The Essence of Mind

"mind" is a biochemically emergent phenomenological outcome of the interaction of billions of complexly interconnected and weighted elements. Dosen't that just say it all?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Superluminal:

I shall endeavour to do as such, but I often write responses in notepad as my internet browsers are often taken up by other things. I multitask a great deal, you see.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And wasn't it you who posited originally that "mind is intention"?

No.

*points at glaucon*

I said "the essence of mind is the abstract" or something to that point, and attempted to splain further.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wesmorris:

"I said "the essence of mind is the abstract" or something to that point, and attempted to splain further. "

Then very, very sorry to have imposed such upon you mistakenly.

 

Meh, it happens. No problem.

I gotcha. It just seems that is only relevant if you are sure that there are only three attributes or if those attributes really have anything to do with the fundamental blah blah blah.

.

That it is the only medium is not necessarily the key factor of its essence from a particular point of view. He could see the history of chairs over time, blah blah and make a much more abstract assertion, kind of like viewing it with superiority, but more like viewing it as a "how has the modern chair come to be what it is?" kind of thing.

But to different individuals, that which comprises an object can be extremely abstract. Certainly the materials involved are physical and for the purposes of the conversation I'll grant you, unquestionable - the materials of any particular chair to not necessarily reflect the history of how such objects came to be in the first place, which in the case of chairs would involve wood for thousands of years - especially to the wood chair crafts guy. He would argue that the art of chair making is an important aspect of what comprises a chair.

I disagree. That I can or cannot be convinced of something else by someone else says nothing as to my statement "Indeed. I offer however, that there is no potential "what makes something what it is" without a necessarily implicit "to whom" or "from what perspective"."

It is quite simple really. If you consider a "what makes something what it is", it is literally meaningless (it may exist ontologically, but in basically in an indeterminant state) until a perspective is involved. In fact, there is no means for it "to exist" (because that is differentiating between not existing and existing) without the involvement of a perspective. Its ontological status is necessarily indeterminant until observation.

This is something I think you should really reflect on for a while. It's deeper than your objection. It's subtle (I think). It's the "I" in "cogito ergo, blah". It's distinction. Imagine watching a movie with the curtains closed and speakers turned off. Sure something is probably going on behind the curtain, but what? You can't see unless you open them. You can't hear until the speakers are powered on. You cannot infer the smallest little thing about it besides that it's probably happening. You can hypothesize, but...well nevermind I've gone on enough. It is so very subtle though, observing that in any statement, any breath, any anything that there ever is - it is "to whom" first. It's so quick, so implicit that it's generally missed.

Isn't this all reports of observation? Isn't everything? If there were no observer what could be reported and to whom? Tao.

I don't mean to order you as to what to think of, sorry I didn't mean it like that. I just mean that from my perspective, I think you'd benefit from focusing on that particular point a bit. Honestly though, I do not know what's good for you. I only guess stuff.

I mean an organizational block diagram, basically as you presented with the trinity thing, or whatever other submissions there are. I think there are pretty good "this stuff is physically the brain" types of info, but even that is short of explaining consciousness, etc. Blah, anyway.

"Okay, but that is still not to say that it's a "perfect list" of attributes."

Cool, do it then. DO IT NOW!!!!.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Go.

Assuming completeness of course you'd be correct. Being the pain in the ass that I am however, I attack the assumption.

Ah, the rigid thinker. Guys like you keep guys like me grounded.

Do you agree though, that you approach to explanation could be flawed? Perhaps this is wrong, but it's my opinion at the moment that if you start with an idea like "mind" and break it down into attributes that don't really reveal anything as to its essence... that tells you something about your list of attributes. *shrug*

But it is not greater than the source of the components. See what I mean? Hrmph.

Again though, would you not agree that since your trinity gives you no insight as to essence (merely reflecting you back to the source of inspiration of coming up with a list of attributes) - it has nominal value in the topic at hand?

My first post in the thread:

I understand. It's just that the well, I've splained enough. No worries.

If you'd be so kind as to read the exhange between invert and myself, and my comments to glaucon, I've done so to some extent already.

Don't worry about it.

 

Arrrg.
My apologies to both you and wes.

Too little sleep for me that day I think...

