Our mind.

[Strange]

Excellent arguments all. What is matter made of, and come from?

 

Matter is made of atoms which are made of electrons, protons and neutrons. Hydrogen was formed in the early universe. Other elements were created in stars.

 

The statement mind over matter, can matter be spiritual?

 

"Mind over matter" means different things in different contexts. For example, how you feel can affect your health.

 

Matter is not spiritual.

 

I hear my voice in my mind?

 

Yes.

 

All of this leads to spirit/soul.

 

I don't see why.

[Confusi]

Ok, sorry for the crap analogy, it was very off the cuff and not terribly well thought out.

Ii was simply conveyng that the body is merely a machine, albeit a biological machine. The mind is not within the body, it is universal energy.

 

When you dream, the mind is capable of doing whatever it wants without the physical restrictions. Mediums and psychics can access information about things they cannot see taste touch or hear. (yes, they certainly can, I have seen and heard this many times when trickery was definitely ruled out!)

 

 

the equation implies, it takes a huge amount of energy to create a tiny bit of mass.

 

 

It also implies that matter is made out of energy.

 

Matter is not spiritual.

 

IF matter is made out of energy, it is not material either!

 

Matter is made of atoms which are made of electrons, protons and neutrons.

 

..each of wich can be further broken down further into quarks, charms etc, all made from a tiny amount of matter and a large amount of space ( I hear and agree with ten oz's post, not exactly "empty space")

 

re- the proofs of the mind being in the brain, please show them, I realise this does not count as proof but I am certainly not alone in this, neither is it strictly a "new age", or "conspiracy" theory, the reason I am using New Sceintist's publication,

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128221-300-existence-am-i-a-hologram/

[Strange]

The mind is not within the body, it is universal energy.

 

How do you know that? What evidence supports that belief?

 

Mediums and psychics can access information about things they cannot see taste touch or hear. (yes, they certainly can, I have seen and heard this many times when trickery was definitely ruled out!)

 

You mean when you couldn't see how the trick was done. Do you know how stage magicians do all their tricks? They can reproduce anything that these charlatans can.

 

It also implies that matter is made out of energy.

 

No it doesn't. (Although matter can be converted to energy and vice versa, they are not the same thing.)

 

IF matter is made out of energy, it is not material either!

 

That is why matter is not made out of energy. Matter is material by definition.

 

..each of wich can be further broken down further into quarks, charms etc, all made from a tiny amount of matter and a large amount of space

 

Electrons cannot be broken down. And there is not a large amount of empty space (this is a pop-science story that has little basis).

 

re- the proofs of the mind being in the brain, please show them

 

There is no "proof" that the mind is in the brain. This statement seems to be typical of your sloppy thinking.

 

There is, of course, a lot of evidence that the mind arises in the brain. Apart from anything else, we can map which parts of the brain are responsible for various functions of the mind.

 

I realise this does not count as proof but I am certainly not alone in this, neither is it strictly a "new age", or "conspiracy" theory, the reason I am using New Sceintist's publication,

 

That has nothing to do with what you are talking about. It is the usual New Scientist sensationalism and dumbing down. The holographic principle just states that the entropy (information) of a volume is proportional to the surface area.

[DrmDoc]

I used to think this was the case due to certain experiences which for the life of me I could not imagine how they were in my own brain.

I think, based on the only testable examples, that mind is a product of a dynamic cognitive process involving the integration of sensory perceptions and stored memories to produce the behavioral responses we recognize as evidence of a mind. Essentially, mind is a product of some source process. If mind is a projection that exist outside brain function, what is the source of that projection and how can we prove that assertion? I think some of us construe our environmental or social influences as projections of mind from some omnipresent or omnipotent source beyond ourselves. In reality, those supposed projections are merely the terrestrial perceptions that feed the dynamic functional brain processes that produce those behavioral responses confirming the presence of mind. Again, in my opinion, mind is the product of a functional process quantifiable by what we can prove through the only testable example, which is brain function.

[Strange]

I used to think this was the case due to certain experiences which for the life of me I could not imagine how they were in my own brain.

 

Incredulity is not a very convincing argument.

[andrewcellini]

It also implies that matter is made out of energy.

No it doesn't.

 

Energy is a property of physical systems, not an independent substance. The equation edit: E = sqrt((mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2) thanks imatfaal tells you how much energy is contributed by the mass (which is another property) of, say a point particle, at rest and in relative motion.

IF matter is made out of energy, it is not material either!

well it's not made of energy, so whether or not that conclusion follows (it isn't clear that it would as you don't provide any reasons), your premise is not based in reality but rather a misunderstanding and so the rest can be thrown away.

