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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
The interpretations, the thoughts and perceptions, what a being conceives - none are material.
What houses them?
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.
NiNjABackflip
To think, to interpret and to perceive are actions.
NiNjABackflip
For instance, the only thing material of a backflip is the one performing it.
NiNjABackflip
There is not an actual thing or substance called a "backflip", it is only really a human jumping and turning over backwards.
NiNjABackflip
The idea of an agent performing that action we call a "backflip". The same could even be said of mind.
NiNjABackflip
Actions require agents to perform them. What is the agent that performs thinking, interpreting and perceiving?
NiNjABackflip
Nothing houses them for they are not things to be housed. Something performs them because they 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)
He doesn't lose anything other than the functions required to be conscious.
The ones that are required to function properly.
If we can find anything else that composes or makes-up the human being, we can add it to the definition. Any examples?
Is one's will material, is it an action, or is it an "agent"?
How is a thought performed?
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?
I'm sorry, I don't understand the first sentence.
Are you saying that the mind is an agent?
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?
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.
Okay then, why is there my sort of beliefs in the first place?
Isn't there an obvious implication going a-begging here?
A memory.
A love.
A piece of music.
An historical event.
I could go on and on and on.
ew that's a good question and how is it some declared to be unconscious or brain dead come back declaring they were aware?
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.
Together.
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
-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.
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.
I don't think music, love, or history construct a human being.
Consciousness is no more than an idea.
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?
Where do ideas originate?
The Mona Lisa did not come to an end with Leonardo.
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.