Fair enough. Not that I want to reduce this all to semantics, but I truly believe that some mincing of words can help here...
I agree with you that, epistemologically speaking, we do indeed need to grant an 'essence' to a thing to even be able to construe it. However, note that I said "grant". For this is what I think we do. This is a mental act of attribution, necessary for us to comprehend a thing; we need to be able to fit it into our understanding of things. Basically what I'm going for here is a denial of an ontological definition of 'essence'.

Indeed. Now this is pretty much what I was just saying (if I'm interpreting wes correctly).

Not at all.
For a number of reasons.

Don't get the wrong idea; I'm a Materialist through and through, but the fact is that all contemporary science cannot fully explain the mind.
Furthermore, you've made use of two philosophical terms (emergent, and phenomenological) that cannot yet be explained via neuroscience.

Another possible, though valid objection, would be that to the thinking of many, that definition simply does not suffice. That definition provides no means of explaining such phenomena as love, or fear. Moreover, and IMO more significant, is that this definition is just that: a definition has no power whatsoever beyond that of categorization. What is needed here is the ability to predict behaviour.

The kernel here you and P_J are discussing is perhaps the most significant element of this whole discussion.

We're getting into the 'qualia' problem here....

What makes a red thing red? et al.

Now, while I'm of the mind that qualia are contingently related to their objects (as I think wes is as well...), what's interesting about the whole 'qualia problem' is that they never seem to go away, and that we do indeed, often quite 'automatically' use them. I think there's significance in this behaviour.

Is it the case that qualia do have an ontological sense? If so, then this 'compositional' line of thinking must address wes' objections. Is a thing more than the sum of its parts? If so, how so? If not, then which part is the defining one?

Without granting an ontological status to qualia, we end up in a semantics discussion.



Man, you miss a lot when you miss a day...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Wesmorris:

"I gotcha. It just seems that is only relevant if you are sure that there are only three attributes or if those attributes really have anything to do with the fundamental blah blah blah."

Well it does not necessarily depend on whether or not there are only three-attributes, only if the three attributes listed connect with the reality of at least a portion of the mind.

"That it is the only medium is not necessarily the key factor of its essence from a particular point of view. He could see the history of chairs over time, blah blah and make a much more abstract assertion, kind of like viewing it with superiority, but more like viewing it as a "how has the modern chair come to be what it is?" kind of thing."

One could indeed postulate that "modern chairs stem from older wooden chairs" and then speak of "wood then being the prime material of which chairs have been made of historically", but even then, it would not follow the philosophic notion of essence.

"But to different individuals, that which comprises an object can be extremely abstract. Certainly the materials involved are physical and for the purposes of the conversation I'll grant you, unquestionable - the materials of any particular chair to not necessarily reflect the history of how such objects came to be in the first place, which in the case of chairs would involve wood for thousands of years - especially to the wood chair crafts guy. He would argue that the art of chair making is an important aspect of what comprises a chair."

One could not indeed separate the chair from its long tradition of chairmaking, no. Specifically if this carpenter comes from a storied tradition of chairmaking which is valued by collectors and other such things. But this would be tantamount to saying "all common human made creations have a genesis in a long traditin". That this would be part of what makes up "chair" is indeed indisputable, unless the chair was the first instance of "chair", although even then it would likely have some form of tradition in earlier "proto-chairs" or natural foundations and the like.

"I disagree. That I can or cannot be convinced of something else by someone else says nothing as to my statement "Indeed. I offer however, that there is no potential "what makes something what it is" without a necessarily implicit "to whom" or "from what perspective"."

If two people are held to hold distinct views of what something is, would not it seem impossible for them to convince the other of their viewpoint? For in so allowing a "changing of mind", one's determination of an object would not be subjective at the core, but in fact, objective. That is to say, one would view the other viewpoint as containing truth or at least, more truth, than one's own viewpoint, thereby taking the subjectivity from one's viewpoint.

"It is quite simple really. If you consider a "what makes something what it is", it is literally meaningless (it may exist ontologically, but in basically in an indeterminant state) until a perspective is involved. In fact, there is no means for it "to exist" (because that is differentiating between not existing and existing) without the involvement of a perspective. Its ontological status is necessarily indeterminant until observation."