 

and as pointed out by Strange, matter is material by definition.

Edited January 26, 2016 by andrewcellini

[imatfaal]

No it doesn't.

 

Energy is a property of physical systems, not an independent substance. The equation E = mc^2 + pc tells you how much energy is contributed by the mass (which is another property) of, say a point particle, at rest and in relative motion.

well it's not made of energy, so whether or not that conclusion follows (it isn't clear that it would as you don't provide any reasons), your premise is not based in reality but rather a misunderstanding and so the rest can be thrown away.

 

and as pointed out by Strange, matter is material by definition.

 

[ot pedantry]

 

E = mc^2 + pc surely not

 

Sqrt(m^2c^4 +p^2c^2) DNE mc^2 + pc

 

[/ot pedantry]

[andrewcellini]

 

[ot pedantry]

 

E = mc^2 + pc surely not

 

Sqrt(m^2c^4 +p^2c^2) DNE mc^2 + pc

 

[/ot pedantry]

doh, good catch and certainly not pedantic. I'd be happy to have caught that myself but I sucked at aritmetic for a moment

Edited January 26, 2016 by andrewcellini

[hoola]

mind is a function of the Powerful Imagination...

Edited January 26, 2016 by hoola

[Strange]

mind is a function of the Powerful Imagination...

 

Or maybe the other way round ...

[hoola]

We cannot imagine reality..only the other way around...or else reality becomes less real than it could be, within it's simplest form...and becomes a religious misperception...and burdensomely complex.

[Ten oz]

We cannot imagine reality..only the other way around...or else reality becomes less real than it could be, within it's simplest form...and becomes a religious misperception...and burdensomely complex.

Is reality singular? There are various realities we (human mind) are able to define but what is reality as a total quantity? We exist is a world based on human concepts and not an absolute reality. When we hold a glass of water we understand it to be a solid holding a liquid but is also all just atoms and on another level as just all energy. Reality is the point where we choose to ground ourselves but not exactly a tangible certianty outside of the values we provide it.

[Strange]

We cannot imagine reality..only the other way around...

 

That doesn't make much sense. What does "the other way round" mean? Reality imagines us?

[Genecks]

Is our mind inside or outside of our brain? Our mind is spiritual where our brain is biological. Which part the mind or the brain holds our emotions? I'm for our mind. It' said our emotions are in our brain? It is also said that our thoughts are in our mind and not our brain. What say you? Mind one

 

My current belief is that qualia and quantity exist on different planes, such as different dimensions.

Dimension A = the physical

Dimension B = the psychological

 

When I consider thinking about the mind, I get into topics, such as mathematics, psychology, engineering, and vision. We could use sound, but I don't have too much of a background in the neurobiology of sound interpretation.

 

Much of my interpretation has come about from studying the visual system and fourier transformations. I think there is some kind of evolutionary mathematical process that taps into another dimension. So, the brain takes a signal, and upon a signal taps into another dimension, whereby perception occurs. I talked about something like this on philosophyforums.com, but the site was hacked and loads of stuff erased.

 

Basically, I was postulating that the brain evolved to open some kind of obsure dimension, such as a stargate. The holonomic brain principle, I think, was of the last things I was investigating. The brain evolved a bridge to connect Dimension A and Dimension B.

 

- Holonomic brain theory

 

So, I was under the belief that somehow the brain evolved to generate a bridge that could cross between the physical and the psychological. This eventually led me to research whether or not an acausal dimension exists. Jung was investigating something similar. Coincidences could be argued to be things that are separate and yet related. They don't cause each other, but there is a link, a bridge. So, the question becomes: What is the bridge?

 

If there is a psychological dimension, it may have to do with the law of entropy and the psychological arrow of time.

 

There is a lot more investigation to due, but I'm not sure if math is simply the way of trying to figure it all out. I'm fond of the mathematical universe hypothesis and have belief in it. I don't know how something acausal would be mathematically described.

 

If we consider that the mind is based on the psychological arrow of time, then there are physical constraints. Sigh... ughh..

 

So, I was trying to find a way to combine philosophy, law, and neuroscience. Eventually, I came to some kind of obscure scientific model, whereby I was combining science and law. So, if you're in a room and there isn't a clock around, then Einstein's theories of relativity are not true at the moment ("if you can't prove something in court, it's not true"). I started to define and specify "court" as a kind of organism if not entity, thus kind of like calling yourself "the court."

