FumaniJanuary 06, 2018 at 17:4711625 views88 comments
What is the mind without its contents? What is the mind when it is vacant of thought, perceptions, ideas and concepts? Is it still in existence or is non existent without these properties?
Mind is that which creates. Without memory it would feel as if one is unconscious or between dream states, where there is no sense of duration, however it is still there and can awaken and reach for memory via the body it had created. This might also be the state of death.
Reply to Fumani I'm just not sure we can talk intelligently about this, because we can't experience anything about our minds when the mind isn't working away full blast. So, when you say "what is the mind without its content" what do you even mean?
We know from experience that when we give people certain anesthetic drugs (an + aisth?sis, sensation) systemically they become unconscious. When they wake up they have no memory from the period of unconsciousness. Sleep is similar, but we often wake up with what we believe are memories from that state -- dreams.
When we wire up the box in which the mind is presumably located, we know that whatever is going on inside the box keeps going on during sleep, and anesthesia, though not quite the same as when the person is awake. The EEG trace is not something we can read to see what we were thinking about, if anything.
FMRIs provide similar information about what is going on in the box, whether we are awake or not.
We can't get outside of our heads to objectively view our minds, and we can't directly observe somebody else's mind.
If we switch to what the brain is doing, we can make a little more sense of what is going on.
I'm just not sure we can talk intelligently about this, because we can't experience anything about our minds when the mind isn't working away full blast. So, when you say "what is the mind without its content" what do you even mean?
We as philosophers should not shy away from investigating matters such as these just because it appears to be unintelligent.
You are speaking about the brain as if it is synonymous with the mind. The brain always has activity, activity that we are mostly unconscious of. The brain itself is just a highly complex system of matter, it does not account for experience. Experience is the domain of the mind because experience is immaterial and the contents of the mind are immaterial as well.
So lets focus on the immaterial aspect of the mind, we have perceptions, we have continuous narrations and self talk, we have a large array of images and sounds but if the mind were absent of all these qualities could we still say there is a mind that is present?
I would lean more to it being asleep however sleep implies unconsciousness. I would maybe use the word resting, because you can rest and still be conscious.
Harry HinduJanuary 07, 2018 at 15:33#1408580 likes
The mind is a form of working memory. Working memory includes the aspect of attention, or a central executive - the thing that wanders around the mind focusing on, or amplifying, certain signals, or qualia, that are relevant to accomplishing some goal.
So lets focus on the immaterial aspect of the mind, we have perceptions, we have continuous narrations and self talk, we have a large array of images and sounds but if the mind were absent of all these qualities could we still say there is a mind that is present?
These are all software features, as is consciousness.
Can you not feel conscious without memory? In fact I would think that we would even more conscious without memory.
This might also be the state of death.
— Rich
So in essence the mind cannot perish? In some way the mind is eternal?
I cannot say that when I am in an unconscious state I feel anything and there doesn't appear to be memory in the manner I normally experience it. But there is definitely something there because I do wake up!
Yes, the Mind appears to be eternal. It continues in many forms. But more than this, personal memory is persistent and we can actually observe it as interested, inborn, innate traits. We are all different because of the way our memory evolves.
The brain itself is just a highly complex system of matter, it does not account for experience. Experience is the domain of the mind because experience is immaterial and the contents of the mind are immaterial as well.
What is the mind without its contents? What is the mind when it is vacant of thought, perceptions, ideas and concepts? Is it still in existence or is non existent without these properties?
I think, from a physical point of view, there is no such thing as a mind if you think it as having an existence independent of the brain.
When we see an umbrella we think ''sun/rain protection'' but that's just man-made functional attribute. There isn't anything real about ''sun/rain protection''. Similarly, the mind is just a function of the brain. It lacks any real, brain-independent existence. The brain=umbrella and ''sun/rain protection''=the mind.
So, the question could be accused of arising from a misconception - the false belief that the mind is something real and of which we could ask questions.
However, there are n number of possibilities. There could be a mind and it could be independent of the brain but then it begs the question ''how can we engage in meaningful discourse with mere speculation?'' Perhaps we need mystical knowledge. Could there be such a thing?
I think, from a physical point of view, there is no such thing as a mind if you think it as having an existence independent of the brain.
From the physical point of view we cannot perceive the mind yes, but we can always see the physical effects that it has on matter.Quoting TheMadFool
When we see an umbrella we think ''sun/rain protection'' but that's just man-made functional attribute. There isn't anything real about ''sun/rain protection''. Similarly, the mind is just a function of the brain. It lacks any real, brain-independent existence. The brain=umbrella and ''sun/rain protection''=the mind
You are making the assumption that the mind is the function of the brain. Just because mental states correlate with the brain it does not mean there is a causation. I would flip the script an say that it is the mind that is senior to the brain. Mental states determine the chemicals that the brain secretes to add resonance to that mental state.
However, there are n number of possibilities. There could be a mind and it could be independent of the brain but then it begs the question ''how can we engage in meaningful discourse with mere speculation?'' Perhaps we need mystical knowledge. Could there be such a thing?
In fact we can engage this matter appropriately, we can apply the knowledge that we attain from phenomenology to this case it needn't be mystical. We can attempt at perceiving the world without interpreting the data with our minds but through directexperience
Reply to Fumani
But that still does not make the mind an independent entity from the brain.
Mental states determine the chemicals that the brain secretes to add resonance to that mental state.
Or, more logically, mental states are an experience caused by those chemicals.
And your above quote still does not answer the question: how do you "see" the effects of the mind on matter?
Another question. Do you believe that a flatworm has a mind? How about a grasshopper? Or an iguana, or a chimpanzee? Or is it only humans?
Or, more logically, mental states are an experience caused by those chemicals
Why is it more logical to infer that the chemicals are causing the mental states? It seems as if your basic assumption is that matter is senior to the intangible universe. Just because the brain demonstrates physiological changes that match mental states does not mean the brain is creating those mental states. How did you calculate this? Did you measure the brains electrical speed or the speed of the mind?