So you are saying, until a conscious entity perceives such a thing, the object does not exist? Or are you only saying we cannot know such whether such a thing exists or not? For considering much of what is unseen is necessary for the existence of this world, and can be inferred without direct perception of it, it would stand to reason that you are patently wrong. Moreover, for something to appear to the senses, demands that it had prior existence there. That is to say, it was either there or it was not. Or are you going as far as to say such things are utterly random?

"This is something I think you should really reflect on for a while. It's deeper than your objection. It's subtle (I think). It's the "I" in "cogito ergo, blah". It's distinction. Imagine watching a movie with the curtains closed and speakers turned off. Sure something is probably going on behind the curtain, but what? You can't see unless you open them. You can't hear until the speakers are powered on. You cannot infer the smallest little thing about it besides that it's probably happening. You can hypothesize, but...well nevermind I've gone on enough. It is so very subtle though, observing that in any statement, any breath, any anything that there ever is - it is "to whom" first. It's so quick, so implicit that it's generally missed."

That there is an "I" behind every empirical statement is something worthy of noting, but to take this one step further say that the I's create that object's existence, or there is no objectivity to be found, is not implied in this. What is implied is that there is a being (ourselves) which perceives a thing (which could be a being or could not be).

"Isn't this all reports of observation? Isn't everything? If there were no observer what could be reported and to whom? Tao."

That there'd be no report of a consciousness-less universe is certain. THere'd be no consciousness -to- report. But to go as far as to say "we'd be met only with Tao" is not to be found in this. What we'd be met with is the myriad unknown things which nonetheless exist and work even without our interference now.

"I don't mean to order you as to what to think of, sorry I didn't mean it like that. I just mean that from my perspective, I think you'd benefit from focusing on that particular point a bit. Honestly though, I do not know what's good for you. I only guess stuff."

It is a good line of inquiry, I admit. One must face this question and consider it in depth.

"I mean an organizational block diagram, basically as you presented with the trinity thing, or whatever other submissions there are. I think there are pretty good "this stuff is physically the brain" types of info, but even that is short of explaining consciousness, etc. Blah, anyway."

You are correct. We do not have such a thing widely-accepted yet. This means we must work extra hard to produce it, doesn't it?

"Cool, do it then. DO IT NOW!!!!. Go."

I shall be giving it some thought, actually, and posting later should I be able to think of anything else.

"Assuming completeness of course you'd be correct. Being the pain in the ass that I am however, I attack the assumption."

As you should, as even I admit it is a presumption. We must look into things more deeply before we can be certain.

"Do you agree though, that you approach to explanation could be flawed? Perhaps this is wrong, but it's my opinion at the moment that if you start with an idea like "mind" and break it down into attributes that don't really reveal anything as to its essence... that tells you something about your list of attributes. *shrug*"

Oh, most certainly it could be flawed. I am not God here. I am not infallible and beyond error.

However, let me give some reason for why I have adopted this method: How does one find out what an apple is? Well, one observes it with the senses, does not one? One looks at it, one smells it, one feels it, one tastes it...One cracks it open and checks out all the parts. And when one is done investigating, one gets a comprehensive view of what an apple is. Each of these things, however, is a different attribute. It has "roundness", it has "juicyness", it has "redness", and when put it all together, we have apple. Is the essence of apple, what makes it an apple, not then to be found in the relation of its attributes?

"But it is not greater than the source of the components. See what I mean? Hrmph."

What is the "source of the components" of what you speak?

"Again though, would you not agree that since your trinity gives you no insight as to essence (merely reflecting you back to the source of inspiration of coming up with a list of attributes) - it has nominal value in the topic at hand?"

In that it makes me analyze for what reason I postulated such? Or do you mean that somehow, when I take all three things together, I do not come up with mind?

" the essence of mind is "the abstract", or perhaps I should call it "meaning".

comparison doesn't exist without it.

If you'd be so kind as to read the exhange between invert and myself, and my comments to glaucon, I've done so to some extent already."

MIght you elaborate on this concept a bit more? Even after reviewing your posts, I am not sure I grasp the full extent of what you have put forth. In what way is the essence of mind to be construed as "the abstract"? You link this with conceptualization. Are you then saying that the essence of mind is the "inner eye" of the Cartesian theatre, as it were? That ability to view and analyze things internally? Do you link this also to the fact that all things in the mind are distinct from what is outside the mind? Or perhaps you think it is closer to imagination, where we can take one example, and somewhat mentally rearrange it, as it were?

