Mind - The Comprehensive Experience

[CamSpdr]

Mind The Comprehensive Experience

 

What are you?

 

You are a question, there is more to you than meets the eye, especially of a second or third party.

 

You are not only an organism, or mechanism; that is, unless, you are being perceived wrongly, by another of similar mental capability.

 

What is mind?

 

Mind is a harmonious continuum, the shape of mind is a mechanism that resembles an organism; a windmill, a blue and white sky on a pale green hill, a man, justified.

 

Mind is family-based, but a problem, or war' is race-based. You are ignorant of other races you solve a problem by focusing on family whilst not focusing on race(being your own race); a square, but you and your family are included in the square-effect. Family, man, woman and child.

 

A mind has friends and enemies, but an enemy of another race is a problem. A friend of another race, is a friend of your own race, meaning you target half, or a quarter of the problem(other race), whilst a friend or enemy, of your own race, targets the remainder of your target.

 

In any case, you only talk to, or talk in front of or imagine doing so - to your own race.

 

(You may find you need to submit to your enemy, or the problem of a racial.enemy, to feel sexual attraction to a partner of the same race, especially in abstract circumstances.)

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

What is the topic for discussion here? This looks more like a blog post.

[CamSpdr]

How the mind works from the first person perspective.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Then provide us with some mainstream science. Moving this to neuroscience.

[Phi for All]

How the mind works from the first person perspective.

 

What does this have to do with science?

 

This is all subjective opinion you're asserting as true, and are now trying to preach to us. Where is your support for these ideas? Do you have any evidence that might convince me this is more than just guesswork?

[CamSpdr]

I do, but how do I convert the experience of life from my perspective without selecting a common that we both share; it's a matter of trust, I can't print out each moment frame by frame, I can only discuss with you, would you care for this discussion?

Edited April 20, 2017 by CamSpdr

[Phi for All]

I do, but how do I convert the experience of life from my perspective without selecting a common that we both share; it's a matter of trust, I can't print out each moment frame by frame, I can only discuss with you, would you care for this discussion?

 

I trust scientific explanations supported with evidence. Most of what you've written seems to be highly subjective, and is useless to build any kind of hypothesis upon without the ability to make testable predictions.

 

Why did you want to discuss this scientifically, at a science discussion forum? As the moderator mentioned, this seems more like a blog where you're telling us your thoughts, and not trying to establish experiments to test your hypotheses.

 

Anyone can claim what you claim. Do you have anything beyond guessing? Something that distinguishes your ideas from vague ponderings? What's the "square-effect"? Why do you claim everyone never thinks of race when thinking about family, when you can't possibly know what everyone thinks?

[CamSpdr]

What's the square-effect? It is the creative side of the questions you asked - vague, at best.

[Phi for All]

What's the square-effect? It is the creative side of the questions you asked - vague, at best.

 

Science prizes rigor, clarity, and precision. Creativity can present perspective to all phenomena, but scientific methodology is best for explaining those phenomena. Discussing "vague" is never best.

 

What are you looking for from a science discussion site?

[CamSpdr]

 

Why do you compete for high standing around knowledgeable people? Why do you categorise people around you?

 

When was the white man a victim of racism, if not the presence of the other man at present?

 

Would racism be a thing if nobody got hurt?

 

In the purest sense, races should be understood as races.

[Phi for All]

In the purest sense, races should be understood as races.

 

No, this is the Anatomy, Physiology, and Neuroscience section of Science Forums (a science discussion forum), and speaking biologically, humans are a single species.

 

I think your ideas are much more suited to a blog, because you aren't using science, and you make your claims with no support, yet seem to insist you're right. Why would I want to discus anything with anyone who argues the way you do, waving empty hands that should be full of evidence to persuade me?

[CamSpdr]

I disagree.

 

Would you argue that the discussion and debate of racism never existed? That there was never a particular type of human hurt by racism?

 

Have you forgotten?

 

A blind person is unable.to see and therefore isn't an able judge when it comes to determining things like skin colour.

 

People have moved, which is primarily the result of war over the ages. A white person in the middle East who is from America, is an American. If we're talking long down the family line, then I refer you to my point about mutation.

 

A white person and black person make a white-black person; there are more whites and blacks than white-blacks; the white-black race will probably not flourish on it's own, to do so, it must meet more white-blacks...

 

It's more than biology.

 

All fields are relvent when considering a person, but we often reduce that person to biology.

 

The reason it doesn't parse easily is the discussion we have at hand and any confusion surrounding the matter. If you don't accept white, you won't accept white-black, or have a separate theory.

 

You don't respect her.

[CamSpdr]

We're white, but don't agree with one another. The drive was there but the dream of it is gone.

 

We don't want the thought of war, war is the imperfect illusion that it's not already perfect.

 

Whites, specifically, are in a calm of mind. There is no White, sure, it's your imagination.

 

White people should defend White people, be against belief in weakness to other races, as well as weakness, but in the right cases.

 

There is a lot of potential in this move in thought, to ignore the central view of the white man, is to ignore all. We are together, none the less, and the average man would say I was being kind.

 

There are many directions of tomorrow, why would Russian Whites be against American Whites predominantly? We've all committed wrong, and wrong to other races.

 

Imagination is not imagination but powerful, we don't know what we imagine, to talk about it, would be creative; to say we know is stupid, but, that's it. You're through. (Here I was clearly being creative).

 

Whites theoretically should change so that the thought of war or criticism of Whites was not there - but because of the thought of war with other whites, we have an unstable social experience - the thought of 'we' is unacceptable for the imaginary white man.

 

Can I be happy mid speech and tell an irrelevent joke so and be proud of the next one? You'd probably say no... That's the effect of the social experience.

 

We're without imagination, they are there with the same problem, and it's not good.

[swansont]

Not sure how racism fits into this discussion, and not seeing any science of the mind being discussed. Pick a topic to discuss, please, and stick to it.

 

Start again in a new thread or threads.