 

Perhaps this is like a Schrodinger's cat situation. Even if there is a clock, if you don't have something to compare it to, such as a learned pattern of time, it's going to be difficult to argue how much time is passing. You don't know. You can't prove it. You can't prove it to yourself. You can claim all you want that time is passing, but if you can't prove it, you're stuck. So, the mind is dependent on obscure environmental variables of proof. The relationship between mind and environment determines what is observed. If anyone's watched Cube 2, this might make sense. Thus, I started to study what is called "fraud." Those who have studied philosophy and religion might say this is called "Maya," and maybe you're wondering how any of this is relevant.

 

 

It has to do with the measurement problem. Our environments are deluding us and only let us see what they want us to see. It influences observation, thus affects the mind. The mind is obviously a psychological phenomenon: It's qualia. Maybe not obvious, fine. It's a different dimension. It's separate. There is a signal for green, and then there is the visualization of green even if you can't linguistically describe it as green.

 

I think asking what the "mind" is, is a good starting ground. However, I think there will be other obstacles we need to overcome before we start understanding what the "mind" is, such as understanding what's involved with the realm of the psychological, what kind of things are involved, and what intervening variables (things that delude us) exist.

 

The oogey boogey answer, I think, is that there are other things in this acausal psychological realm that go bump in the night. I know a lot of you might not think that's very scientific, and I don't care. And these things don't want us to know what the mind is. I think if there is this acausal, psychological realm, we don't want to experience it: You're better off shooting yourself in the head before truly learning acausality exists.

 

There is an answer to what the mind is, but one or more things are deluding us as to what that is. My belief is that the mind is acausal. But to understand the mind, then, would to be going into the realm of acausality, somehow trying to understand acausality with a supposed causal mind, and yet trying to not let reality shatter at the same time.

 

My earliest memory as a child was at about 6 months of age. I perceived things. I observed things. I didn't have language to describe the fact that I perceived things. I assume if there was a way to relay what I observed, it would be quite a circular argument: Simply a visual replaying of what I visually observed with no language to describe such. So, my visual system was working. I couldn't discern shapes, colors, etc.. But I observed things. Granted, that I observed things is in retrospect. IT could be well enough to say that I'm delusional that I ever observed anything, because I didn't have language to describe any psychological phenomena that was occurring to me.

 

But looking back, nonetheless, I did not see pure darkness. I did not see blackness. I deny that I observed nothing. So, obviously, the brain found a way to interpret all these signals from physical objects, the light bouncing off the objects into my eyes, and developed a signal that eventually displayed an image. Where the signal was developed and transformed, I'm not too sure: I think that's where the bridge comes in.

 

There's a bridge somewhere. If you use FTIR to analyze a molecular substance, you'll understand. You have a white powder, but the FTIR can punch out a signal. The bridge is the machine that does the analysis. You might argue that's an inaccurate mathematical description of the object and but an approximation, and I'm going to say that I still think there is some biophysical process that analyzes all the signals, finds a way to punch them out into a signal, transfers that signal past a bridge, whereby we visualize what's going on: Two distinct realms (the physical and the psychological).

 

Also, watch Cube 1 and Cube 2. I remember when I watched Cube 1 for the first time, I said to one of my peers something like: "I'm no fool. I'm not going to explore that maze. I'd sit right where I am and not move."

 

I think the mind is acausal, and I don't think anyone would really want to know what that is. I think.... the mind is God. The mind is court. You are God but you are too delusional to realize that. Ever physical object is God visualizing itself, thus like a camera. We're all a bunch of cameras.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Genecks

[hoola]

strange....yes, some time ago reality imagined us, and we are now being expressed as one form of logical possibility, once reality had sufficient time to arrange certain geometric actualization prototocols. Ten Oz...reality was singular at the fundamental "one void" time in history, well prior to BB. The culmination of that event is the point in time that the "hardware" was begun construction as directed by the "software" of prior BB states...

Edited January 27, 2016 by hoola

[Genecks]

There's definitely something odd about all of it. From my explanation, you can't experience what the mind is, because then you would have to break all of your ignorance. In "law," this means you'd have to become "the reasonable person," which is God in the legal system. You have to mediate opposing viewpoints and destroy negligence in the process. Thus, I've questioned if the answer to a lot of modern riddles is psychologism. So, to experience or know what the mind is would be to learn acausality, which I would assume that to know acausality is to be independent of causality, thus to know God, thus to be God. To know is to be. To know what the mind is, is to know yourself.

 

I guess that works under the monist philosophy that to know what something is, is to be that thing. Anything else is an approximation. It's Maya and the measurement problem at work. I feel the philosophy of "Move along. Nothing to see here." is probably the best to adhere to.

