There is a nature of other minds.


Discuss.

[b]There is a nature of other minds.
My mind has no nature, I see no reason why others should or would.

Well I am sorry for you....

Well I am sorry for you....How can you miss, what you never had?
I feel no absence, your sympathy is better used elsewhere.
But thanks for the thought, you must have a beautiful mind.

Maybe I have a beautiful mind.
At least I don't have a huge fucking ego.

Maybe I have a beautiful mind.At least we can agree on something.

At least I don't have a huge fucking ego.

the bigger ego you have the better. some people's ego is so small that they only love their own person, not even their family and friends. most people's ego extend to their family, friends and their country. and few who have an infinite ego love everyone equally.

The nature of other minds might be that there is no single mind.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a reverse?

That the nature of other minds is within a single mind.
But we don't know do we.


Yorda
Quit fucking assuming things god blast it.

The whole point... christs sake.
So what's the nature of other minds.

Yes -- you might be more correct in saying that.

Maybe?

I'm only try to say.


There is a nature of other minds.

Should I answer my own question; since you guys apparently can't!!

There is a nature to other minds. How about i write a fucking essay.

Here goes nothing folks.

Everyone on this planet experiences nature to himself. By himself. And must be in accordance with these laws. Growing up; doing w hat you do. Going to school.
In every which case the fact is that you are unaware and start to develope. Infact in my opinion growing up is one of our most treasured posessions.
To put it simply... people, we grow up. We wonder. Right? Yeah. We wonder. Also we consider. We think smart things and develope what we think is "smart things" and start to get a little bit of an ego or a little bit of this or that.

Of course everyone has experienced anxiety, though. THAT, is one of the most crucial experiences! Or going to the store. Sharing our feelings maybe. Perhaps not many "people" experience these things at more intense levels of suffeirng.

But anxiety is true. Anxiety does exist. And when a person would take it upon themselves to consider the nature of what he is experiencing he may find that he is experiencing something dreadful. Everyone though, experiences these things.

Perhaps there is a nature of mind that actually contains certain "other mind" qualities."

For one; the nature of "posession" as is experienced by quite a many people and is unprofessed in the world of psychology for the most part. Mental patients are seen as entirely crazy.

It is this level of concern that botheres me at this moment, at least....

The nature of other minds, on a level where you IMBECLIES can understand the questioin being asked.

I ask a simple question and get a load of bullshit.

Now eat fuck.

Mental patients are seen as entirely crazy.

That's not true at all. Sometimes people that are admitted to mental hospitals just lose their way in life and need some time away from society to try and figure out what they need to readjust themselves back onto the societies pathways. Most people I met while in the mental ward were just trying to seek help to better understand what their problem really was. In the mental hospital you can get better help for people that work there have more time to evaluate you and watch your behavior in order to show you a better way of dealing with yourself. :)

There is a nature of other minds.


What do you mean by "nature" of other minds?

Why do you assume that there are "other" minds?

Nature:

Conditions which allow other minds to exist.

Why I assume:

Other minds have a potential reality I am sure. This has been present in me, at least as far as I can remember.
I assume that other minds ... have some sort of an effect in general.

Finally. Someone who will ask a question !
Or state a premise jesus. *rolls eyes*

Nature:

Conditions which allow other minds to exist.



This would then be properly generalized to: conditions which allow a mind to exist.


Why I assume:

Other minds have a potential reality I am sure. This has been present in me, at least as far as I can remember.
I assume that other minds ... have some sort of an effect in general.

Simply because a position occurs to you does not make it a possibility.

You need some sort of argument.
I would suggest you begin by differentiating between your mind (which I'm assuming you're taking for granted...) and reasons for believing that there are other minds.

This would then be properly generalized to: conditions which allow a mind to exist.

Yeah.
When spoken to properly I can form my thoughts better.
I would still say conditions which allow other minds to exist; because, generalized it sounds better. Conditions which allow which allow other minds to exist.
Said perfeclty if you ask me. It's not like they're "taking me for granted," right?"

Glaucon check your PM soon... i got somethins to tell ya (if you can pardon the words I use).

Simply because a position occurs to you does not make it a possibility.

You need some sort of argument.
I would suggest you begin by differentiating between your mind (which I'm assuming you're taking for granted...) and reasons for believing that there are other minds.

Yeah. You're probably (right) G.

It is however natural, to assume things and consider things, but I would guess. That...... you're right. It's just, thinking about things is important sometimes especially when someone doesn't know what they're doing... Taking a position which emphysises the ability to decide certain outcomes seems reasonable, at least at the time.

Yeah; they're other minds.