Another question. Do you believe that a flatworm has a mind? How about a grasshopper? Or an iguana, or a chimpanzee? Or is it only humans?
I believe they do, the mind is not solely reserved for human beings. Our minds maybe more complex but mind is a field that is shared.
StarthrowerJanuary 13, 2018 at 03:36#1432230 likes
Reply to Fumani The mind is the soul, or a physical representation of it. This may be proven false later on but until then I believe this is the best answer.
Just because the brain demonstrates physiological changes that match mental states does not mean the brain is creating those mental states. How did you calculate this? Did you measure the brains electrical speed or the speed of the mind?
No, I did not. But neurologists have done so hundreds of times. Clearly you have not done your homework.
Those "physiological changes" you talk about occur before the "mental states" with which they correlate.
Many experiments have been done that have demonstrated the effect the brain has on matter.
I'd love to see your sources.
I believe they do, the mind is not solely reserved for human beings.
So if a flatworm has a mind, does an amoeba? How about a plant? Or a bacteria? Or a virus? Or bovine spongiform encephalopathy? How do you draw a line between what is and is not a "mind"?
Reply to Fumani "Mind" means several things. Sometimes it means mental imagery and thoughts, sometimes it means more of a process (the computing powers of the brain), or the particular individual's style of mental processes and expressions.
The most general meaning that sort of fits with all these (though not in any really tight, essentialist way) is probably that the mental is marked by intentionality ("aboutness") - i.e. out of all the contents of experience, some are about others, or refer to others, and those are the mental contents of experience.
Another way of saying this might be that the mind is like an engine for processing symbols, or just the processing of symbols, full stop. "Processing" here would mean: shuffling symbols around in ordered ways. The leanest distillation of this would be that the mind is an algorithm (recipe) for shuffling symbols around, and one's own mind differs from other minds in its particular style of symbol shuffling (while still sharing some methods of symbol shuffling - like the rules of maths or language - with others).
I think the question you're asking might be better put as "what is consciousness without its contents?" And that touches on questions of experiential mysticism and non-duality. And here we're at the limits of what can be talked about: one can say either that consciousness without contents isn't anything, or that there's something left over, that might be called "capacity" or "awake/knowing space" or something of that nature. Both ideas have their merits and problems.
That may be true with conscious attention, but conscious attention is just one facet of the mind, what about the sub conscious? Have neurologists studied the speed of its operations?
Read up on the observer effect. You do know that there is a section in the brain that takes the impression that it received from electrical signals and creates the world that you see?
So if a flatworm has a mind, does an amoeba? How about a plant? Or a bacteria? Or a virus? Or bovine spongiform encephalopathy? How do you draw a line between what is and is not a "mind"?
This is bred by the human condition to differentiate things, look can we not agree that mind is an intelligence that assists the organism to navigate its way through existence? Can we not say that every organism shares that propensity? Yes our minds maybe more complex I am not denying it however it still functions as a tool for the organism.
I think the question you're asking might be better put as "what is consciousness without its contents?"
But mind and consciousness can be studied separately, consciousness is a whole other subject. Unless your saying that the mind is just an expression of consciousness?
This is bred by the human condition to differentiate things, look can we not agree that mind is an intelligence that assists the organism to navigate its way through existence?
I would say mind is the organism appearing in different subtle form. It is continuous from the most ethereal to the most solid and extends out without a clear boundary.
what about the sub conscious? Have neurologists studied the speed of its operations?
Yes.
Read up on the observer effect. You do know that there is a section in the brain that takes the impression that it received from electrical signals and creates the world that you see?
That is literally what the linked article is about.
And the reason I linked said article was to refute your claim that the brain's impulses are only reactions to some kind of spiritual "mind state." Yes. You are correct. The brain processes information and synthesizes conscious experience, in that order-- but previously, you claimed that
[the brain] does not account for experience. Experience is the domain of the mind because experience is immaterial and the contents of the mind are immaterial as well.
and
Just because mental states correlate with the brain it does not mean there is a causation. I would flip the script an say that it is the mind that is senior to the brain. Mental states determine the chemicals that the brain secretes to add resonance to that mental state.
I see no evidence of any of these (entirely speculative) claims in the given facts.
I would say mind is the organism appearing in different subtle form. It is continuous from the most ethereal to the most solid and extends out without a clear boundary.
Okay that makes sense, so are you implying that the mind is not solely linked to organisms? That inanimate objects are capable of possessing a mind?
[the brain] does not account for experience. Experience is the domain of the mind because experience is immaterial and the contents of the mind are immaterial as well.
Yes I still stand by this statement, experience is immaterial the brains functionings are material, we can observe the electrical surges and see the changes in the cortexes, but can we do the same for experience? Experience by definition is qualitative, can we quantify this?
Yes. You are correct. The brain processes information and synthesizes conscious experience, in that orde
Okay I can agree with conscious experience, what about the unconscious? We are studying how quickly we register information compared to the brains registering of set information, we are not taking into account the unconscious aspect of the mind that interprets information faster than conscious attention and potentially registers information before the brain demonstrates a change.
What is the mind without its contents? What is the mind when it is vacant of thought, perceptions, ideas and concepts? Is it still in existence or is non existent without these properties?
A hazy concept either wrongfully co-opted from a "common psychology" in current philosophy, or condoned by by a refusal to move to the newer paradigm of animal cognition.
The use of 'mind' is excusable in phenomenology, epistemology and ontology as a shorthand for 'all the cognitive functions of the brain relevant to the conversation', but otherwise, in proper theory of the mind, or cognitive science, it has no place anymore.
Okay that makes sense, so are you implying that the mind is not solely linked to organisms? That inanimate objects are capable of possessing a mind?
Inanimate objects are debris of the mind. Life is gone. Possibly just a bit left which would be the decay half-life. Life can recycle February by consuming it, e.g. minerals.
But mind and consciousness can be studied separately, consciousness is a whole other subject. Unless your saying that the mind is just an expression of consciousness?
