy and were to look at the brain of an animal that you had never seen before, you would nevertheless be able to deduce the likely capacities of the animal. This is because the brains of all animals are very similar in overall form. In each animal the brain is layered, and the basic structures of the brain are similar (see Figure 3.6 "The Major Structures in the Human Brain"). The innermost structures of the brain—the parts nearest the spinal cord—are the oldest part of the brain, and these areas carry out the same the functions they did for our distant ancestors. The “old brain” regulates basic survival functions, such as breathing, moving, resting, and feeding, and creates our experiences of emotion. Mammals, including humans, have developed further brain layers that provide more advanced functions—for instance, better memory, more sophisticated social interactions, and the ability to experience emotions. Humans have a very large and highly developed outer layer known as the cerebral cortex (see Figure 3.7 "Cerebral Cortex"), which makes us particularly adept at these processes.''

 

[fromderinside]

....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.

Why impute seeking and avoiding as drivers for neural chemical evolution. Maybe you can tell me how that would work in something like the Manta Ray or Horseshoe Crab. They are not. they are descriptive at a very non technical level. ...and right back to the previous commercial. I'd rather leave it be at established empirical observation and theory than throwing in common terms to make the gruel feel more like pablum.

 

[excreationist]

....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.

Why impute seeking and avoiding as drivers for neural chemical evolution. Maybe you can tell me how that would work in something like the Manta Ray or Horseshoe Crab. They are not. they are descriptive at a very non technical level. ...and right back to the previous commercial. I'd rather leave it be at established empirical observation and theory than throwing in common terms to make the gruel feel more like pablum.

I thought we were talking about motivation not "neural chemical evolution". So whatever motivates a mind would internally be classified as positive, neutral or negative (or a mixture). If it is self-aware it can be aware of whether it should seek or avoid those things so that it can make decisions. It can weigh up things during that process. I think manta rays and horseshoe crabs can seek and avoid things but they wouldn't be aware of the thought process in a self-conscious way.