The question is the other minds nature.

If you get back to that cool, I simply was going to tell you I will not be PM'ing you; I have up and attems with the whole question for the moment... maybe sometime; if you ever question me "directly."

Anyway; it's really a question of their nature. Their existence.

The point is it will not be discussed.


Why?

The mind is a dimension.

That is obvious; I mean, the mind is something!

.
When spoken to properly I can form my thoughts better.

:)

It's actually a sad predicament...

There is a nature of other minds.


Discuss.

Sure. And it is not enclosed and hidden. We have been trained not to notice. Perhaps a tangent. Let me know.

The nature of other minds might be that there is no single mind.

Why does it have to be yes or no. Can't it both both?

The nature of other minds might be that there is no single mind.

Why does it have to be yes or no. Can't it both both?

For example, (cough cough) if I have more than one subpersonality, which I do, am I only plural?

There is a nature of other minds.


Discuss.

When I hear the phrase other minds I immediately think of 'the problem of...'

How can we know them, etc.
Also solipsism. But if we are talking phenomenologically, I encounter an other (with very little of Buber's melodrama ususually, though it can be quite miraculous). Every time, if I am focused there is a neverending rather enormous amount of experience coming from this source - the other. I am afraid some would say information, but I find that degrading. Sure, in nature, other 'things' can be sources of similar floods. I would call those other minds also, but that is a can of worms.

Schizmogenesis is one potential in encountering another mind: love, animosity, fear/anger, anxiety all escalating in the double positive feedback loop. Intercausality.

I also sense myself as an object. Not in some not-living sense, but that I am bathed in awareness of another.

It's actually a sad predicament...

Not at all. Nobody was born smart. People learn to be smart. A good way to learn is to be in the company of smart people.

Sis, what is this nature you are talking about ?

the bigger ego you have the better. some people's ego is so small that they only love their own person, not even their family and friends. most people's ego extend to their family, friends and their country. and few who have an infinite ego love everyone equally.

Please look the word ego up.

Enmos:


Sowhatifit'sdark had been talking about it pretty well... describing some of it's features.
I think that it is mostly what she/he is saying but cannot, put my finger on it.

She may have nailed the nail on the head, 'so to speak.'

I was looking for somewhat of a philosophical discussion of what the extremes of other minds would involve in a discussion talking about it in it's reality (although when i say this it's like what the fuck who cares).

Enmos:


Sowhatifit'sdark had been talking about it pretty well... describing some of it's features.
I think that it is mostly what she/he is saying but cannot, put my finger on it.

She may have nailed the nail on the head, 'so to speak.'

I was looking for somewhat of a philosophical discussion of what the extremes of other minds would involve in a discussion talking about it in it's reality (although when i say this it's like what the fuck who cares).

Yea ok, but I don't understand what you meant in the first place, therefor I am not going to take Sowhat's explanations.
Can you please explain what exactly you want to have a discussion about ? :)

Sure. And it is not enclosed and hidden. We have been trained not to notice. Perhaps a tangent. Let me know.

You are 100% right :D

Okay, h ere goes nothing.
A tangent maybe yes........ but one which inspires questions.
One which other people won't consider.


But yeah.
We have been trained not to notice.
For example. You sort of learn to forget about it.
Sort of stuff.

I'm mostly curious about how "other minds actually exist." I want to hear it discussed instead of "not---------" discussed.

:(


That makes me sad. I think that I more than likly shouldn't care about it. Why would I, if I expereince the thought of other minds daily?
Who cares really?
Afterall, the nature of other minds shouldn't exist to one who will ask questions which do not deserve their own content....

how "other minds actually exist."

How is a tricky word - I have some sympathy for Enmos' confusion. That said I will leap in. How is tricky for me because it can be a request for causal explanations. It can also be a request for descriptive ones.

Like you could be 'asking': how did we get several selves?
or
how are they manifest? What are their qualities?
(perhaps some other questions also)

To probe the first: many speak of a process of fragmentation. Of one becoming many, sometimes for its own entertainment. There is something in this - without the entertainment part - that feels intuitively correct to me. Intimacy and non-intimate encounters both have led me to believe that I am both separate from and identifiable with the other minds.

To probe the latter: I did that before some in an earlier post. To add a little it seems like you can ignore to varying degrees the flood of the other's presence. Or you can 'look deeply into its eyes'. Or even have sex with it. So there is this peripheral making of the other or the making central of the other in attention. Sort of like facing upstream while in the water and letting the stream press against your face rather than doing something -floating downstream, raising your face out of the water...anything that reduces the interaction. You could almost say culture is a kind of lock system to regulate the flow.