I shall return to this in a few hours or so and see whether or not I can dig up some more concepts to consider.

 

Glaucon:

"I agree with you that, epistemologically speaking, we do indeed need to grant an 'essence' to a thing to even be able to construe it. However, note that I said "grant". For this is what I think we do. This is a mental act of attribution, necessary for us to comprehend a thing; we need to be able to fit it into our understanding of things. Basically what I'm going for here is a denial of an ontological definition of 'essence'."

Allow me to elaborat eon how I think we might give an actual ontological discussion of essence, rather than purely epistemological or phenomological:

In order to correspond essence to the "whatness" of something, I think it best to speak of how this thing came to be. That is to say, in what way is this thing what it is? Well, clearly, a thing is composed of certain attributes, is it not? And is it not the synthesis of these attributes in a certain relation what spawns the object itself? And is it not only when those attributes are assembled in such and such a way, that the thing appears, as a combination of them all, yet at the same time, surpassing each one? Well then, it would seem then that the "whatness" of the object, its essence, would then correspond to that very relation of its parts to create its gestalt.

Drawing from this, I cannot help but conclude that essence and existence are thus linked intimately. A thing does not exist until it fullfills its essence, and once said thing exists, its essence is manifest.

Give me your thoughts on that, Glaucon, whilst in my next post I shall attempt to give as thorough of an analysis of the mind as I can for this discussion.

 

I shall begin my analysis of the mind by going over what seems to me to be the full extent of the mind's processes:

Calculation
Cogitation
Imagination
Sensory perception
Emotional perception
Intention (or will)
Memory storage
Memory recollection
Decision
Personality
Preference
Identification
Ignoring

The mind also necessarily implies selfhood. The "ego" in "cogito ergo sum". This also implies an internal "mental world" or "Cartesian theatre" where thoughts are viewed with the "mind's eye".

Now, earlier I had claimed that a trinity of three attributes consisted of mind and created mind and were codependent. This trinity was composed of intention, identification, and comparsion. Their codependence, as argued before, is found in the fact that neither attribute could exist without the other two and, in turn, every attribute allows for the existing of the other two. Yet a word must be said of intention and whether the term "intention" suffices. For when we hear something very loud and very constant, which we cannot "drown out" by ignoring it, it can hardly be said that what we are doing incorporates intention in the same way as one intends to think about a subject or to do a thing. Yet if one broadens the concept to allow for intention on a subconscious level, to incorporate an intention to be open to sensory perception, then as a sort of "passive intention". That is, awareness then becomes a symptom of intention. This can be found in the fact that when wrapped up in other things, the mind can become blind to sensory perception, such as when day or night-dreaming, or even when sleeping without dreams.

Now, two questions:

1. What think you of the link betwixt intention and awarenesS?

2. Have I truly grasped all the processes of mind?

 

You fools! The essence of mind is identification.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Forgetting Sartre? The Cartesian Ego is a second order awareness. There exists a pre-reflective ego which is more properly termed the self than Descartes' folly.

And, you're forgetting a very important, if not the most important, task of Mind.

Prediction.

Were you aware that it takes approximately a half second for sensory stimulation to enter conscious awareness? Do you realize that this discrepancy should be blatantly obvious in our lives as we should always be slightly out of synch with the world about us?

We're not and it's not.
Why?
Because the mind exists to predict what the world should be based on how it was a half-second ago.

Another feature of the brain is confabulation. This is tied integrally with prediction.
There are schools of thought which eradicate free will as an illusion because the body acts and the mind comes up with reasons for why it acted in a particular manner.
A revisionist history, you could say

Anyway.
Good try with the categories, but I think they're hopelessly tangled.

For instance. Personality? Doesn't this just about encompass the whole lot?

 

Invert Nexus:

"Forgetting Sartre? The Cartesian Ego is a second order awareness. There exists a pre-reflective ego which is more properly termed the self than Descartes' folly."

