It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Removal of "Mind" from Human Inquiry

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule




Irrelevant. The evidence is what matters, not your philosophical preferences.


Then show me any empirical evidence of the existence of mind. It seems to me they are observing brain activity as per the abstract. The brain exists. Can you say the same for mind? Unless you concede they are both the same...


They are not observing brain activity. They are observing that the subjective nature and the intentional content of mental processes significantly influence the various levels of brain functioning. Therefore, the removal of mind as a concept would impede human understanding, not further it. Your claims have no basis.

👣




posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

The term ''mind'' is non scientific.

Cognition and Cognitive processes are recognised, researched and utilised in scientific and medical practice and are recognised as processes.

Your argument is moot as you are objecting to a word being used to describe something.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule


They are not observing brain activity. They are observing that the subjective nature and the intentional content of mental processes significantly influence the various levels of brain functioning. Therefore, the removal of mind as a concept would impede human understanding, not further it. Your claims have no basis.


They explicitly state they are observing brain imaging and brain activity and psychotherapy techniques. Not once do they mention they are observing mind.

Still you are unable to provide empirical evidence for the existence of mind.

How have my claims no basis if you haven't even touched any of my arguments?



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth


The term ''mind'' is non scientific.

Cognition and Cognitive processes are recognised, researched and utilised in scientific and medical practice and are recognised as processes.

Your argument is moot as you are objecting to a word being used to describe something.


All of which are processes of the body, not a mind.

You say my argument is moot, yet you have not touched any of my arguments, and resort to fallacious appeals to authority.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

The way I look at it is pretty straight forward; my "mind" is no more inside my body, than my "mind" is inside a radio controlled drone that I operate. I look at the body/brain as a very complex data acquisition and control system, tethered to wherever and whatever we really are.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 3/4.2015 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

I have demonstrated that the scientific terms for ''mind'' are cognition and cognitive processes which are utilised in scientific research which brings and has brought vast medical, psychological, psychiatric, technological and many other advancements that affects humanity and it's development and evolution.

Therefore the terms ''mind'' ''cognition'' etc are completely valid and useful.

Your ''argument'' is that you don't agree to it's use being valid or useful.
edit on 4-3-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule


They are not observing brain activity. They are observing that the subjective nature and the intentional content of mental processes significantly influence the various levels of brain functioning. Therefore, the removal of mind as a concept would impede human understanding, not further it. Your claims have no basis.


They explicitly state they are observing brain imaging and brain activity and psychotherapy techniques. Not once do they mention they are observing mind.

Still you are unable to provide empirical evidence for the existence of mind.

How have my claims no basis if you haven't even touched any of my arguments?


They are observing the processes of the mind in control of the brain.

Therefore the concept of mind is useful.

That alone is enough to render your philosophy of the body incomplete at best.

👣



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth



I have demonstrated that the scientific terms for ''mind'' are cognition and cognitive processes which are utilised in scientific research which brings and has brought vast medical, psychological, psychiatric, technological and many other advancements that affects humanity and it's development and evolution.

Therefore the terms ''mind'' ''cognition'' etc are completely valid and useful.

Your ''argument'' is that you don't agree to it's use being valid or useful.


You have "demonstrated" no such thing. You copied and pasted someone else's insights.

That is not my argument. I have numbered arguments in the OP, none of which you have even attempted to refute.

Your argument, on the other hand, is "the dictionary says so. Watch me demonstrate.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule


They are observing the processes of the mind in control of the brain.

Therefore the concept of mind is useful.

That alone is enough to render your philosophy of the body incomplete at best.


Yet you cannot produce a mind for anyone, not even yourself, to observe. Hence the reason for googling your answers. You have nothing else to resort to. Incompleteness is the least of your worries.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule


They are observing the processes of the mind in control of the brain.

Therefore the concept of mind is useful.

That alone is enough to render your philosophy of the body incomplete at best.


Yet you cannot produce a mind for anyone, not even yourself, to observe.


Irrelevant. It is causal. It can be observed indirectly, symbolically.

👣



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

The only ''argument'' that you asserted was that it wasn't a useful term.

The definitions are because you do not seem to comprehend words and their usage. Your arguments on such things are futile as these words exist and are used therefore are valid.

I demonstrated via posting scientific research where such terms are used, that it is a term that is used in valid application.

It is the use of a term that you are arguing, nothing else.