 

Questioning what the mind or perception is, is fun and exciting. However, if it actually gets into the depth of acausality, I reason it gets quite frightening. A causal being with the "desire" to understand something "acausal," just ain't goona happen. It seems descriptively possible to say that mind=God, but to actually fully realize it would be a different story. Thus, there would be an empathic aspect that would necessary to obtain.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Genecks

[Confusi]

Matter, the dream that stuff is made of

[Gees]

Genecks;

 

Your thoughts certainly are interesting. I see validity in some of your points, but others I am not so sure about. It may be that our different experiences and studies have given us different perspectives, or it may be that I simply do not fully understand your meaning, as it is clear that my formal education is not the equal of yours.

 

If you would review my following post, maybe you could help me to understand your position better while considering my thoughts.

 

My current belief is that qualia and quantity exist on different planes, such as different dimensions.

Dimension A = the physical

Dimension B = the psychological

 

When I consider thinking about the mind, I get into topics, such as mathematics, psychology, engineering, and vision. We could use sound, but I don't have too much of a background in the neurobiology of sound interpretation.

 

Well, I certainly won't dispute that the physical and psychological are very different, but I don't know how to describe these differences in terms of dimensions or planes.

 

Something that concerns me is that, although we know that the physical can be broken down into categories, most people think of the psychological as just one type of thing. I think this is a mistake.

 

When I study mind, it is in relation to my studies of consciousness, and I look to philosophy, science, religion, and the paranormal for my considerations. Since I know that consciousness is in fact subjectivity, I tend to give as much weight to subjective experience as I do to academic theories.

 

Much of my interpretation has come about from studying the visual system and fourier transformations. I think there is some kind of evolutionary mathematical process that taps into another dimension. So, the brain takes a signal, and upon a signal taps into another dimension, whereby perception occurs. I talked about something like this on philosophyforums.com, but the site was hacked and loads of stuff erased.

 

Basically, I was postulating that the brain evolved to open some kind of obsure dimension, such as a stargate. The holonomic brain principle, I think, was of the last things I was investigating. The brain evolved a bridge to connect Dimension A and Dimension B.

 

- Holonomic brain theory

 

I did not even know what "holonomic" meant and had to look it up. My understanding now is that it incorporates the "mechanical", cause and effect, or what science uses, with "systems thinking", how things relate and influence each other, with "meaning" or the purpose.

 

So mechanical plus relationships plus purpose equals holonomic.

 

Because you are more science oriented, you are working the "bridge" from the physical perspective, as in "brain evolved to open" or evolved for the purpose of reaching this dimension. I am more philosophy oriented and tend to view things from a whole perspective, so I do not see the brain as this bridge. The fact is that all life is sentient, which means that all life is conscious to some degree, so the connection between dimensions is already there in all life. What I can see is that the brain's evolution allowed us to build a bicycle and ride across the bridge for a peek, as long as we're careful, as I suspect that it is a very skinny bridge. Could fall off. (chuckle)

 

The thing that I worry about with regard to holonomic ideas is that it is just too easy to rationalize a purpose. When dealing with an unknown, rationalization does not work very well, and it would be too easy to end up creating something very close to a religion, while trying to explain purpose.

 

So, I was under the belief that somehow the brain evolved to generate a bridge that could cross between the physical and the psychological. This eventually led me to research whether or not an acausal dimension exists. Jung was investigating something similar. Coincidences could be argued to be things that are separate and yet related. They don't cause each other, but there is a link, a bridge. So, the question becomes: What is the bridge?

You are starting to lose me here. What do you mean by an "acausal dimension"? The closest thing that I can relate this idea to is the unconscious aspect of mind. The unconscious does not recognize time and "thinks" in terms of relationships.

 

I have heard of Jung's Oneness idea, but do not fully understand it. Is this what you are referring to, or is there something else?

 

As far as the conscious mind relating to the unconscious mind, I would think that chemistry and hormones would be the bicycle that traverses that bridge.

If there is a psychological dimension, it may have to do with the law of entropy and the psychological arrow of time.

There is a lot more investigation to due, but I'm not sure if math is simply the way of trying to figure it all out. I'm fond of the mathematical universe hypothesis and have belief in it. I don't know how something acausal would be mathematically described.

If we consider that the mind is based on the psychological arrow of time, then there are physical constraints. Sigh... ughh..

OK. I am lost here. Is there any chance that you can give a dumbed down explanation of the "law of entropy" and the "psychological arrow of time"?

