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.

 

A Critique of “Mind”

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 


What allows that imagination to take place though? If imagination is possible, the mind exists. There has to be something responsible for the imagination right? I see them as being more than just words personally, I see them as being a reality. To each his own though.




posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

MamaJ
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 


Can it be that the brain is a conductor for the mind/senses in the physical body? Just wondering..

I did not think clearly about that when it occurred to me. Likely, the OP would argue that the mind is still immaterial…but the senses (which are stimulated while in this reality) are felt…they are felt immaterially as well as "materially" (the latter is more confusing, what i mean by "materially" to say is that there is a carrying of certain sensations throughout the body after having such senses stimulated in reality)…the signals are sent chemically and one's conscious interpretation of those signals (thus one's perception of the stimulus) is not material…so, that which holds the interpretation of chemical signals (among other things) is the mind, and this notion of mind exists not as the functioning nor nonfunctioning body.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 





What allows that imagination to take place though? If imagination is possible, the mind exists. There has to be something responsible for the imagination right? I see them as being more than just words personally, I see them as being a reality. To each his own though.


Yes this was the point of this thread, to examine what element allows us to think and imagine. What is responsible for the imagination—or to put it more clearly, what allows us to imagine—is that the body functions in a certain way that allows us to think and be thinking beings. The body is this element.

When we study the mind, it is apparent that we study the human being, his brain, his actions, his behavior etc. If we are to study strictly the mind without the human being, we are left only to study texts on the mind, as no other mind is available for us to contemplate except for what has been said about it before us.

But to tell you the truth, I am glad that you follow your heart on the matter and not the reasonings of another human. However, to truly follow the heart and not the hearts of others is a task that involves navigating one's own indoctrination, to discover the truth and falsities in what he's always been told is true.

Too each his own.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 1Learner
 





I did not think clearly about that when it occurred to me. Likely, the OP would argue that the mind is still immaterial…but the senses (which are stimulated while in this reality) are felt…they are felt immaterially as well as "materially" (the latter is more confusing, what i mean by "materially" to say is that there is a carrying of certain sensations throughout the body after having such senses stimulated in reality)…the signals are sent chemically and one's conscious interpretation of those signals (thus one's perception of the stimulus) is not material…so, that which holds the interpretation of chemical signals (among other things) is the mind, and this notion of mind exists not as the functioning nor nonfunctioning body.


Every interpreter of his own function has happened to be a functioning human being physical in nature. The signals are of the body, the senses are of the body, and the act of interpreting must be done by a functioning body.

I don't think the "mind" is immaterial. That is a dualist conception. I think it is another word for the human being.

Notion of mind is key here. It is only ever a notion.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   

NiNjABackflip

Every interpreter of his own function has happened to be a functioning human being physical in nature. The signals are of the body, the senses are of the body, and the act of interpreting must be done by a functioning body.

I don't think the "mind" is immaterial. That is a dualist conception. I think it is another word for the human being.

Notion of mind is key here. It is only ever a notion.


First, I meant to say that you think the mind is not immaterial.

I see that you consider the "I" to be the human being which functions…so, the mind and body are both parts of that "i"; then you say the mind is equal to the body when both words are defined as the functioning human being (or functioning human body, was it?).
The interpretations, the thoughts and perceptions, what a being conceives - none are material.
What houses them?
I suppose it would have to be the mind. How does the brain have the capacity to house immaterial stuff - is it the only organ capable of doing so? How does this very reality sustain the thoughts, conceptions, etc?
They do not operate like the body, in harmony, or do they?
They do not have something-which-holds-them present this very instant in a material form…correct?

The act of interpreting is not done by the body itself. The body's only function is to operate in the manner that it does chemically and/or electrically.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by 1Learner
 


Great questions.



The interpretations, the thoughts and perceptions, what a being conceives - none are material.


To think, to interpret and to perceive are actions. For instance, the only thing material of a backflip is the one performing it. There is not an actual thing or substance called a "backflip", it is only really a human jumping and turning over backwards. The idea of an agent performing that action we call a "backflip". The same could even be said of mind.

Actions require agents to perform them. What is the agent that performs thinking, interpreting and perceiving?


What houses them?


Nothing houses them for they are not things to be housed. Something performs them because they are actions.



The act of interpreting is not done by the body itself. The body's only function is to operate in the manner that it does chemically and/or electrically.


That is what we are lead to believe. Yet it is obvious that bodies interpret.

Pick up a book in your hands (body), read it with your eyes (body), make sense of the text (always read by the body), refer to past experiences (experienced through the senses and body), and then write out an interpretation of it (body), all while remaining alive (body).


edit on 2-12-2013 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 


The mind goes beyond just humans, it is part of every living thing. When we study the mind, we are not just studying the human being, we are studying awareness and consciousness in general. Animals have minds as well, so to limit the mind to us and us alone is a bit unfair in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   

NiNjABackflip
To think, to interpret and to perceive are actions.