All the other things you said were just statements of your opinion, they weren't arguing anything.
edit on 4-3-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism



....without a thing or substance that has properties, and thus without a mechanism through which to capture individual experience, all minds would be the same.


if the explicit physical substrate were sufficient to explain the phenomena of thought, then Godel would have failed in his argument that the complexity of the explicit order is sufficient to explain (consistent with) the implicit order. or more simply, "there are true statements expressible in its language that are unprovable within the system."

the truth of this is easily proved by the following statement:


here we see that the English language, itself (the explicit order), is insufficient to understand the statement as a valid ("true") composition of the English language. there MUST EXIST an identity outside of the English language which is able to parse the statement. such is the case with what we call the "mind". reality is composed of a great many paradox. it is only the mind which is consistently able to escape the context of the explicit order.

further, there is nothing "behind" the mind. it is the penultimate arbiter of context. it sits atop reality, completely apart from the physical substrate from which it is composed. the following two images are intended to illustrate this phenomenon....






i really appreciate your argument. but we are entering an era of rational thought which must include within its scope irrationality. it would be a shame for you to be left in the dirt.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Quite clearly, this is my assertion, which is found in the very first paragraph:

“The mind (another word for soul, psyche, ego, consciousness etc.) as a concept is a hurdle to further human understanding. It confuses more than it enlightens. It has zero explanatory power. It is without scope. It cannot be empirically validated. On top of that, it is dangerous to believe in, for it risks giving primacy to a fiction rather than the reality it is meant to explain, leading one to solipsism. ”

It isn't the term I have issues with. It is the concept itself, the theory that there is a locus, or "element" of thought and perception somewhere in the body. Call it cognition, call it mind, call it consciousness, call it the brain, call it the soul, call it whatever you want, but I am arguing there is nothing, no organ, no process, no faculty, no set of functions we can call the mind, and because it is a concept littered with paradox, contradiction, and fallacy, with absolutely no empirical basis, formed of zero causal properties, it doesn't exist.

I don't care who uses the term, nor am I even against using it, for we all know what it means. It is, as you stated, " the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought."

But imagine this. If you are so sure scientists could pinpoint that element, are you willing to place that element on a chair and tell me it is thinking? I sure am. You could place every organ, process, faculty, soul, mind, or whatever you want on that chair, but there will be no thought, perception, experience, nor consciousness happening at all. The concept is an error. Not until a human being is sitting in that chair will, you get any human thought, and witness any human mind.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: tgidkp


here we see that the English language, itself (the explicit order), is insufficient to understand the statement as a valid ("true") composition of the English language. there MUST EXIST an identity outside of the English language which is able to parse the statement. such is the case with what we call the "mind". reality is composed of a great many paradox. it is only the mind which is consistently able to escape the context of the explicit order.

further, there is nothing "behind" the mind. it is the penultimate arbiter of context. it sits atop reality, completely apart from the physical substrate from which it is composed. the following two images are intended to illustrate this phenomenon....

really appreciate your argument. but we are entering an era of rational thought which must include within its scope irrationality. it would be a shame for you to be left in the dirt.


Yes, language is insufficient when it can only ever refer to itself. The mind is the exact same: self-referential, circular. The liar's paradox is a fitting name. Along those lines, a mind could never prove a mind; and rational thought cancels itself out immediately. Only observation could parse such a mess. And what do we find when we finally lay eyes on our mind? The folly of a being being describing and assuming what he cannot see, touch, nor hear of himself – which I imagine in your new error of rationality, to look something like a painting I would hang on my fridge.


edit on 4-3-2015 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule




Irrelevant. It is causal. It can be observed indirectly, symbolically.


You can observe the effect but not the cause? What if I can observe both the cause and the effect? It sounds as though I have more empirical basis, while you have a guess.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Think of a brick wall, this is what you have set between yourself and the discovery of the immaterial part of your being.

Where is that brick wall? If I dissect your brain, will I find a brick wall within it? What if you think of the color purple? Will I find purple stuff inside your brain when I cut it open? How about a bicycle or George Clooney? A dragon? A unicorn? Will I find those inside your brain as well?

Where are these images at? How do a combination of chemicals released in the brain result in an immaterial image within your brain?

Where is the sensation of taste? Will I find "taste" inside your brain? And smell? What is that? Not the airborne particles that enter your nose but the sensation itself? Where are these things? If they are physical then why can't they be held or touched?

You somehow connect immaterial things with religious dogma. Broad strokes my friend. There is such thing as spirituality minus religious dogma, they can be mutually exclusive and I'd argue they are mutually exclusive by default because religion suppresses spirituality.
edit on 3/4/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

I cannot refute your words.

it was a fun exercise tho.

personally, I do believe in magic.

oh well.
edit on 31101604kp by tgidkp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Very nice post.

humans have been thrue some crazy times.
and I disagre with 4.
as you seem to say they would not have!