How is a tricky word - I have some sympathy for Enmos' confusion. That said I will leap in. How is tricky for me because it can be a request for causal explanations. It can also be a request for descriptive ones.

Like you could be 'asking': how did we get several selves?
or
how are they manifest? What are their qualities?
(perhaps some other questions also)

To probe the first: many speak of a process of fragmentation. Of one becoming many, sometimes for its own entertainment. There is something in this - without the entertainment part - that feels intuitively correct to me. Intimacy and non-intimate encounters both have led me to believe that I am both separate from and identifiable with the other minds.

To probe the latter: I did that before some in an earlier post. To add a little it seems like you can ignore to varying degrees the flood of the other's presence. Or you can 'look deeply into its eyes'. Or even have sex with it. So there is this peripheral making of the other or the making central of the other in attention. Sort of like facing upstream while in the water and letting the stream press against your face rather than doing something -floating downstream, raising your face out of the water...anything that reduces the interaction. You could almost say culture is a kind of lock system to regulate the flow.

Gawd, lady that was a good post.

I could ask a lot.

Here.
Is an
explaination
for
some
of
the
things
that
i a..
am
do
ing
oh
shi,
t,
what
the
fuck.

But yes other than this I feel that it is personal and should leave it alone. Anyway, that is me relating this stuff with an action paralysis, I think...

You are cracking me up.
Yeah. Perhaps ia m doing a lot, wrong.







But i'll leave that alone temporalily.
Influencing by other people sometimes is bad I think.
Unless you're realllllllllll good. Hehe.
But yeah...

I think I will just allow other people to take this thread away. I only wanted to discuss or have seen a discussion for the other mind ideas...
afterall it seems we have established some of them, at least somehwat.

Gawd, lady that was a good post.
Really?
I could ask a lot. But you won't.
You are cracking me up.
Yeah. Perhaps ia m doing a lot, wrong.
I never said or felt that. Heck, I might have been talking to Enmos there and not you. I am seductive, if not female.;)
I liked being taken as female by the way.

Hmph.
I never knew you were a male. But it is very easy in ones writing to find that out.

Okay. So this forum ticks me off when I get to seeing too much information.... I prefer other ones, personally...

But yeah.... Just other minds in general.
Just looking for a discussion.

Sometimes I do ask a lot of things. I could ask a lot ...
But I won't. You're probably right.

I like to think there are no other minds. There is my mind and there is a series of complicated automata out there (the rest of you) that behave as if you had minds, but really are just there to make the world more interesting for me, the one true mind. At least that's what I tell my girlfriend.

I am not sure who created you, the apparent-but-false minds. It is possible that God did it, but if He did, then I would expect there to be two true minds (God's and mine). Perhaps "God" created the universe, with all your apparent minds, then turned Himself into me, limiting His own memory and mind just to make the universe more interesting for Himself. (Thus making me God).

Of course maybe I am just an apparent mind, and you the reader are the one true mind. On second thought, nah, I am definitely the real one.

Brilliant!

(that's all it takes out of me ;-)

I don't see what all the fuss is about. For me a mind cannot exist witout a brain. I have a brain. I know other people have brains because I have seen physical evidence. It follows that others almost certainly have minds. The content of other minds are not directly accessible to me but I can make inferences based on observed behaviour to which I can relate. This suggests that all normal minds share certain features which are accessible indirectly. On balance, I conclude that there are other minds ,and that their nature is broadly the same as mine.

Well said mate.

...
The content of other minds are not directly accessible to me but I can make inferences based on observed behaviour to which I can relate.
...

This is correct. Moreover, it's more than sufficient a basis upon which to treat people such that there are 'other minds'.

However......


...
For me a mind cannot exist witout a brain.
...

I agree.


I know other people have brains because I have seen physical evidence. It follows that others almost certainly have minds.

Alas, it does not.
Simply because the potential for a property exists it doesn't necessarily follow that it does in fact obtain. Of course, this is contingent upon whether or not you are equating mind with brain, or saying that mind is a property of brain.

This is correct. Moreover, it's more than sufficient a basis upon which to treat people such that there are 'other minds'.

However......



I agree.



Alas, it does not.
Simply because the potential for a property exists it doesn't necessarily follow that it does in fact obtain. Of course, this is contingent upon whether or not you are equating mind with brain, or saying that mind is a property of brain.

I said in my previous post that a mind cannot exist without a brain. The idea of a mind without a brain makes no sense to me. I regard mind as a property of a brain

I said in my previous post that a mind cannot exist without a brain. The idea of a mind without a brain makes no sense to me.



I agree completely.