I imagine somebody acting upon thought(s), interpretation(s), and perception(s). That is action. Actions, they are movements in this material world; that is, to be more clear, I am stating that an action based on 1 or all of those 3 (thought, interpretation, and perception) is what I call an action.
They (those 3) are immaterial but something can "capture" their pre-determined form. You'll notice this when (a) the mind, consciousness, and/or awareness operates the body based upon what the form ends up being deciphered as; or, (b) earlier, when one thinks in any way about the form which is conceived.

You can perform a thought, you can think of how to perform it precisely; you can perform the thought of limb movement when thinking about doing a backflip...you can think specifically (yet vaguely enough for you to think more specifically) of what it is that your free-will runs through and moves, and you can think "specifically" how it is moved when thinking about moving the limb - the performance can be of thoughts willed step by step or willed nearly thoughtlessly (yet with precision if the movement is practiced).

Is one's will material, is it an action, or is it an "agent"?
How is a thought performed?


NiNjABackflip
For instance, the only thing material of a backflip is the one performing it.

Again I will state my thought on your thoughts.
The backflip can be imagined, at which point it can be considered thought.
The backflip can also be performed, then the backflip is an action.
The action (in this case the backflip) is the specific movement(s) carried out in this material world.
None of the specific movements in a backflip are material. Each distinct movement is just a part of the whole thought of the action.

Every motion which you can distinguish in the back flip, is it also an action if you are not aware of willing/moving it specifically?


NiNjABackflip
There is not an actual thing or substance called a "backflip", it is only really a human jumping and turning over backwards.

It is the thought and action which you describe in the later part of this quote, is it not?


NiNjABackflip
The idea of an agent performing that action we call a "backflip". The same could even be said of mind.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the first sentence.
Are you saying that the mind is an agent?


NiNjABackflip
Actions require agents to perform them. What is the agent that performs thinking, interpreting and perceiving?

I wanted to say "Thought itself", but I decided it would be the body which is the agent. But what directs the body to perform?
If it is directed to perform, can it be said that there is an agent for the body?


NiNjABackflip
Nothing houses them for they are not things to be housed. Something performs them because they are actions.

Can you think of an action without performing it?
That same thought...where is the action, demonstrated in it, being performed?
Do thoughts even exist? Or does only the act of thinking exist?
Lastly...thoughts, when performable, are actions.



NiNjABackflip
That is what we are lead to believe. Yet it is obvious that bodies interpret.

Pick up a book in your hands (body), read it with your eyes (body), make sense of the text (always read by the body), refer to past experiences (experienced through the senses and body), and then write out an interpretation of it (body), all while remaining alive (body).


edit on 2-12-2013 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)

Okay then, why is there my sort of beliefs in the first place?



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 



He doesn't lose anything other than the functions required to be conscious.


The ones that are required to function properly.

Isn't there an obvious implication going a-begging here?


If we can find anything else that composes or makes-up the human being, we can add it to the definition. Any examples?

A memory.

A love.

A piece of music.

An historical event.

I could go on and on and on.

Consider this: the extended phenotype.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by 1Learner
 





Is one's will material, is it an action, or is it an "agent"?
How is a thought performed?


Thought is performed by thinking. Thoughts are of no material consequence until they are written down or expressed. When one thinks a thought, he is merely thinking. Thinking is an action.

Now I might have to critique "thoughts" to better understand them.



Every motion which you can distinguish in the back flip, is it also an action if you are not aware of willing/moving it specifically?


By necessity, if it is performed by the agent it is therefor an action. This is what I also believe of mind; even if the agent is unaware that he is thinking, say in sleep or something, he is still performing the act of thinking, like digestion or breathing.


NiNjABackflip
There is not an actual thing or substance called a "backflip", it is only really a human jumping and turning over backwards.

It is the thought and action which you describe in the later part of this quote, is it not?


Yes.


I'm sorry, I don't understand the first sentence.
Are you saying that the mind is an agent?


No I am saying an agent is required to perform mind, that mind is an action.


I wanted to say "Thought itself", but I decided it would be the body which is the agent. But what directs the body to perform?
If it is directed to perform, can it be said that there is an agent for the body?


If we consider that everything within the body is of the body, we can say that the body is that agent. But then again, the body then requires many elements for itself to perform.



Can you think of an action without performing it?
That same thought...where is the action, demonstrated in it, being performed?
Do thoughts even exist? Or does only the act of thinking exist?
Lastly...thoughts, when performable, are actions.


When I think of an action, say running, I must imagine something performing it. So I am not really imagining an action called running, but something moving its legs in a manner that is familiar to what we define as running.



Okay then, why is there my sort of beliefs in the first place?


Language.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 




Isn't there an obvious implication going a-begging here?


Yes, much like implying that something is lost when one "loses consciousness".



A memory.

A love.

A piece of music.

An historical event.

I could go on and on and on.