I think they're rather just two ways of looking at something - one (consciousness) has a more passive connotation (it receives content), whereas the other (mind) has a more active connotation (it manipulates content).
Yes I can agree with that, also is it not due to the fact that the mind is what conceives of existence to be? And if it is conceived within the mind then it is has the same properties of mind.
Yes I can agree with that, also is it not due to the fact that the mind is what conceives of existence to be? And if it is conceived within the mind then it is has the same properties of mind.
What is the mind without its contents? What is the mind when it is vacant of thought, perceptions, ideas and concepts? Is it still in existence or is non existent without these properties?
On my view a mind without contents would cease to be a mind. A mind is not a container for thoughts; it IS the thoughts.
Philosophy is supposed to be based on logic
— bioazer
Who says? Your Logic course professor? Logic is a game, not philosophy.
You don't have to agree, but there's a pretty longstanding tradition going back to folks like Socrates, Plato, and Artistole that philosophy is supposed to be based on logic.
Reply to Brian As some sort of pedogogical training tool, logic is OK. But the longest standing tradition is direct observation of patterns in nature which goes back eons, to pre-historical times, across all cultures, and continues through modern philosophical thought. It is the only method that allows philosophy to move forward. Logic goes round and round.
I agree, direct observation is more useful than logic. We can utilize logic to explain the appearance of the sun but nothing will come close to directly observing the sun with your own two eyes.
Some of the greatest scientific and philosophical discoveries came from illogical premises. Logic is not an absolute its a methodology that in its conclusion points towards truth but as Rich said direct observation is another way, which can cancel out the need for any methodology.
I dont understand philosophers that refuse to argue or challenge anything outside the terrains of logic.
Reply to Fumani If you said it has a yard in the quantum physics ground then I would have been in agreement. With only that spot it doesn't sound the best choice to stand on physics and talk about mind.
Reply to Fumani
"Illogical premises" sure.
Give me one single example, pal.
I never denied that observation is useful-- it is, in fact, necessary.
But I would argue that observations are more or less useless without the application of logical reasoning.
From direct observation, the Earth appears to be flat. So I guess the Earth is flat.
You can make literally any claim and justify it as a "direct observation."
"Last night I had a dream in which I flew out of my bedroom window. I must be able to fly when I'm asleep!"
"All of my crops are failing. Witchcraft!"
Without some kind of methodology, discussing philosophy becomes pretty meaningless, because there is no real way to debate or compare ideas. Some kind of structure is required.
We use logic because it is a tool that can be employed to describe the world with a fairly high degree of accuracy. Simple observations are not enough.
I refuse to argue or challenge anything outside of logic because it is pointless and silly! If you postulate anything outside the realm of logic, it is entirely subjective speculation and I could postulate something completely the opposite and neither of us have any way of proving our point to the other. If nothing you say is provably true or false, then why should I bother even engaging with you, or you with me? Both of us have to be logical if we want to have any kind of meaningful discussion.
Reply to Rich
"Some kind of pedagogical training tool," indeed.
Do you understand what logic is?
How does information have any meaning if some kind of structured and consistent system of thought is not applied? Reply to Fumani
We can utilize logic to explain the appearance of the sun but nothing will come close to directly observing the sun with your own two eyes.
I thought that the point of philosophy was to explain why the sun comes up, not to fry your retinas.
How does information have any meaning if some kind of structured and consistent system of thought is not applied?
Formulating a new idea requires building new patterns. Language it images are forms of communication if these new ideas. Logic is can straight-jacket. A philosopher who relies on logic will get no where except right back where s/he started. Just observe the course of logic. It just reinforces, while new ideas must be disruptive. Philosophers need to get off the merry-go-round of academic philosophy.
This may not be considered a scientific discovery but it serves the purpose, think about gravity and how this was considered an absolute basic law of physics so just imagine when the wright brothers first brought about the idea of flight? How nonsensical this appeared to be because it would alter or manipulate the laws of physics. Now this may be a crude answer but logic if followed consistently does not get us anywhere.
From direct observation, the Earth appears to be flat. So I guess the Earth is flat
Direct observation is not just merely looking at something ofcourse, you are exaggerating. Direct observation in this case would be to create a recognized post and from then on follow the distance onwards to see/observe whether or not we would fall off at the supposed edge. Direct observation does also entail direct experience.
Without some kind of methodology, discussing philosophy becomes pretty meaningless, because there is no real way to debate or compare ideas. Some kind of structure is required.
We use logic because it is a tool that can be employed to describe the world with a fairly high degree of accuracy. Simple observations are not enough.
I refuse to argue or challenge anything outside of logic because it is pointless and silly! If you postulate anything outside the realm of logic, it is entirely subjective speculation and I could postulate something completely the opposite and neither of us have any way of proving our point to the other. If nothing you say is provably true or false, then why should I bother even engaging with you, or you with me? Both of us have to be logical if we want to have any kind of meaningful discussion.
I am not denying the importance of having structure in ones argument and I am not denying the relevancy of logic if you actually read what I said I did not downplay logic at all. What I did say was that direct observation succumbs logic in the sense that logic deals with concepts that point towards truth direct observation deals with the actual experience.
As some sort of pedogogical training tool, logic is OK. But the longest standing tradition is direct observation of patterns in nature which goes back eons, to pre-historical times, across all cultures, and continues through modern philosophical thought. It is the only method that allows philosophy to move forward. Logic goes round and round.
How is it possible to observe patterns in nature without some kind of tool that ontologically discloses the patterns as patterns?
It is not direct observation as such but the articulation of this direct observation that is philosophically relevant. Logic is but one tool among many others that good philosophers use to articulate their 'direct observation' (or less pretentiously, their experience of the world).
Reply to Rich Now would be a good time to give some examples to articulate your direct observation of the mind directly observing the mind. In your view is only observation of mind direct and observation of everything else indirect?
Reply to bloodninja Well, it is difficult to draw a hard line between what the Mind creates and the Mind itself.