...
I regard mind as a property of a brain

Herein lies the problem then.

Given this position (which I agree with..), we can never be certain of other minds.

Personally, I think certainty isn't necessary.
As I said above, all that is required is to be able to behave reliably such that others having minds is found to be pragmatic.

I agree completely.



Herein lies the problem then.

Given this position (which I agree with..), we can never be certain of other minds.

Personally, I think certainty isn't necessary.
As I said above, all that is required is to be able to behave reliably such that others having minds is found to be pragmatic.

I see where you are coming from but at the risk of rushing in where angels fear to tread, may I put it this way.

I regard the word mind as a term we use to refer to the brain operating in a particular mode. I hesitate to call mind an epiphenomenon but I feel it is something of the kind. So . as I have observed that others have brains which function like mine, at least some of the time, I feel confident that I can infer they have minds.

I agree it cannot be proved but I have a high degree of confidence that what I say is true.

Past my bedtime. Talk to you again.

I think it is partially odd to say that a mind cannot exist without a brain. I understand the use of that sentence and I don't dispute it. But notice how a concept that is derived from experience by a mind - the brain - is made foundational. We can be more certain we, ourselves have minds, than that we have brains. (please avoid using this as an easy straight line. I am actually making a serious point here) We experience via minds or consciousness or the subjective self. From this realm of experience and using this mind to analyze and search this realm of experience we came up with the idea that the mind is 'housed' in a brain. And all our sense of how that brain works is derived via the mind.

The mind is primary, however much it is true that minds, so far, reside in brains - setting aside all the horrible problems with that metaphor, or any other metaphor for that matter.

I agree completely.



Herein lies the problem then.

Given this position (which I agree with..), we can never be certain of other minds.

Personally, I think certainty isn't necessary.
As I said above, all that is required is to be able to behave reliably such that others having minds is found to be pragmatic.

Hmmm Good post.

Um, I agree with the value other minds contains in accordance with acting in a specific manner which promotes understanding or whatever.

But I don't understand what you would mean, it appears almost as if you are contradicting yourself with your statements, the very quality "other mind" is reason enough to assume that other minds exist.

But you see just because we can dismiss something doesn't mean that ("doesn't mean"... so to speak), this something isn't real or, doesn't make any sense.
After all. I think many things would hold true. You try for example, denying other minds when other minds are what you are trying to examine.

It's things like this that make you really wonder about things sometimes.

I was looking for somewhat of a philosophical discussion of what the extremes of other minds would involve in a discussion talking about it in it's reality (although when i say this it's like what the fuck who cares).

What if these other minds are a manifestation of The Holy Ghost.?

To what extremities would The Holy Ghost go in it's agenda.

(Am I completely off base here?)

Your right :)

I think that's probably a good start in considering it. It isn't worht consideration though.

Basically, I was wondering about personally how it would be considered, in certain forms. I have them in a PM...

Here it is.
Heart matters most; that and someones desires and will.

This of course in conception with the idea of "other minds" as found in philosophy section.

:shrug:

You are an eloquent person. You would be a good contact for the Spirit to download information to. Surely you must have notebooks full of 'inspirations'.

thinking about things is important sometimes especially when someone doesn't know what they're doing... Taking a position which emphysises the ability to decide certain outcomes seems reasonable, at least at the time.



I think the world is a manifestation of Spirit. What you see going on around us in the world is what Spirit wants (for reasons sometimes unfathomable by the mind shallow in experience).

I think that what you said is an important part of keeping out of harms way when it comes to what Spirit may like you to do in the furtherence of it's aims.

And I think you are awesome.
So, hehe. I'm sorry I am just flirting here.
Detoriating.
even.
I'll keept it together man.

Why do you think I have notebooks .

Yeah, I like to keep things organized.

:shrug:

Do you have a blog with a lot of dream-journal stuff. I hear that's good for lucid-dreaming.

No but I don't like things.
I am not really worthy of thinking about things I don't know why.

Why do you think I have notebooks .



I wrote a lot of stuff in notebooks. Many people do. It's fun to read other people's diarys.

I seriously doubt that natural events in the universe would lead a mind that would serve any purpose other than the direct benefit of the organism that possesed it. IQ range notwithstanding.

machaon:

Try telling that to someone sitting infront of you.

See what happens....

I think it is partially odd to say that a mind cannot exist without a brain. I understand the use of that sentence and I don't dispute it. But notice how a concept that is derived from experience by a mind - the brain - is made foundational. We can be more certain we, ourselves have minds, than that we have brains. (please avoid using this as an easy straight line. I am actually making a serious point here) We experience via minds or consciousness or the subjective self. From this realm of experience and using this mind to analyze and search this realm of experience we came up with the idea that the mind is 'housed' in a brain. And all our sense of how that brain works is derived via the mind.