So, I was trying to find a way to combine philosophy, law, and neuroscience. Eventually, I came to some kind of obscure scientific model, whereby I was combining science and law. So, if you're in a room and there isn't a clock around, then Einstein's theories of relativity are not true at the moment ("if you can't prove something in court, it's not true"). I started to define and specify "court" as a kind of organism if not entity, thus kind of like calling yourself "the court."

Question: Is the time-ignoring unconscious aspect of mind the self/court, or is the logical, time-understanding conscious aspect of mind the self/court? If you are in a room, you are aware of space, so I would think that it would be the conscious aspect of mind, and you would also be aware of time. In order for Einstein's theories to be irrelevant, you would have to be the unconscious aspect of mind, but then you would not be aware of anything that relates to time or space, only things as they relate to each other.

Perhaps this is like a Schrodinger's cat situation. Even if there is a clock, if you don't have something to compare it to, such as a learned pattern of time, it's going to be difficult to argue how much time is passing. You don't know. You can't prove it. You can't prove it to yourself. You can claim all you want that time is passing, but if you can't prove it, you're stuck. So, the mind is dependent on obscure environmental variables of proof. The relationship between mind and environment determines what is observed. If anyone's watched Cube 2, this might make sense. Thus, I started to study what is called "fraud." Those who have studied philosophy and religion might say this is called "Maya," and maybe you're wondering how any of this is relevant.

The first half of the above paragraph sounds very much like what people describe in paranormal studies. Ideas are not continuous, they are segments or clips of thoughts, pictures, or feelings that have no reference to time and/or space.

 

I don't know what "Cube 2" is, and yep, I wonder how it is relevant. (chuckle)

 

It has to do with the measurement problem. Our environments are deluding us and only let us see what they want us to see. It influences observation, thus affects the mind. The mind is obviously a psychological phenomenon: It's qualia. Maybe not obvious, fine. It's a different dimension. It's separate. There is a signal for green, and then there is the visualization of green even if you can't linguistically describe it as green.

I can see that there is a measurement problem and that we can only know what is in the mind by comparing it to the things in our environment that end up in mind.

 

One of the problems that I have in the study of consciousness is that everyone assumes that consciousness is thought. I seriously doubt this. Thought is how we measure consciousness, how we know that others are conscious, but we did not think ourselves aware -- that is not possible. If it were possible, then computers would be conscious and have minds. They would at least be as conscious, sentient, as a blade of grass.

I think asking what the "mind" is, is a good starting ground. However, I think there will be other obstacles we need to overcome before we start understanding what the "mind" is, such as understanding what's involved with the realm of the psychological, what kind of things are involved, and what intervening variables (things that delude us) exist.

The oogey boogey answer, I think, is that there are other things in this acausal psychological realm that go bump in the night. I know a lot of you might not think that's very scientific, and I don't care. And these things don't want us to know what the mind is. I think if there is this acausal, psychological realm, we don't want to experience it: You're better off shooting yourself in the head before truly learning acausality exists.

What constitutes mind, what it is made up of, what sets its parameter, and how it works, is most of what I study. There is still a great deal to learn, but one of the most important things to remember is that the mind is not one singular thing. There is a very distinct difference in the way the conscious and unconscious aspects of mind actually work, which can not be denied. According to Dr. Blanco, there are, I think, five levels in the unconscious mind, and one of those levels relates to the oogey boogey factor.

 

I agree that we do not want to experience this acausal, psychological realm. When the parameters of mind break down, as in schizophrenia, many people prefer suicide to experiencing an acausal reality, while living in a causal reality. But I can't agree that "these things don't want us to know what the mind is" because that would mean that "these things" have a will, a consciousness, a purpose. I just can't go there. It seems more likely that we don't want to know about "these things".

 

There is an answer to what the mind is, but one or more things are deluding us as to what that is. My belief is that the mind is acausal. But to understand the mind, then, would to be going into the realm of acausality, somehow trying to understand acausality with a supposed causal mind, and yet trying to not let reality shatter at the same time.

Isn't this what monks do while trying to reach Nirvana? They move their awareness into the mind, and I suspect that this has to be the unconscious mind, in order to reach Nirvana -- which can be translated to mean extinguishment. I have never studied them directly, but it is my understanding that they are trying to avoid the involuntary reincarnating, so that they have more control over their futures.

 

This process requires extreme discipline and also requires that they break the bonds that tie them to their bodies and their lives. The interesting thing about this is that they have to break bonds. We know that bonds are forged by emotion/feelings. We also know that emotion can alter the parameters of mind; such as, in multiple personality disorder, post traumatic stress disorder that can move awareness, emotional shock which can kill, family bonds forged in love, or bonds forged through trauma, or even the temporary bonds that we call the riot mentality.

