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.
originally posted by: Aphorism
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.
originally posted by: Aphorism
The Removal of "Mind" from Human Inquiry
1.
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.
2.
Minds do not exist, due to the simple fact that such an entity or substance is absent from biology. In this case, since we have the domain and finite system in which to look and study, namely, the body, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is easy to prove this negative, like it is easy to prove there is not a monster under the bed. Turn on a light and look. To prove mind doesn't exist is a simple matter of looking to see if it is there or not. We've looked; it isn't there.
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.
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
My question is; in our thought experiment, you and I standing over earth, creating our life forms, creating our humans, I turn to you and say; I know you do not believe that these humans have 'the mind'; I ask; what is the bare minimum material, mechanism, and/or concept you must add to our project human, to negate your belief in the non existence of the mind in our project human?
originally posted by: Aphorism
As I said for about the 4th time now, there is no such thing as mind.
originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: ImaFungi
My question is; in our thought experiment, you and I standing over earth, creating our life forms, creating our humans, I turn to you and say; I know you do not believe that these humans have 'the mind'; I ask; what is the bare minimum material, mechanism, and/or concept you must add to our project human, to negate your belief in the non existence of the mind in our project human?
I would ask for the element that allows a person to think, to feel, etc. as per the dictionary definition of mind. If this element thinks, or is conscious, or is able to learn, I would believe minds exist.
While we're building people, allow me to ask you. What systems of the body can be removed from a person before a mind begins to disappear?
The French Nobel laureate philosopher, Henri Bergson, made the argument that the brain filters consciousness to one’s bodily requirements, but that the brain does not create consciousness. This would imply that decreased brain activity could actually mean increased, raw unfiltered, consciousness. Recently, such an inverse correlation has been observed.[2]
Bergson drew the analogy between a radio and the program it was playing with a brain and the consciousness linked thereto: damage the radio or brain, and one can have correlated programmatic or mental damage, but this does not logically imply that the radio produces the program or that the brain produces the fundamental essence of consciousness. Bergson’s contention that memory, as an aspect of consciousness, was not dependent on a brain has recently been corroborated by the discovery that slime-mould – cousin to the fungi – has a memory despite, of course, not having a brain.[3]
originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: ImaFungi
My question is; in our thought experiment, you and I standing over earth, creating our life forms, creating our humans, I turn to you and say; I know you do not believe that these humans have 'the mind'; I ask; what is the bare minimum material, mechanism, and/or concept you must add to our project human, to negate your belief in the non existence of the mind in our project human?
I would ask for the element that allows a person to think, to feel, etc. as per the dictionary definition of mind. If this element thinks, or is conscious, or is able to learn, I would believe minds exist.
While we're building people, allow me to ask you. What systems of the body can be removed from a person before a mind begins to disappear?
are you willing to place that element on a chair
Does a heart exist? What is the element that allows a heart to exist?
Does a heart beat? does a beating heart exist? I dont think a heart beats, show me this 'beat' you speak of. What is the element of beatness?
Arms, legs, a kidney, appendix, tonsils, people have brain surgery, breasts, parts of stomach, im sure other stuff, whats your point?
We have had this argument before, I wrote you a lengthy response and you never answered. It boils down to you refusing to acknowledge that the body is not 1 solitary intrinsic particle, but a unitary system composed of varying complex parts, which perform differing functions.
That is all you have to acknowledge, then you will acknowledge that the word mind, is a term used to describe processes associated with certain sectors of parts within the system that is the body.
Where in the body does thinking take place? Where in the body does seeing take place? I hope you can answer, in the brain. Ok so we dont even need the word mind, there is only the brain, that weird looking pink thing, and that is it. You are right, there is no need to use the term mind; the brain exists, the brain does all the thinking and seeing; it is like there is no need for the word car, because the word automobile exists. I always assumed the word mind separated from the word brain, to denote the difference between willful acts of thought and auto biological acts of the brain.
But you're still cheating, what is observing other than light entering your eye and context being applied by your mind.
Gee, all my high school teachers were liars. At least in the 70's they were honest in calling maths "abstract"
He has yet to answer where a brick wall that is thought of resides.