The mind is primary, however much it is true that minds, so far, reside in brains - setting aside all the horrible problems with that metaphor, or any other metaphor for that matter.


You are putting the cart before the horse

I am the horse; sorry guys. Take away that car fellas.

Anyhow, she's right but, you must say, ya know, I mean, other minds exist. It's just the nature of them.

There really are two sides; without considering the nature of other minds, in a way that ... is working, you'd have to think about things. Without thinking about other minds being important to consideration is like saying "I don't give a rats ass about other people not having a mind." "I don't care about other peoples effects."
Of course though, it's really all the same thing.

A discussion of it all together would plant me sideways.

I am the horse; sorry guys. Take away that car fellas.

Anyhow, she's right but, you must say, ya know, I mean, other minds exist. It's just the nature of them.

There really are two sides; without considering the nature of other minds, in a way that ... is working, you'd have to think about things. Without thinking about other minds being important to consideration is like saying "I don't give a rats ass about other people not having a mind." "I don't care about other peoples effects."
Of course though, it's really all the same thing.

A discussion of it all together would plant me sideways.


Here's your problem for today: Do you believe some people have minds but no brains?

Why thanks you un-relenting unsatisfied imbecile.

Hmmm.... all people have minds, and then again, all people have brains...
don't fuck with me now man.

Just woke up.

How about you?

You are putting the cart before the horse

How did you find out about brains?
Which did you know first - mind or brain?
In whose terms must the other be translated?
What can we be absolutely sure exists?
What seems overwhelmingly likely but we are, just a tad, less sure of?
When we talk about brains we are using language derived from mind experiences. A large number of reifications about experiences the mind has had?

I am not making the case that the brain is not necessary - that is overwhelmingly likely to be true, but it is a hypothesized and theorized entity. An entity that has been found, described, investigated by minds in minds' terms.

Which is primary?

He has no brains obviously. Read back a page and you'll see...
He's too superficial. Too caught up. He's a wacko. (kidding . he's fine in my book. Just doesn't know how to be nice.)

Hmmm.... all people have minds, and then again, all people have brains...
don't fuck with me now man.

There are some people who have a brain but their minds aren't working at all. That is called a coma.

Why thanks you un-relenting unsatisfied imbecile.

Hmmm.... all people have minds, and then again, all people have brains...
don't fuck with me now man.

Just woke up.

How about you?

Well, if you just woke up, you are living iin the wrong place.Don't take it out on me. Just go and rustle a few more cattle.

I was referring to a previous post from someone who seemsd to regard the mind as somehow superior to and distinct from the brain. I got to wondering
where he thought his mind would go if his brain were removed. Hence my cart and horse comment.

PM I know lots of people who have no brains

Idiots!

it is also called

ANXIETY

pain
stupidity.

If I had a brain, i think i can i think i cna i think i can.

Seriously come on.

Seriously come on.

Where we going? :shrug:

Hmph. Sure.
Wake up call ... pm box. check it.
now.

Apparently we're all fighting sisyphus.
Calling him brainless.
I may have mistaken it but ...

He gave me a "problem of the day" like I'm a retartd; which in reflection I see that it is really "who is the retard?" is it me, that he is "eating holes in"?

It isn't like I'm retarded or anything.... you know. It may be he who eats the holes.
So watch out.

He can form posts. Wow! That takes effort doesn't it!

Common.

If a brain is in the forest but it has no mind, is there a brain?

Or is it something else? Sure we have one word. We might add 'dead' to 'brain'. Are we mislead by the single word into thinking brains are primary?

If a brain is in the forest but it has no mind, is there a brain?

Or is it something else? Sure we have one word. We might add 'dead' to 'brain'. Are we mislead by the single word into thinking brains are primary?

A brain in the forest that has no mind. Is there a brain.

Obviously the brain has no mind but it's there without a mind.
It would be intersting considering how one would think about mind and brain.... One would have to dwelve the human nature itself.

But yeath. The brain is deadhaha.
No, we're misleada by the words themslfs.
I consider some words harsh.

Dead.
Brain.

All of these things attached meaning into my writing, is clear if one decided to read my writing.

Which is a mind more like: a living horse
or
a cart?
Not the point of the metaphor, I realize, but it should have set off warning bells.

cart

Less power huh.
Depends....
On the example ... which "word",
"you",
"would choose."

Me, I have always enjoyed a slow walk the a field with the occasional, mysteriously sudden sprint tossed in.