 

Emotion and bonding have a tremendous amount of power over mind and may set the parameters of mind. If breaking bonds will allow a monk to experience acausal reality without dire consequences, like what a schizophrenic experiences, then that adds weight to the idea that bonding and emotion control mind.

 

If you also include studies of the paranormal, which is where people get glimpses of the unconscious, you will find that the paranormal also works through emotion. The unconscious mind works through emotion. Emotion is tied to chemistry in the brain. All of the above examples can be influenced by changing the chemistry in the brain. So it looks to me as though the parameters of mind are set by chemistry in the brain, which influence emotion, and are influenced by emotion, since emotion = chemistry = emotion -- it is circular.

My earliest memory as a child was at about 6 months of age. I perceived things. I observed things. I didn't have language to describe the fact that I perceived things. I assume if there was a way to relay what I observed, it would be quite a circular argument: Simply a visual replaying of what I visually observed with no language to describe such. So, my visual system was working. I couldn't discern shapes, colors, etc.. But I observed things. Granted, that I observed things is in retrospect. IT could be well enough to say that I'm delusional that I ever observed anything, because I didn't have language to describe any psychological phenomena that was occurring to me.

But looking back, nonetheless, I did not see pure darkness. I did not see blackness. I deny that I observed nothing. So, obviously, the brain found a way to interpret all these signals from physical objects, the light bouncing off the objects into my eyes, and developed a signal that eventually displayed an image. Where the signal was developed and transformed, I'm not too sure: I think that's where the bridge comes in.

Newborns can recognize a face very early on, I think within a month or two of birth. So they have vision and recognition.

There's a bridge somewhere. If you use FTIR to analyze a molecular substance, you'll understand. You have a white powder, but the FTIR can punch out a signal. The bridge is the machine that does the analysis. You might argue that's an inaccurate mathematical description of the object and but an approximation, and I'm going to say that I still think there is some biophysical process that analyzes all the signals, finds a way to punch them out into a signal, transfers that signal past a bridge, whereby we visualize what's going on: Two distinct realms (the physical and the psychological).

Also, watch Cube 1 and Cube 2. I remember when I watched Cube 1 for the first time, I said to one of my peers something like: "I'm no fool. I'm not going to explore that maze. I'd sit right where I am and not move."

I think the mind is acausal, and I don't think anyone would really want to know what that is. I think.... the mind is God. The mind is court. You are God but you are too delusional to realize that. Ever physical object is God visualizing itself, thus like a camera. We're all a bunch of cameras.

 

What is Cube 1 and Cube 2?

 

I think the unconscious aspect of mind could well be acausal.

 

Well, I can't agree that I am God, but I can say that consciousness is interpreted to be "God".

 

All of life is a bunch of cameras.

 

In my opinion

 

Gee

[Genecks]

It's all about what philosophy of mind you want to adopt. I have been an identity theorist, thus saying the mind is the brain. But that didn't appeal to me once I started thinking more about things. There is a signal and an image. To be the signal, you'd have to be the object giving off the signal, which isn't likely: You would have to be at two places at once. You're the brain taking in a signal that is somehow generated into an image. A television takes a signal and projects an image. The image occurs in the mind. Sure, there are multiple signals that give the appearance of a single image: And that there is a single image is an illusion. Nonetheless, an image, one of many, is made: And that is occurring.

I think you understand what I mean, Gee. What you see on a computer monitor is the computer's mind: It's the mind of the computer if but at least what the computer is visualizing. Without a graphics card, like the biological visual aspects of the human brain, a computer would not be able to "see." All the physical processes work together and give an output. It's what the computer is visualizing, and you can see what the computer is visualizing on the monitor. It's about as conscious as a piece of grass, yeah. You grasp what I'm saying. A blade of grass doesn't have a video card and output, so you can't see what it's "thinking."

I think my answer is that there is some kind of bridge connecting the physical and the "psychological," which is the qualitative aspect of things. You'll have to understand that I think there is a descriptive answer to what the mind is. Although in conflict with my previous arguments, it could just as well be that everything is acausal. I mention the psychological arrow of time, because I think it's arguable that it has an influence on our perceptions of everything, thus what occurs in the mind. But if causality is an illusion, then only acausality exists. And I've started to come to the strong belief that's a possibility. Thus, only the psychological exists, thus only the mind: And I mean, we don't see signals. We see what they've transformed into after a process.

Cube 1 and Cube 2 are movies.