"The concept of mind is a hinderance to human inquiry and philosophy, leading us to accept strange pseudoscience and religions to perpetuate its acceptance."

If they new of that then you would still get
strange pseudoscience and religions



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

Contrary to your assumption, many cognitive processes are known, hence there is such facets of science as Cognitive Psychology and Brain science.

As I said before ''mind'' is a non scientific term used to describe thought processes, thinking, consciousness etc. No one ever said it was an organ itself, it is however a faculty and there are functions to Cognition, it does exist, it isn't contradictory.

There are areas of the brain attributed to specific behaviours for example, there are electro chemical processes that do occur in the brain for cognitive perception, function, behaviour etc.

You are basically saying it is not a physical thing itself, when no one ever said it was.

Math isn't physical but it exists, are you refuting Math as a ''concept''?

pps.sagepub.com...


Brain Imaging, Cognitive Processes, and Brain Networks
Brian D. Gonsalves and
Neal J. Cohen
+ Author Affiliations
Department of Psychology and Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Brian D. Gonsalves, 2055 Beckman Institute, 405 N. Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801 E-mail: bgon@illinois.edu
Abstract

The recent, rapid expansion of the application of neuroimaging techniques to a broad variety of questions about the structure and function of mind and brain has led to much necessary and often critical introspection about what these techniques can actually tell us about cognitive processes. In this article, we attempt to place neuroimaging within the broader context of the cognitive neuroscience approach, which emphasizes the benefits of converging methodologies for understanding cognition and how it is supported by the functioning of the brain. Our arguments for what neuroimaging has to offer are supported by two specific examples from research on memory that, we believe, show how neuroimaging data have provided unique insights not only into brain organization, but also into the organization of the mind.





It isn't the term I have issues with. It is the concept itself, the theory that there is a locus, or "element" of thought and perception somewhere in the body. Call it cognition, call it mind, call it consciousness, call it the brain, call it the soul, call it whatever you want, but I am arguing there is nothing, no organ, no process, no faculty, no set of functions we can call the mind, and because it is a concept littered with paradox, contradiction, and fallacy, with absolutely no empirical basis, formed of zero causal properties, it doesn't exist.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
The Removal of "Mind" from Human Inquiry

1.

The mind (another word for soul, psych, ego, consciousness etc.) as a concept is a hurdle to further human understanding. It confuses more than it enlightens. It has zero explanatory power. It is without scope. It cannot be empirically validated. On top of that, it is dangerous to believe in, for it risks giving primacy to a fiction rather than the reality it is meant to explain, leading one to solipsism.


Ok here goes my best attempt at refuting your first point. Why is the mind another word for soul, psyche, ego, consciousness etc? I disagree with this first premise already, respectfully.

That's like saying water is another word for ocean, river, lake, puddle, etc. Sounds wise and almost right, but not quite. They certainly are all bodies OF water, but there are major different qualities and functions amongst all those bodies of water. I don't think the ego comprises all of consciousness, it may only be a small part of it. So to equate all those above, to me, seems like you don't really understand what those are in the first place. I don't think soul and consciousness can be equated. Where does that leave spirit? Is that also the same as the mind in your opinion? Yea, all these concepts and ideas are super ahead of our time, like relativity and quantum mechanics was to a 17th century physicist. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

You probably would like to ask then, ok so what is the mind? How can you empirically define it's existence. What are its properties, what is it made of? As if the mind were physical and susceptible to instrument analysis and measurement. This reminds me of dark matter in a sense. We know it's there but we can't really find it can we? We just feel it's presence, and no this isn't a spiritual metaphor. The brain scans and the neuroscience and all that, are indirectly measuring the presence of the mind. Maybe even of the ego, psyche, soul, consciousness etc... too. The mind has control of the body, not the other way around. The Ghost inside the machine if you will. Again, what is it made of and what are its properties? You got me there. Maybe in 300 years somebody will figure it out. I think they'll find its made of love and curiosity :p

Jokes aside, if the mind were a hologram created by our brain, made of light so it would be massles; it wouldn't even be a hologram technically, it's just the closest word I can think of that might capture the essence of what I want to say, and if as of yet undiscovered particles also exist that carry the "mind force" and other "weird forces" which interact with the light hologram to create our inner experience, then in that way they may be analyzed by science some day. But obviously we have no idea of what it is. But it feels like it's there.

I'll give your other points a go later when I have a bit more time. Fun stuff. If anything, the mind can Provide us with some quality philosphical discussion entertainment while we are on this rock here.

edit on 5-3-2015 by fabritecht because: quoted wrong



new topics




 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join