The one that is more like my mind also has cravings.

Hah.

Yeah well sadly this is odd, but, what do you mean. A slow walk with the a field. Eh. I need to go read a book of childrens uh, english class.

Here's your problem for today: Do you believe some people have minds but no brains?

Yes.

The voices in my head have minds but no brains or vocal chords either.

Apparently we're all fighting sisyphus.
Calling him brainless.
I may have mistaken it but ...

He gave me a "problem of the day" like I'm a retartd; which in reflection I see that it is really "who is the retard?" is it me, that he is "eating holes in"?

It isn't like I'm retarded or anything.... you know. It may be he who eats the holes.
So watch out.

I asked you a question which is not the same thing as calling you brainless. You must learn not to shoot from the hip, cowboy. You shot at the wrong target.

How did you find out about brains?
Which did you know first - mind or brain?
In whose terms must the other be translated?
What can we be absolutely sure exists?
What seems overwhelmingly likely but we are, just a tad, less sure of?
When we talk about brains we are using language derived from mind experiences. A large number of reifications about experiences the mind has had?

I am not making the case that the brain is not necessary - that is overwhelmingly likely to be true, but it is a hypothesized and theorized entity. An entity that has been found, described, investigated by minds in minds' terms.

Which is primary?

Mind is an epiphenomenon of brain. ergo brain is supreme. No brain, no mind. However I choose not to look at it the way you do. Look at details of experiences of brain -damaged patients and tell me the mind is in some sense independent.

Mind is an epiphenomenon of brain. ergo brain is supreme. No brain, no mind. However I choose not to look at it the way you do. Look at details of experiences of brain -damaged patients and tell me the mind is in some sense independent.

Where did I say independent?
And brains without minds are not brains.

In a sense we are talking with two different purposes. But what I find odd is that the reasons for talking about brains as fundamental get blurred into the reasons for noting that minds are primary.

Brain is a term for a map we have made.
Mind is the only territory we experience.

If a brain is in the forest but it has no mind, is there a brain?

Or is it something else? Sure we have one word. We might add 'dead' to 'brain'. Are we mislead by the single word into thinking brains are primary?

You are assuming that mind can exist withot a brain. No brain, no mind. So a brain in a forest has a mind. Unfortunately, it will not function unless it is connected to a support system of some kind. If this is not present, then dead brain and no mind.

Somebody remarked that brains act as a convoluted antennae, hence the use of tinfoil.

Does tinfoil work?

Do I become mindless if I damage the antennae or block the signal? (honestly, the tinfoil wont work in that respect, I'm pretty sure.)

You are assuming that mind can exist withot a brain. No brain, no mind. So a brain in a forest has a mind. Unfortunately, it will not function unless it is connected to a support system of some kind. If this is not present, then dead brain and no mind.

I am not assuming mind can exist without a brain. I am assuming that we can be more sure that minds exist than that brains do. Because our knowledge of brains and the way we reached conclusions about it are all dependent on minds and their subjective experience.

Read this again: I am not making the claim that minds can exist without brains.

Mind is an epiphenomenon of brain.
Brains are one of the phenomena that minds can wonder about, draw conclusions about, postulate, experience......

Again, to call mind an epiphenomenon of something that can only be thought of, conceived, experienced, etc....via that mind is odd. I am not saying it is wrong, but it is in a way misleading.

It is as if the brain is more real than the very thing that discovered it.

it is as if we have forgotten that what we call brain is actually a reification of a lot of experiences and potential experiences that were or could be had
by minds.

This may seem trivial but it decenters us. The real thing is that brain. The mind is an epiphenomenon - 'on or against or on top of' the real thing.

i would also like restress, that language is misleading here.

A dead brain and a living brain are both called brains. As if they were the same thing. Or as if a brain that does not register any upper brain function is the same as a brain that does.

sowhatifit'sdark always has a way with words *sigh*

Brains are one of the phenomena that minds can wonder about, draw conclusions about, postulate, experience......

Again, to call mind an epiphenomenon of something that can only be thought of, conceived, experienced, etc....via that mind is odd. I am not saying it is wrong, but it is in a way misleading.

It is as if the brain is more real than the very thing that discovered it.

it is as if we have forgotten that what we call brain is actually a reification of a lot of experiences and potential experiences that were or could be had
by minds.

This may seem trivial but it decenters us. The real thing is that brain. The mind is an epiphenomenon - 'on or against or on top of' the real thing.

i would also like restress, that language is misleading here.

A dead brain and a living brain are both called brains. As if they were the same thing. Or as if a brain that does not register any upper brain function is the same as a brain that does.