Yes humans utilize memory, have relationships, make music, and participate in historical events. But I don't think music, love, or history construct a human being.
edit on 3-12-2013 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Two things I'd like to try to address?


ew that's a good question and how is it some declared to be unconscious or brain dead come back declaring they were aware?


And;


Science will never be able to comprehend the mind or Spirit because science deals with what can be seen and studied, you cannot see or study the thing that is seeing and studying.


Just because the body dies that doesn't mean that the energy that caused it to live stopped flowing. When life-giving energy stops flowing, all matter will cease? Energy still flows while in coma or a coffin, or dancing in the park...it doesn't need a body- it is the body that science has yet to calibrate the tools to map-out from where consciousness derives.

There are more dimensions to our existence than portrayed in colleges and universities imo.
If we can make a map of the 4th dimension, science will be placed on it's head.

I'm thinking when energy is flowing it is consciousness. That puts me on my head when I consider the prefix of the word consciousness...From


Together.


The 3 dimensional world we experience would not exist if we didn't exist in the 4th dimension first?



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 





I'm thinking when energy is flowing it is consciousness. That puts me on my head when I consider the prefix of the word consciousness...From


What does the suffix of consciousness tell you about consciousness?


-ness
a native English suffix attached to adjectives and participles, forming abstract nouns denoting quality and state (and often, by extension, something exemplifying a quality or state): darkness; goodness; kindness; obligingness; preparedness.


What is an abstract noun?


Abstract Nouns

An abstract noun is a type of noun that refers to something with which a person cannot physically interact. A noun is a person, place or thing. However, in many cases, the 'thing' might be an intangible concept – which means it is an abstract form of noun. In this instance, abstract means to exist apart from concrete existence. A noun that is abstract is an aspect, concept, idea, experience, state of being, trait, quality, feeling, or other entity that cannot be experienced with the five senses.


Consciousness is no more than an idea.
edit on 3-12-2013 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 



I don't think music, love, or history construct a human being.

I didn't say they 'construct' a human being. I said they are part of one.

My love, my history and even my affection for music are unique to me. No other human being has them. No other human being could. When I die, they come to an end with me. Why do you say they are not a part of me?

And did you look at the link? Where did Leonardo stop and the Mona Lisa begin? How can you tell?


Consciousness is no more than an idea.

Where do ideas originate?


edit on 4/12/13 by Astyanax because: nothing was delivered.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





I didn't say they 'construct' a human being. I said they are part of one.

My love, my history and even my affection for music are unique to me. No other human being has them. No other human being could. When I die, they come to an end with me. Why do you say they are not a part of me?

And did you look at the link? Where did Leonardo stop and the Mona Lisa begin? How can you tell?


No I would agree with this, in the sense that it was you and only you that created them. But I don't wish to create imaginary connections where there are none.

The Mona Lisa did not come to an end with Leonardo. But the only thing that exists of Leonardo in that painting (which I have seen I might add, it was surprisingly smaller than I thought it would be), is the fact that he painted it. The brush strokes remain but the painter doesn't.



Where do ideas originate?


From the human being. It sounds superficial, indeed, but if I remain true to my logic and my deductions, I cannot logically deduce to anything called "consciousness" or "mind". "Consciousness" and "mind" are instead inductions, which amounts to conjecture. The "having of thoughts and feelings" is had by the human being, and not by anything other than that human being according to both my empirical and deductive reasoning. If someone can deduce further than the human body, I would like to see it.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 



The Mona Lisa did not come to an end with Leonardo.

On the contrary, Leonardo survives because of the Mona Lisa and the rest of the existing corpus of his work. As long as they survive, Leonardo escapes mortality. Clearly you have not looked at my earlier link yet; why not?

Here is the problem with your model: you are obliged to dismiss ideas as nonexistent, illusory. Look:


If I remain true to my logic and my deductions, I cannot logically deduce to anything called "consciousness" or "mind". "Consciousness" and "mind" are instead inductions, which amounts to conjecture.

Indeed. But that position is absurd. You must therefore abandon your deductions, and try again.

As I said earlier, I am not hostile to your thesis, but you have arrived at it by an illegitimate route. To say ideas or consciousness do not exist in fact is absurd.

Here is something else you may enjoy reading. You don't have to click the link, but — like the earlier one I posted — it has a direct bearing on your thesis, and you must deal with it if you wish to convince those who are not ignorant of these matters. ATS is kindergarten; time you graduated.

I will not respond further until you have read and commented on both links. There would be no point.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   
So.....

My question on page 1 was ??? Stupid, illogical, confusing, or mind provoking? Still... wondering.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Premature.

You are assuming that mind exists and is immaterial. Those are exactly the propositions we are debating in this thread.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Ha! OOOkkkk.


Premature huh? Nah...

The Mind is a word and or idea. You will never find it because it doesn't matter.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 


Either the brain, with or without the rest of the body, produces the mind or the brain is a receiver of some kind. I think it all boils down to these two options.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join