A novel, for example, is a reflection of the author and a painting that of the artist. A computer that of the designer and a football game that of the players. They are all "carving out" new patterns. Etching them in the fabric of the universe. It manifests as we observe it. Philosophy would be the art of observing all of these different patterns, in all forms, so as to understand the nature of human evolution. It is observing meta-patterns. No other discipline does this.
The Mind observing itself usually goes under the umbrella if meditation, but meditation is but one technique for observation of self. Each technique offers something different.
But by your account, it's also a mind. It observes our searches, memorizes them better than we could ever, and optimizes its behaviour accordingly.
Suffice to say, no one should say that Google Maps is a "mind". And that's because it has only a minuscule fraction of the cognitive functions we have access to.
The phrase “you are what you eat” comes to mind when I hear about your physical being, however, in this case, I will delve into a more general description as to stimulate discussion. Your physical being can be welled down to one organ: your brain, which on its own can store over eight libraries of congress worth of information. It also allows you to enjoy the tastes, smells, sights, sounds, and feelings of food and sex (intimacy). (The only important things in life). Then comes your emotional being, which informs and helps shape your emotions, empathy, and sympathy, allowing for the development of social life, building relationships/destroying them and all that entails. Whether it be God, hope, or faith, your spiritual being is where your intangible thoughts lie, those underlining understandings that don't fit in this world. Then on top of your ability to live a physical life, socioemotional life, and a spiritual life, you also have the ability of logic. I can label another operation of the brain: understanding or the wisdom of experience and knowing what to do with it. Learning: the ability to capture knowledge and experiences. And Reason: the ability to critically think, as well as communicate your knowledge and wisdom. These three tools are leading to a single meaningful ability: perspective, and or the ability to create an opinion. This is an intrinsic theory, but it is what makes us, humans, who we are: The ability to experience life physically, to live life socially, to seek God, and to have an opinion about it. It is the basis of who we are as a species. Directed and organized by some pounds of gray matter and electricity. (No wonder Frankenstein and his monster was a “tangible” thought)
Obviously, the mind and the brain are similar, but their differences are worlds away.
Reply to Fumani I was simply suggesting you pick up a metaphysics with a school name you prefer to discuss such a big topic as about mind, soul...etc but it's up to you.
Well, it is difficult to draw a hard line between what the Mind creates and the Mind itself.
Perhaps it's difficult because the mind directly observing itself didn't create any of the examples you offered? What does a football game have to do with meditation or with direct observation of mind? If you directly observe your mind while playing football you'll miss the ball!
Reply to Akanthinos What is silly is denying one's own mind in favor of some mystical Laws of Nature that determine our lives. Totally absurd on so many levels.
hat does a football game have to do with meditation or with direct observation of mind?
Minds playing a game, just like the game that one doesn't have a mind. One's mind usually is on the game. Your game is to pretend you don't have a mind. Interesting.
Reply to Rich I don't pretend I don't have a mind at all. All I'm saying is that the football game is primarily a shared, engaged and circumspective activity, not mind. There is never anything like a direct observation of the mind observing the mind in a game of football. If players started doing that the game would totally collapse.
I think you need to stop twisting everything into the mind directly observing the mind. You force phenomena to conform to your conception of it rather than directly observing the phenomena itself. If you could actually try to focus on what is happening in your daily experience of the world then you would see that for the most part the mind is secondary and for the most part only comes on the scene when our engaged circumspective activity breaks down. Instead you play games. And you have no phenomenological descriptions to back up your claims, only dogmatic statements. You offer no philosophy only dogma.
I don't pretend I don't have a mind at all. All I'm saying is that the football game is primarily engaged circumspective coping activity, not mind.
The Move is always involved, with some players more or less. It is a game of patterns and inches. One person's movements perceived by another. The Mind is always engaged and observing.
I think you need to stop twisting everything into the mind directly observing the mind
That is what it is. It is impossible to avoid it. Even in mediation, one is observing one's own Mind. The sole exception in my experiences is when one is unconscious it's in a non-dreaming, sleep state (if such a state exists)?
This is my life and the lives I've overfed. Maybe you are walking through life in a comatose state? I don't know. Others on this forum claim they are robots and computers. Possibly they are.
Harry HinduJanuary 16, 2018 at 21:35#1446420 likes
What is silly is denying one's own mind in favor of some mystical Laws of Nature that determine our lives. Totally absurd on so many levels.
No one is denying the existence of minds. What is being denied is your explanation of what mind is and how it comes to be.
If the laws of nature are mystical, then doesn't that make it compatible with religion as religious laws are mystical too. Is philosophy mystical? What is the difference between a mystical explanation and a non-mystical explanation?
Harry HinduJanuary 16, 2018 at 21:42#1446440 likes
That is what it is. It is impossible to avoid it. Even in mediation, one is observing one's own Mind. The sole exception in my experiences is when one is unconscious it's in a non-dreaming, sleep state (if such a state exists)?
What do you mean by, "observe"? How does a mind observe a mind? What keeps us from observing other minds?
Philosophy is a practice. One does what one wishes. If one wishes to appeal to mystical forces then I've does. As for me, I am most interested in patterns. Observing them, creating them, understanding them. This type of philosophy had ancient origins. Stonehenge would be but one example.
Mystical would be appeal to some outside forces that are omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, e.g. God and the Laws of Nature.
What do you mean by, "observe"? How does a mind observe a mind? What keeps us from observing other minds?
One can observe one's own mind by mediation. One just observes oneself. Other minds after overbearing by the patterns they create, e.g. an artist's painting or a written posting. All are manifestations of mind.
Yes. Both phrases/terms refer to some outside mystical force of some type that has determined everything.
It's not just "outside" forces that determine everything. I have an effect on reality as well. You do too. Everyone does. Look at what groups of humans have done in changing the surface of the Earth. Natural Selection is a process of environmental feedback and we are all part of the environment. Natural.
Mystical would be appeal to some outside forces that are omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, e.g. God and the Laws of Nature.
What would be non-mystical then?