I'm not sure where you are coming from. The word brain is not a reification. The brain is a thing ( re). Thanks to neuroscience we can see some evidence of how the brain works. It operates electromechanically so there is no need to invoke a seperate entity called mind. That is a reification.

Things have moved on since Gilbert Ryle inter alia. Neuroscience is making progress where some philosophers are still engaging in abstruse speculation.


What is your position on the mind/brain relationship ? Do you regard mind as something indepent of a brain or dependent on a brain ?

We all do.

I'd like to see a clear statement about the value named equality that us humans sh are as individuals....

Silly automata.

The notion that minds are attached to brains is a trick. It is a common assertion by you who really have no real minds at all. I, having the one true mind, know that it is attached to my soul. My brain is simply there as a box through which my sould an act on the body, as a tool used by the soul, rather like a wired remote control.

Your brains are there for show, to try to trick me into believing you have minds. Your programming is even so sophisticated that if I were to remove your brain, your complicated program would tell you to pretend to "die" just to keep the illusion going for me.

:D

attached to brains is a trick. It is a common assertion by you who really have no real minds at all. I, having the one true mind, know that it is attached to my soul. My brain is simply there as a box through which my sould an act on the body, as a tool used by the soul, rather like a wired

Of course however the truth is that you wouldn't know until your mind is infront of you (stated eariler by me).

Is the soul substantial or not ?

I'm not sure where you are coming from. The word brain is not a reification. The brain is a thing ( re). Thanks to neuroscience we can see some evidence of how the brain works. It operates electromechanically so there is no need to invoke a seperate entity called mind. That is a reification.

Things have moved on since Gilbert Ryle inter alia. Neuroscience is making progress where some philosophers are still engaging in abstruse speculation.


What is your position on the mind/brain relationship ? Do you regard mind as something indepent of a brain or dependent on a brain ?

I greatly appreciate you saying you are not sure where I am coming from. It seemed up until there that you had not noticed that you did not understand.

It is reification because a living brain is a process. The difference between a living brain and a dead brain makes this clear, because it is an extreme case.
When we are talking about mind/brain issues we are talking about living brains. Entities abuzz with activity over time. Not something static - and this is on the molecular level, no need to go down to the smaller levels where everything is abuzz.

I am making the point that everything you know about 'things' is derived though experienced phenomena. You could not have gotten at, reached, mulled over your ideas about 'things' - which are really processes - without this medium I am calling mind. You could call it subjective experience. Whatever. I am not contesting the conclusions you and others have drawn using this mind. I have drawn many of them myself. I am pointing out that it is odd that we come to look at mind - subjective experience, the whole phenomenological realm - as epi, as secondary, perhaps not even as real as those 'things' - which are made up of and thought about in terms of distilled subjective experiences - as primary and more real than that medium we learned about them through.

It is like we know a prison inmate only by telephone - perhaps we are one of those women who gets infatuated with such men. We speak to him for years. He starts telling us that the telephone is not real, but he sure as shit is.

as far as your last questions:

What is your position on the mind/brain relationship ? Do you regard mind as something indepent of a brain or dependent on a brain ?

Again: brain is a misleading word, it includes things that are not relevent and so it seems like the question makes sense. Let alone the apples and oranges or perhaps apples and tax laws mixing that is going on that language also allows to seem natural.

A living brain is dependent on mind. Only to get to that brain you and I need to go via mind. If mind is not real, then we can trust nothing we think we know about brains.

Unless we are pathologists, talking about the state of tissues in a murder victim's head, the word brain is a hysterical reification - not even in the marxist sense, though also in related ways to Marx's use of 'reification' - of a wide variety of phenomena. That's what words are and brain is one of the clearest examples possible. Think of Shakespeare's brain. Somewhere in the middle of its activities, say at 40.

But let's leave it here. You get what I am saying and see it is not a threat to what you are saying or you don't.

I have a feeling the next round will get cranky and neither of us need that.

I greatly appreciate you saying you are not sure where I am coming from. It seemed up until there that you had not noticed that you did not understand.

It is reification because a living brain is a process. The difference between a living brain and a dead brain makes this clear, because it is an extreme case.
When we are talking about mind/brain issues we are talking about living brains. Entities abuzz with activity over time. Not something static - and this is on the molecular level, no need to go down to the smaller levels where everything is abuzz.