I think that the psychological arrow of time, entropy, and the measurement problem also take in to what we "observe," thus our perception of mind. We think time flows a certain way, a certain pattern, within an oscillation common to our biology: But without any reference, what we observe or believe with the mind could be a very different situation.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Genecks

[Gees]

Genecks;

This thread is frustrating me because it is so difficult to try to explain what I think. Of course, anyone who actually thinks they can get a true understanding of mind has to be a little loose in the brain box, so I guess that describes me.

Nonetheless, I have been considering your position and trying to relate my understandings to yours, so please consider the following:

It's all about what philosophy of mind you want to adopt. I have been an identity theorist, thus saying the mind is the brain. But that didn't appeal to me once I started thinking more about things. There is a signal and an image. To be the signal, you'd have to be the object giving off the signal, which isn't likely: You would have to be at two places at once. You're the brain taking in a signal that is somehow generated into an image. A television takes a signal and projects an image. The image occurs in the mind. Sure, there are multiple signals that give the appearance of a single image: And that there is a single image is an illusion. Nonetheless, an image, one of many, is made: And that is occurring.

 

Well, I can see where identity is important, but I don't associate mind with brain as much as I associate mind with life forms. This looks like I think that all life possesses thought and a rational aspect of mind, but I am not talking about mind like a human mind, I am talking about knowledge, memory, and awareness that is specific to each specie. All of life has survival instincts, so they have knowledge of what is necessary to survive, memory in order to retain that knowledge, and awareness because they are aware of the need to continue their life or continue through their progeny. In humans, we call this the instinctive mind, and it carries knowledge that is specific to humans, so identity is important. More on this idea further down. To clarify, I should state that I doubt that it is possible to have a rational, thinking, aspect of mind without also having a brain to process thought.

If I am understanding you correctly, the rest of your above paragraph is about how what we see works its way through the eye to the brain and ends up in mind. I have no damned idea and suspect that some genius, not me, will figure that out eventually.

I would relate the "signal" to awareness, so the signal itself would be consciousness. When I study consciousness, since I can not see it, touch it, measure it, or study it in the usual way, I study how it works. Awareness does not reside in the object that we are aware of, nor does it reside in us, it actually exists between. Feeling and emotion are much the same in that they exist between things and are motion. You could say that thought that is focused, in motion, and directed is consciousness. imo

Much like magnets; one could say that you are studying the rock to see why it is a magnet, and I am studying the magnetic force to see how, where, when, and under what circumstance it attracts or repels. Of course, life and consciousness are a little more complex than magnets. So you and I are working the idea of mind from completely different directions, as I study it from the perspective of top down or mind to brain, whereas you study it from bottom up or brain to mind. Consciousness works both ways, top down and bottom up.

To understand my ideas better, let us posit that all of reality is psychological and acausal. How could anything be known? We would be floating in a morass of thoughts, knowledge, and all mental aspects with no ability to discern anything -- much like the chaos described by the Ancients. It would be like jumping into a pool of water in search of a water molecule. You would be surrounded by water molecules, but have no ability to discern or find one.

Knowing requires awareness and focus, so in order to be aware of something, to know it, one would need to focus on that thing, and one would need to focus from some where. If we need a "where" then we need space, and if we focus on something from somewhere, we are using direction, so it appears to me that knowledge and consciousness require space, direction, and time. Or mind requires a causal reality in order to exist.

If consciousness/awareness is the "signal", then it is the actual motion of thought, rather than thought itself, that makes us conscious. Thought can not move by itself; can not motivate itself. Thought without awareness would be like a book without a reader; a book without a reader is just ink and paper. So it looks to me as though awareness, feeling, and emotion are actually consciousness, and that they move, carry, and hold thought.

 

I think you understand what I mean, Gee. What you see on a computer monitor is the computer's mind: It's the mind of the computer if but at least what the computer is visualizing. Without a graphics card, like the biological visual aspects of the human brain, a computer would not be able to "see." All the physical processes work together and give an output. It's what the computer is visualizing, and you can see what the computer is visualizing on the monitor. It's about as conscious as a piece of grass, yeah. You grasp what I'm saying. A blade of grass doesn't have a video card and output, so you can't see what it's "thinking."

 

I can understand what you are saying in regard to the computer and monitor, but have no idea how that works. It is more of the bottom up perspective that I do not study. I wish you luck with it.

A blade of grass is sentient; computers and monitors are not, although I doubt that a blade of grass "thinks"; whereas, a computer does think or at least processes thought.

There are some things that we know about grass; it is alive, and it has at least some survival instincts; it is aware of the need to continue and maintain itself. But does grass know what "itself" is? Does it know that it is separate from the earth, from the water that it needs, or the sunlight? I doubt it. If we posit that grass has some kind of mind, then I suspect that it would be an acausal and unconscious mind. I don't see how it would be able to discern its parameters, to learn the dimensions of itself, or to even distinguish between self and other, but it does know instinctively what it needs, so it has knowledge specific to grass.