The Laws of Nature are not omniscient, nor omnipotent. Those are attributes of gods only. It doesn't even make any sense to say that. Laws are explanations by humans of the way things are. There is just the way things are, and then human explanations of the way things are - laws being explanations with a high degree of certainty.
What do you mean by, "observe"? How does a mind observe a mind? What keeps us from observing other minds? — Harry Hindu
One can observe one's own mind by mediation. One just observes oneself. Other minds after overbearing by the patterns they create, e.g. an artist's painting or a written posting. All are manifestations of mind.
That doesn't explain what you mean by "observe", nor how a mind observes itself. You're just going in circles.
We don't observe other minds - only their manifestations (supposedly). So, where are, and what are minds and how can they be observed?
What do you mean by an "I" having an effect? This is the question. Determinists stubbornly insist on a rather schizophrenic description of life, using concepts such as "I" and then turning around and denying it as an illusion. I have no problems with anyone choosing to adopt such a position, but why the heck do they insist that others have no choice to adopt a different position? We all have choices on the way we wish to live our lives. That is what life is all about.
No, what is silly is using poetry and heavy mysticism and pass it as rational discourse.
'Creativity', 'imagination', 'patterns', 'Bergson'. There you go : that's the extension of your grasp on the subject, and it is entirely defective.
The so-called "mystical' Laws of Nature are those of medicine, of cognitive science, of applied psychology. Pray tell, what the fuck can you say about aphantasia? About Face Blindness Syndrome? About Exploding Head Syndrome? Nothing useful.
The First Law of Biology: all living organisms obey the laws of thermodynamics. A corollary of the First Law is that life requires the temporary creation of order in apparent contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics. A second corollary of the First Law is that an organism at biochemical equilibrium is dead.
The Second Law of Biology: all living organisms consist of membrane-encased cells. A corollary of the Second Law is that the cell is the only structure that can grow and divide independently of another life form. A second corollary of the Second Law is that all life is programmed by genetic instructions.
The Third Law of Biology: all living organisms arose in an evolutionary process. Two corollaries of the Third Law are that (1) all living organisms contain homologous macromolecules (DNA, RNA, and proteins) that derived from a common ancestor, and (2) the genetic code is universal.
The Third Law of Biology: all living organisms arose in an evolutionary process.
In have idea what this means. It's not a Law, just some ambiguous statement about things happening and changing.
The rest is utter speculation. A good story. And in total explain practically nothing about the nature of life. You are, shall we say, getting over-enthusiastic about some simple observations. In other words, you are just making things up. Nothing that you call a Law (other than thermodynamics) is considered a Law in any literature. That you should choose to claim that they are is your privilege because it is your story. You are free to make up stories. The choice is always yours. No one else has chosen to do this. (Just illustrating the nature of Choice).
Please try to me more rational. Your over-exuberance about some some observations tends toward the irrational and quite emotional. Rather religious-like in my estimation.
Harry HinduJanuary 18, 2018 at 12:20#1450990 likes
What do you mean by an "I" having an effect? This is the question. Determinists stubbornly insist on a rather schizophrenic description of life, using concepts such as "I" and then turning around and denying it as an illusion. I have no problems with anyone choosing to adopt such a position, but why the heck do they insist that others have no choice to adopt a different position? We all have choices on the way we wish to live our lives. That is what life is all about.
:-} I never said "I" was an illusion. You're going on about something I never said, and decided to ignore 99% of my post, where I asked you a question that you keep avoiding. You really need some help in staying focused.
Reply to Harry Hindu You entirely missed the point of my responded. Until you get your arms around your schizophrenic use of "I", everything else you described is nonsense. Do you really believe in the myth of Determinism? If so, then fully embrace its implications. Or, is this just a game of pretend?
Harry HinduJanuary 19, 2018 at 12:21#1453990 likes
Reply to Rich Then why are you referring to me as, "you", and refering to your post as, "my"? It seems like you don't even understand yourself. Dumb, dumb, stupid-dumb. Stop avoiding my questions.
Reply to Harry Hindu There is a You and I. It v is the Observer/Mind. It is it very, very real. It is creating and exploring and evolving. This is how everything evolves through duration.
Harry HinduJanuary 19, 2018 at 13:16#1454080 likes
Yup it is. A contrario, it means that no living being are not composed of membraned-incased cells. I mean, you are free to fret about weither or not its a Law, but you might want to reserve that argument to someone who doesn't his Law degree :P
Comments (88)
Can you not feel conscious without memory? In fact I would think that we would even more conscious without memory.
Quoting Rich
So in essence the mind cannot perish? In some way the mind is eternal?
Never matter.
What is matter?
Never mind.
We know from experience that when we give people certain anesthetic drugs (an + aisth?sis, sensation) systemically they become unconscious. When they wake up they have no memory from the period of unconsciousness. Sleep is similar, but we often wake up with what we believe are memories from that state -- dreams.
When we wire up the box in which the mind is presumably located, we know that whatever is going on inside the box keeps going on during sleep, and anesthesia, though not quite the same as when the person is awake. The EEG trace is not something we can read to see what we were thinking about, if anything.
FMRIs provide similar information about what is going on in the box, whether we are awake or not.
We can't get outside of our heads to objectively view our minds, and we can't directly observe somebody else's mind.
If we switch to what the brain is doing, we can make a little more sense of what is going on.
We as philosophers should not shy away from investigating matters such as these just because it appears to be unintelligent.
You are speaking about the brain as if it is synonymous with the mind. The brain always has activity, activity that we are mostly unconscious of. The brain itself is just a highly complex system of matter, it does not account for experience. Experience is the domain of the mind because experience is immaterial and the contents of the mind are immaterial as well.
So lets focus on the immaterial aspect of the mind, we have perceptions, we have continuous narrations and self talk, we have a large array of images and sounds but if the mind were absent of all these qualities could we still say there is a mind that is present?
I would lean more to it being asleep however sleep implies unconsciousness. I would maybe use the word resting, because you can rest and still be conscious.
These are all software features, as is consciousness.