I must disagree. Even before the rational reflection of the self as a necessary consequence of the activity of the mind, the idea of mind, and the working within the mind, implies the Cartesian self. That is to say, even before we realize an "I", by thinking, by acting, by anything, we work within the "I". In fact, it is because of this immediacy that it took 4,500 years for human history to progress to the point where a Frenchman named Renee`realized this, for as so often the case, the most hidden things are to be found closest to oneself.

"And, you're forgetting a very important, if not the most important, task of Mind.

Prediction."

Is not a prediction a result of calculation? Things such as: If A is moving towards B, then at C, A will reach B.

But you are correct, I ought to have -specifically- noted such a thing. Thank you for getting me on that one.

"Were you aware that it takes approximately a half second for sensory stimulation to enter conscious awareness? Do you realize that this discrepancy should be blatantly obvious in our lives as we should always be slightly out of synch with the world about us?

We're not and it's not.
Why?
Because the mind exists to predict what the world should be based on how it was a half-second ago."

I was not aware of this, no. Have you any resources where I might read up on this fascinating phenomena? However, how is this possible in certain media? Such as, fo rinstance, in reading or watching television? Where the information cannot be so predicted?

"Another feature of the brain is confabulation. This is tied integrally with prediction.
There are schools of thought which eradicate free will as an illusion because the body acts and the mind comes up with reasons for why it acted in a particular manner.
A revisionist history, you could say"

This one I shall admit utterly that I left out. HOwever, it is hard to state that in all circumstances this is the case. For instance, I had just repeated in my mind for the last 30 seconds "I am going to move my left index finger" until I did, in fact, move my left index finger when I said "now!". This does not seem to be an example of "retro-rationalization", as it were.

"For instance. Personality? Doesn't this just about encompass the whole lot? "

What I had meant by perosnality is the capacity for the mind to have one. That is to say, the capacity to grow to develop propensities for certain methods of dealing with things, to develop certain tastes and wants, to want to act in such and such a way, to react in this and that ways, to be of a certain demeanor and outlook, to adopt even such things as religious viewpoints, et cetera, et cetera. This is not so much a "encompassing of other functions", but a different one all together, I would say. However, the addition of "preference" may have been superfluous, although one could say that "preference" in the list of attributes of mind references the acting of preference, whereas personality allows for the -development- of preference.

 

So the philosophical notion of essence must be based on the material components of the subject? More abstract constructs are necessarily off limits?

Well, I’d think that it could be argued that “the essence of chair can be established by consideration of its history, and ultimately ‘wood’ was and is the most important element that could be, even though it’s not always used in chairs today”. Anyway, now I’m tired of thinking about chairs. I’m just attempting to establish what I think of as valid alternative thinking.

No. It does not seem so at all. Whatever viewpoint is adopted is distinct from all others by the nature of a POV, even if it seems borrowed. One can take from another what they will, but the act of taking makes it their own, even if they do not realize it.

That doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t get you. Wouldn’t that one’s determination of an object can change, well isn’t that subjectivity? Have you misspoken or have I misunderstood?

That seems quite convoluted to me, and in violation of reference frames. By recognizing “more truth” in another point of view and adopting it as one’s own (so to speak), one’s point of view changes. This does not establish anything objective. What’s to say that the “more truth” is actually truthier? (Just wanted to say truthier, pardon)

As to the first sentence, of course not. I thought I made it clear, particularly with the last sentence in the quoted text from me. I’m speaking of knowing of course, in the most loose sense of the term – as knowledge is subjective and tentative at all times, which almost defeats the point of the word – but not quite.

Actually it’s not necessary, but happens via mind’s propensity. And I don’t see how you reach the conclusion that I’m patently wrong, or what exactly you think I’m patently wrong about.

This is a tricky subject. Meaning – as in, the impact of knowledge on a psyche – cannot exist without knowledge first existing. As such, there is literally no meaning in the unknown.

For instance – this screen in front of me exists. Let’s start there. I “know” it to exist. I can touch it, I see it, I interact with it. In my reality, there is a screen in front of me upon with lots of keen stuff appears like the letters I type, etc. However, without any means of sensing it – it would not “exist” to me. It may “actually exist”, as in “its ontological status is such that it is right in front of me”, but it would be utterly meaningless to me so much so as to “not exist” in my perspective of the universe.

By “to exist” in the paragraph in question above, I mean “to be known to exist”. However, when something “exists” it “becomes known”. Otherwise it is unknown and as such, does not “exist” in a meaningful way.