It is my thought that life has two general divisions, plant life that is immobile and does not navigate physical reality and survives by adapting to its physical environment, and mobile life that does navigate physical reality. So mobile life would eventually evolve senses to help it navigate physical reality. These senses would need to feed into a central processor, a brain, in order to be effective, so this brain would exist for the purpose of understanding a causal physical reality -- the beginnings of the conscious, self-directed, rational aspect of mind. imo

 

I think my answer is that there is some kind of bridge connecting the physical and the "psychological," which is the qualitative aspect of things. You'll have to understand that I think there is a descriptive answer to what the mind is. Although in conflict with my previous arguments, it could just as well be that everything is acausal. I mention the psychological arrow of time, because I think it's arguable that it has an influence on our perceptions of everything, thus what occurs in the mind. But if causality is an illusion, then only acausality exists. And I've started to come to the strong belief that's a possibility. Thus, only the psychological exists, thus only the mind: And I mean, we don't see signals. We see what they've transformed into after a process.

If only the psychological exists, then why is it that I have private thoughts that you can not know, and why do you have private thoughts that I don't know? What divides my mind from yours? When people state that reality is just illusion, imagination, or a dream that we are in, my thought is: Then who is the illusionist? The imaginer? The dreamer? One can only go in so many directions to answer those questions. It is either "God" or some version of solipsism or magic.

It is my thought that there are rules to consciousness, and that identity is part of consciousness, because consciousness could not exist without matter -- the physical reality of us.

Cube 1 and Cube 2 are movies.

Thank you.

I think that the psychological arrow of time, entropy, and the measurement problem also take in to what we "observe," thus our perception of mind. We think time flows a certain way, a certain pattern, within an oscillation common to our biology: But without any reference, what we observe or believe with the mind could be a very different situation.

 

Maybe. On the other hand, my desk is not actually one solid thing, it is a bunch of atoms all stuck together -- but it works for me.

In my opinion.

Gee

[curiousone]

Ten oz,

I am throughly confused with two words, (spirit and soul). So I understand it my way. My brain which is spiritual because I cannot see, but hear by a voice in my mind. That's as close as I can get to understand these two words. Thanks for your patiences. Curious-One

 

 

 

E=mc^2 is a version of Einstein's famous relativity equation. Specifically, it means that energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. While seemingly simple, this equation has many profound implications, chief among them being that matter and energy are actually the same stuff. Pure energy in the form of motion can be converted into matter, through the creation of a particle, which has mass. However, as the equation implies, it takes a huge amount of energy to create a tiny bit of mass.

http://www.livescience.com/32363-what-does-emc2-mean-.html

 

 

Hearing and thought are not one in the same. Deaf people can think despite not being about to hear. Can you better explain what you believe "I hear my own voice in my mind" means? I don't want to start walking down the road talking about electrical impulses and brain function if you are under the impression that there is sound vibrating in your head, coming from your soul, that you are hearing when you think.

[Gees]

Curiousone;

 

 

Ten oz,

I am throughly confused with two words, (spirit and soul). So I understand it my way. My brain which is spiritual because I cannot see, but hear by a voice in my mind. That's as close as I can get to understand these two words. Thanks for your patiences. Curious-One

 

E=mc^2 is a version of Einstein's famous relativity equation.

 

<snip>

 

 

There is probably a reason why you posted the above directly after my post, but I don't know what it is. Did you post it as a rebuttal to something that I stated? Or maybe you were looking for an alternate answer to your thoughts? Or maybe I am imagining things and you posted for a reason that has nothing to do with me.

 

If you are looking for a response from me, help me out here. I am a little confused.

 

Gee

[Eldad Eshel]

The way I see it is that there is the physical world and the metaphysical world. While our body and brain belong to the physical world, our soul belongs to the metaphysical world. The metaphysical and the physical world interact with one another to create a whole, an entire human being, an entire universe.

 

It is hard to define the word "mind". I think it has mainly to do with the brain and the physical world, but it could also have to do with our soul in the metaphysical world.

[hoola]

I see the universe as composed of two components, classical and quantum, with the mind a meeting of those two elements. Being a component of the universe, the mind has no choice in the matter, and that meeting generates conversations in our "event horizon" which we can see from the classical side...and attempt to repeat within the calculus of the moment...

[Strange]

Surely, even philosophy should be based on some level of evidence, not just making stuff up (re. the last two posts).