I cannot say that when I am in an unconscious state I feel anything and there doesn't appear to be memory in the manner I normally experience it. But there is definitely something there because I do wake up!
Yes, the Mind appears to be eternal. It continues in many forms. But more than this, personal memory is persistent and we can actually observe it as interested, inborn, innate traits. We are all different because of the way our memory evolves.
--@Fumani
Incorrect.
I think, from a physical point of view, there is no such thing as a mind if you think it as having an existence independent of the brain.
When we see an umbrella we think ''sun/rain protection'' but that's just man-made functional attribute. There isn't anything real about ''sun/rain protection''. Similarly, the mind is just a function of the brain. It lacks any real, brain-independent existence. The brain=umbrella and ''sun/rain protection''=the mind.
So, the question could be accused of arising from a misconception - the false belief that the mind is something real and of which we could ask questions.
However, there are n number of possibilities. There could be a mind and it could be independent of the brain but then it begs the question ''how can we engage in meaningful discourse with mere speculation?'' Perhaps we need mystical knowledge. Could there be such a thing?
From the physical point of view we cannot perceive the mind yes, but we can always see the physical effects that it has on matter.Quoting TheMadFool
You are making the assumption that the mind is the function of the brain. Just because mental states correlate with the brain it does not mean there is a causation. I would flip the script an say that it is the mind that is senior to the brain. Mental states determine the chemicals that the brain secretes to add resonance to that mental state.
Quoting TheMadFool
In fact we can engage this matter appropriately, we can apply the knowledge that we attain from phenomenology to this case it needn't be mystical. We can attempt at perceiving the world without interpreting the data with our minds but through directexperience
Let's start with this point
Quoting Fumani
does that mean you can still stand on the ground of modern physics and talk about mind? I doubt very much. What we "see" is not always a good proof.
Well it can actually hold ground in quantum physics, just another rendition of physics. The observer has an effect on the substance of matter.
But that still does not make the mind an independent entity from the brain.
Or, more logically, mental states are an experience caused by those chemicals.
And your above quote still does not answer the question: how do you "see" the effects of the mind on matter?
Another question. Do you believe that a flatworm has a mind? How about a grasshopper? Or an iguana, or a chimpanzee? Or is it only humans?
Why is it more logical to infer that the chemicals are causing the mental states? It seems as if your basic assumption is that matter is senior to the intangible universe. Just because the brain demonstrates physiological changes that match mental states does not mean the brain is creating those mental states. How did you calculate this? Did you measure the brains electrical speed or the speed of the mind?
Quoting bioazer
Many experiments have been done that have demonstrated the effect the brain has on matter.
Quoting bioazer
I believe they do, the mind is not solely reserved for human beings. Our minds maybe more complex but mind is a field that is shared.
No, I did not. But neurologists have done so hundreds of times.
Clearly you have not done your homework.
Those "physiological changes" you talk about occur before the "mental states" with which they correlate.
I'd love to see your sources.
So if a flatworm has a mind, does an amoeba? How about a plant? Or a bacteria? Or a virus? Or bovine spongiform encephalopathy? How do you draw a line between what is and is not a "mind"?
The most general meaning that sort of fits with all these (though not in any really tight, essentialist way) is probably that the mental is marked by intentionality ("aboutness") - i.e. out of all the contents of experience, some are about others, or refer to others, and those are the mental contents of experience.
Another way of saying this might be that the mind is like an engine for processing symbols, or just the processing of symbols, full stop. "Processing" here would mean: shuffling symbols around in ordered ways. The leanest distillation of this would be that the mind is an algorithm (recipe) for shuffling symbols around, and one's own mind differs from other minds in its particular style of symbol shuffling (while still sharing some methods of symbol shuffling - like the rules of maths or language - with others).
I think the question you're asking might be better put as "what is consciousness without its contents?" And that touches on questions of experiential mysticism and non-duality. And here we're at the limits of what can be talked about: one can say either that consciousness without contents isn't anything, or that there's something left over, that might be called "capacity" or "awake/knowing space" or something of that nature. Both ideas have their merits and problems.
Quoting bioazer
Read up on the observer effect. You do know that there is a section in the brain that takes the impression that it received from electrical signals and creates the world that you see?
Quoting bioazer
This is bred by the human condition to differentiate things, look can we not agree that mind is an intelligence that assists the organism to navigate its way through existence? Can we not say that every organism shares that propensity? Yes our minds maybe more complex I am not denying it however it still functions as a tool for the organism.
But mind and consciousness can be studied separately, consciousness is a whole other subject. Unless your saying that the mind is just an expression of consciousness?
I would say mind is the organism appearing in different subtle form. It is continuous from the most ethereal to the most solid and extends out without a clear boundary.
Yes.
That is literally what the linked article is about.
And the reason I linked said article was to refute your claim that the brain's impulses are only reactions to some kind of spiritual "mind state." Yes. You are correct. The brain processes information and synthesizes conscious experience, in that order-- but previously, you claimed that
and
I see no evidence of any of these (entirely speculative) claims in the given facts.
Okay that makes sense, so are you implying that the mind is not solely linked to organisms? That inanimate objects are capable of possessing a mind?
Yes I still stand by this statement, experience is immaterial the brains functionings are material, we can observe the electrical surges and see the changes in the cortexes, but can we do the same for experience? Experience by definition is qualitative, can we quantify this?
Quoting bioazer
Okay I can agree with conscious experience, what about the unconscious? We are studying how quickly we register information compared to the brains registering of set information, we are not taking into account the unconscious aspect of the mind that interprets information faster than conscious attention and potentially registers information before the brain demonstrates a change.
A hazy concept either wrongfully co-opted from a "common psychology" in current philosophy, or condoned by by a refusal to move to the newer paradigm of animal cognition.
The use of 'mind' is excusable in phenomenology, epistemology and ontology as a shorthand for 'all the cognitive functions of the brain relevant to the conversation', but otherwise, in proper theory of the mind, or cognitive science, it has no place anymore.