I am making the point that everything you know about 'things' is derived though experienced phenomena. You could not have gotten at, reached, mulled over your ideas about 'things' - which are really processes - without this medium I am calling mind. You could call it subjective experience. Whatever. I am not contesting the conclusions you and others have drawn using this mind. I have drawn many of them myself. I am pointing out that it is odd that we come to look at mind - subjective experience, the whole phenomenological realm - as epi, as secondary, perhaps not even as real as those 'things' - which are made up of and thought about in terms of distilled subjective experiences - as primary and more real than that medium we learned about them through.

It is like we know a prison inmate only by telephone - perhaps we are one of those women who gets infatuated with such men. We speak to him for years. He starts telling us that the telephone is not real, but he sure as shit is.

as far as your last questions:



Again: brain is a misleading word, it includes things that are not relevent and so it seems like the question makes sense. Let alone the apples and oranges or perhaps apples and tax laws mixing that is going on that language also allows to seem natural.

A living brain is dependent on mind. Only to get to that brain you and I need to go via mind. If mind is not real, then we can trust nothing we think we know about brains.

Unless we are pathologists, talking about the state of tissues in a murder victim's head, the word brain is a hysterical reification - not even in the marxist sense, though also in related ways to Marx's use of 'reification' - of a wide variety of phenomena. That's what words are and brain is one of the clearest examples possible. Think of Shakespeare's brain. Somewhere in the middle of its activities, say at 40.

But let's leave it here. You get what I am saying and see it is not a threat to what you are saying or you don't.

I have a feeling the next round will get cranky and neither of us need that.


There's no need for crankiness but there is a need to establish our positions more clearly.

The question of the brain is reification. I cannot see how you arrive at this view whether the brain is dead or alive. To me, the brain is a physical object which can be seen , handled and so on. The fact that it processes data in various forms does not make it any less of a physical object.

Consider a car engine. You will agree it is a physical object. The fact that it operates when the car is running does not change that. I would see no sense in regarding motion as primary. I regard the brain in a similar way.

The brain can be stimulated, and has been, to provoke feeling, images and so on. This suggests that mind is mediated via the brain.

It seems to me that we are in broad agreement except that you see the brain as a reification whereas I don't

Silly automata.

The notion that minds are attached to brains is a trick. It is a common assertion by you who really have no real minds at all. I, having the one true mind, know that it is attached to my soul. My brain is simply there as a box through which my sould an act on the body, as a tool used by the soul, rather like a wired remote control.

Your brains are there for show, to try to trick me into believing you have minds. Your programming is even so sophisticated that if I were to remove your brain, your complicated program would tell you to pretend to "die" just to keep the illusion going for me.

:D

'through which'

from where is your soul coming from. It sounds like it is communicating from outside the universe.

And what is this 'box'. A hard thing made out of cardboard or wood? You just turned life into a box and ghost
which is even more dehumanizing than what scientists do.

You guys are funny ! :D hahahah

You guys are funny ! :D hahahah

I believe that a soul weighs 3.14159 grams. Something to do with pie in the sky.

You guys are funny ! :D hahahah

Do you notice how most philosophical discussion reaches zugzwang?

May be true.

Also somewhat interesting is "the truth is a tease." "sex is a tease." "It's all a tease."

Which might mean as a corellary: you are all desire.

Here is the nature of minds: Theyare singular within physche, butn whole within coherence,. They are nasty when in groups, but nieve and vonorable when alone.

In A Nutshell

2

Well. At least we get a dummies thread for the philosophy forum (finding out that most dummies know apparently very little.... LOL... and also that none of that is the actual nature of the mind.

How weird!

Well. At least we get a dummies thread for the philosophy forum (finding out that most dummies know apparently very little.... LOL... and also that none of that is the actual nature of the mind.

How weird!

lol


No.... the dummies thread is called: Religion.

We should all be humbled by the wisdom of women - at least a high % share this particular wisdom - rolling their eyes when their men start talking philosophy.

Yeah. Well it is also sad that a woman couldn't quite talk philosophy about the nature of their man.

That's why they're so interested in it.... it's what gives them their "kinks." Moreover a woman is something that should ....... uh, fill me in?

haha!

stating the obvious varies.

Yes, yes that's true.
Can you state the obvious as well as me hmmmmm....
Anyway, this thread is being held in disregard for me right now. I have a lot of things on my mind.

As far as the nature of other minds go; I would just be interested in something that wouldn't have any real flaws with it. You know? Just saying; maybe striking out aganist all of that... saying that it's just sorta fake. You can debate all you want, but still, I don't see it happening. You bring forward your ideas; but I want to see the truth of it... I want to actually be able to see what you guys are talking about... and then again I want you to see what I'm talking about, too.

Ya know.

I actually meant the obviouses that the two sexes point out are different. They vary.

the nature of other minds is simple
its not ones own nature