Inanimate objects are debris of the mind. Life is gone. Possibly just a bit left which would be the decay half-life. Life can recycle February by consuming it, e.g. minerals.
I think they're rather just two ways of looking at something - one (consciousness) has a more passive connotation (it receives content), whereas the other (mind) has a more active connotation (it manipulates content).
Yes I can agree with that, also is it not due to the fact that the mind is what conceives of existence to be? And if it is conceived within the mind then it is has the same properties of mind.
Couldn't have said it better.
Yes, I agree that it is of the same stuff.
I'm just giving up on this thread.
Philosophy is supposed to be based on logic, not mysticism.
Enjoy your speculations.
Who says? Your Logic course professor? Logic is a game, not philosophy.
In any case, Mind is infinitely more real than "The Laws of Nature" or "Emergent Illusions".
On my view a mind without contents would cease to be a mind. A mind is not a container for thoughts; it IS the thoughts.
You don't have to agree, but there's a pretty longstanding tradition going back to folks like Socrates, Plato, and Artistole that philosophy is supposed to be based on logic.
What is philosophy to you?
I agree, direct observation is more useful than logic. We can utilize logic to explain the appearance of the sun but nothing will come close to directly observing the sun with your own two eyes.
Some of the greatest scientific and philosophical discoveries came from illogical premises. Logic is not an absolute its a methodology that in its conclusion points towards truth but as Rich said direct observation is another way, which can cancel out the need for any methodology.
I dont understand philosophers that refuse to argue or challenge anything outside the terrains of logic.
We value logic yes but inquiry is the basis of philosophy.
Interesting, you are correct in waiving the distinction between thoughts and the mind. But is thought the only trait or expression of the mind?
"Illogical premises" sure.
Give me one single example, pal.
I never denied that observation is useful-- it is, in fact, necessary.
But I would argue that observations are more or less useless without the application of logical reasoning.
From direct observation, the Earth appears to be flat. So I guess the Earth is flat.
You can make literally any claim and justify it as a "direct observation."
"Last night I had a dream in which I flew out of my bedroom window. I must be able to fly when I'm asleep!"
"All of my crops are failing. Witchcraft!"
Without some kind of methodology, discussing philosophy becomes pretty meaningless, because there is no real way to debate or compare ideas. Some kind of structure is required.
We use logic because it is a tool that can be employed to describe the world with a fairly high degree of accuracy. Simple observations are not enough.
I refuse to argue or challenge anything outside of logic because it is pointless and silly! If you postulate anything outside the realm of logic, it is entirely subjective speculation and I could postulate something completely the opposite and neither of us have any way of proving our point to the other. If nothing you say is provably true or false, then why should I bother even engaging with you, or you with me? Both of us have to be logical if we want to have any kind of meaningful discussion.
"Some kind of pedagogical training tool," indeed.
Do you understand what logic is?
How does information have any meaning if some kind of structured and consistent system of thought is not applied?
I thought that the point of philosophy was to explain why the sun comes up, not to fry your retinas.
Formulating a new idea requires building new patterns. Language it images are forms of communication if these new ideas. Logic is can straight-jacket. A philosopher who relies on logic will get no where except right back where s/he started. Just observe the course of logic. It just reinforces, while new ideas must be disruptive. Philosophers need to get off the merry-go-round of academic philosophy.
I don't understand you? Please elaborate?
This may not be considered a scientific discovery but it serves the purpose, think about gravity and how this was considered an absolute basic law of physics so just imagine when the wright brothers first brought about the idea of flight? How nonsensical this appeared to be because it would alter or manipulate the laws of physics. Now this may be a crude answer but logic if followed consistently does not get us anywhere.
Quoting bioazer
Direct observation is not just merely looking at something ofcourse, you are exaggerating. Direct observation in this case would be to create a recognized post and from then on follow the distance onwards to see/observe whether or not we would fall off at the supposed edge. Direct observation does also entail direct experience.
Quoting bioazer
I am not denying the importance of having structure in ones argument and I am not denying the relevancy of logic if you actually read what I said I did not downplay logic at all. What I did say was that direct observation succumbs logic in the sense that logic deals with concepts that point towards truth direct observation deals with the actual experience.
Quoting bioazer
And I thought the point of an argument was for both parties to learn and engage not to be condescending.
How is it possible to observe patterns in nature without some kind of tool that ontologically discloses the patterns as patterns?
It is not direct observation as such but the articulation of this direct observation that is philosophically relevant. Logic is but one tool among many others that good philosophers use to articulate their 'direct observation' (or less pretentiously, their experience of the world).
This is precisely what the mind does and only the mind. Tools are simply that. No more.
Quoting bloodninja
There are many ways to convey the observations of one's mind. Usually imagery is one if the most effective.
Are 'direct observation' and the 'mind' distinct in your view? Does one come before the other or are they essentially the same?
So the mind creates the new patterns that it directly observes? Is the mind directly observing the mind?
Yes, the Mind is observing the Mind. It is reflecting and evolving.
By that account Google Maps is a mind.
Jesus, what bloody bullshit...
A novel, for example, is a reflection of the author and a painting that of the artist. A computer that of the designer and a football game that of the players. They are all "carving out" new patterns. Etching them in the fabric of the universe. It manifests as we observe it. Philosophy would be the art of observing all of these different patterns, in all forms, so as to understand the nature of human evolution. It is observing meta-patterns. No other discipline does this.
The Mind observing itself usually goes under the umbrella if meditation, but meditation is but one technique for observation of self. Each technique offers something different.
But by your account, it's also a mind. It observes our searches, memorizes them better than we could ever, and optimizes its behaviour accordingly.
Suffice to say, no one should say that Google Maps is a "mind". And that's because it has only a minuscule fraction of the cognitive functions we have access to.
I just said it. It is a direct manifestation of patterns discerned by the mind and etched into the universe.
That would describe a map. Google Maps is much more than that.
Of course. All created by Mind. As the Mind evolves so does the patterns it creates, hence Google Maps.
Obviously, the mind and the brain are similar, but their differences are worlds away.
I'm sorry. I tried, but this sort of half-assed mysticism gives me nausea. :s
Perhaps it's difficult because the mind directly observing itself didn't create any of the examples you offered? What does a football game have to do with meditation or with direct observation of mind? If you directly observe your mind while playing football you'll miss the ball!
I suppose c one can go through life pretending one doesn't have a mind. It must feel rather wired though.
Quoting bloodninja
Minds playing a game, just like the game that one doesn't have a mind. One's mind usually is on the game. Your game is to pretend you don't have a mind. Interesting.
I think you need to stop twisting everything into the mind directly observing the mind. You force phenomena to conform to your conception of it rather than directly observing the phenomena itself. If you could actually try to focus on what is happening in your daily experience of the world then you would see that for the most part the mind is secondary and for the most part only comes on the scene when our engaged circumspective activity breaks down. Instead you play games. And you have no phenomenological descriptions to back up your claims, only dogmatic statements. You offer no philosophy only dogma.
The Move is always involved, with some players more or less. It is a game of patterns and inches. One person's movements perceived by another. The Mind is always engaged and observing.
Quoting bloodninja
That is what it is. It is impossible to avoid it. Even in mediation, one is observing one's own Mind. The sole exception in my experiences is when one is unconscious it's in a non-dreaming, sleep state (if such a state exists)?
This is my life and the lives I've overfed. Maybe you are walking through life in a comatose state? I don't know. Others on this forum claim they are robots and computers. Possibly they are.
No one is denying the existence of minds. What is being denied is your explanation of what mind is and how it comes to be.
If the laws of nature are mystical, then doesn't that make it compatible with religion as religious laws are mystical too. Is philosophy mystical? What is the difference between a mystical explanation and a non-mystical explanation?
What do you mean by, "observe"? How does a mind observe a mind? What keeps us from observing other minds?
Great. I'm glad nobody is going to call it an illusion anymore. Very happy to hear about this new development.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yes. Both phrases/terms refer to some outside mystical force of some type that has determined everything.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Philosophy is a practice. One does what one wishes. If one wishes to appeal to mystical forces then I've does. As for me, I am most interested in patterns. Observing them, creating them, understanding them. This type of philosophy had ancient origins. Stonehenge would be but one example.
Mystical would be appeal to some outside forces that are omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, e.g. God and the Laws of Nature.
One can observe one's own mind by mediation. One just observes oneself. Other minds after overbearing by the patterns they create, e.g. an artist's painting or a written posting. All are manifestations of mind.
You (your mind) inquiring?
This is what it is life is all about. Inquiry, creativity, learning, evolving. Life evolves by learning in memory.
Even if it were an illusion, it would still be something that exists. A mirage is the effect of real processes that are explained in a consistent way.
Quoting Rich
It's not just "outside" forces that determine everything. I have an effect on reality as well. You do too. Everyone does. Look at what groups of humans have done in changing the surface of the Earth. Natural Selection is a process of environmental feedback and we are all part of the environment. Natural.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Quoting Rich
What would be non-mystical then?
The Laws of Nature are not omniscient, nor omnipotent. Those are attributes of gods only. It doesn't even make any sense to say that. Laws are explanations by humans of the way things are. There is just the way things are, and then human explanations of the way things are - laws being explanations with a high degree of certainty.
Quoting Rich
That doesn't explain what you mean by "observe", nor how a mind observes itself. You're just going in circles.
We don't observe other minds - only their manifestations (supposedly). So, where are, and what are minds and how can they be observed?
What do you mean by an "I" having an effect? This is the question. Determinists stubbornly insist on a rather schizophrenic description of life, using concepts such as "I" and then turning around and denying it as an illusion. I have no problems with anyone choosing to adopt such a position, but why the heck do they insist that others have no choice to adopt a different position? We all have choices on the way we wish to live our lives. That is what life is all about.
No, what is silly is using poetry and heavy mysticism and pass it as rational discourse.
'Creativity', 'imagination', 'patterns', 'Bergson'. There you go : that's the extension of your grasp on the subject, and it is entirely defective.
The so-called "mystical' Laws of Nature are those of medicine, of cognitive science, of applied psychology. Pray tell, what the fuck can you say about aphantasia? About Face Blindness Syndrome? About Exploding Head Syndrome? Nothing useful.
Enumerate them.
The Second Law of Biology: all living organisms consist of membrane-encased cells. A corollary of the Second Law is that the cell is the only structure that can grow and divide independently of another life form. A second corollary of the Second Law is that all life is programmed by genetic instructions.
The Third Law of Biology: all living organisms arose in an evolutionary process. Two corollaries of the Third Law are that (1) all living organisms contain homologous macromolecules (DNA, RNA, and proteins) that derived from a common ancestor, and (2) the genetic code is universal.
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-008-9925-3
So we have life that works opposite of entropy to create. It's that a Law?
And everything is on constant motion. Quoting Akanthinos
That's not a Law. It's a simple observation and becomes totally meaningless once one looks deeper for boundaries.
Quoting Akanthinos
In have idea what this means. It's not a Law, just some ambiguous statement about things happening and changing.
The rest is utter speculation. A good story. And in total explain practically nothing about the nature of life. You are, shall we say, getting over-enthusiastic about some simple observations. In other words, you are just making things up. Nothing that you call a Law (other than thermodynamics) is considered a Law in any literature. That you should choose to claim that they are is your privilege because it is your story. You are free to make up stories. The choice is always yours. No one else has chosen to do this. (Just illustrating the nature of Choice).
Please try to me more rational. Your over-exuberance about some some observations tends toward the irrational and quite emotional. Rather religious-like in my estimation.
:-} I never said "I" was an illusion. You're going on about something I never said, and decided to ignore 99% of my post, where I asked you a question that you keep avoiding. You really need some help in staying focused.
Yup it is. A contrario, it means that no living being are not composed of membraned-incased cells. I mean, you are free to fret about weither or not its a Law, but you might want to reserve that argument to someone who doesn't his Law degree :P