If I am completely deprived of stimulus of the monitor in front of me, it does not exist in a meaningful way – to me. IMO, this must be considered if we’re to keep reference frames straight.

We can infer that, yes. It does not demand it exactly. You’re aware of the potential problems with inference?

Of course, but until encountered in a meaningful way, whether it was there or not it was there was utterly inconsequential to the state of mind in question.

No I don’t think so. I’m not exactly sure to which “such things” you’re referring though. My confidence that we’re on the same topic has depleted somewhat as I’ve broken this down. Pardon.

I think the point stands that there is no means to determine ontological status without observation, as it is the very act thereof that performs the feat. Please if you can, provide an alternative method. I simply cannot imagine one at the moment.

It’s not that an object’s ontological status is impacted by observation, I’ve made no comments in that regard. I’m commenting on the fact that “to exist” is an act of granting a differentiation of ontological status of “this isn’t that”. “Objects” could be argued to be completely fictitious. It could be argued that there exists only one, seamless whole. In fact, until something is observed – any argument other than “the seamless whole” is inconceivable. Things are not “observed” by anything other than a perspective, hence the necessity of following AE’s lead with the whole reference frame thing.

Well technically there’d be no “we” to be met with anything, but you just said the same thing I did in different words. Pardon, but to me “the Tao is the seamless whole” in question above. Oh and I suppose there wouldn’t be any “things” either, as a “thing” is a label, and no minds = no labels. There would be only pure function.

Yessir.

I’ll try to tackle it soon.

However, let me give some reason for why I have adopted this method: How does one find out what an apple is? Well, one observes it with the senses, does not one? One looks at it, one smells it, one feels it, one tastes it...One cracks it open and checks out all the parts. And when one is done investigating, one gets a comprehensive view of what an apple is. Each of these things, however, is a different attribute. It has "roundness", it has "juicyness", it has "redness", and when put it all together, we have apple. Is the essence of apple, what makes it an apple, not then to be found in the relation of its attributes?

I meant that you said “mind is the essence of mind”. Then you showed components of mind and their interaction, and pointed back to mind as its essence. Mind was the source of your components. As such, you merely stated an identity. If you’d said “the essence of mind is the interaction of these three components” I wouldn’t have objected in the same manner.

I just meant that if you start with mind, pick three things and talk of their interaction, then go back to “mind” then you’ve gone nowhere.

In that is “idea space” or “the abstract” solely, that allows for the inevitability of mind.

You link this with conceptualization. Are you then saying that the essence of mind is the "inner eye" of the Cartesian theatre, as it were?

It’s that the configuration of the universe allow for such a phenomenon in the first place. It’s that “ideas” can and do exist… that such a thing is allowed by the geometry of space, time and whatever else is.

Yes that it is even doable. By all my reflection on the topic, it simply shouldn’t be allowable were there nothing to the universe but space, time, matter and energy. It’s my opinion that “idea space” does not fit anywhere in the standard model.

That seems implicit to my statements above.

No. Imagination is allowable in idea space, but it is idea space itself – and that it is utilized subjectively that is my point of interest.

As I can see you’ve done! I’ll do my best to tackle it soon.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

wesmorris:

"So the philosophical notion of essence must be based on the material components of the subject? More abstract constructs are necessarily off limits?"

No. But essence entails more than simply "history". THat is to say, history would be simply one aspect of essential qualities.

But this brings up a question: Suppose an alien civilization came with chairs they developed on their own. Would it be a chair without its history on Earth?

"Well, I’d think that it could be argued that “the essence of chair can be established by consideration of its history, and ultimately ‘wood’ was and is the most important element that could be, even though it’s not always used in chairs today”. Anyway, now I’m tired of thinking about chairs. I’m just attempting to establish what I think of as valid alternative thinking. "

Historic considerations could only play a role, not reign over, all other aspects of essentialhood. Chairs are not "objects composed of history", as it were.

"No. It does not seem so at all. Whatever viewpoint is adopted is distinct from all others by the nature of a POV, even if it seems borrowed. One can take from another what they will, but the act of taking makes it their own, even if they do not realize it."

In the absence of evidence and of an external authority, is it truly possible to resolve one's mind towards another course, though? For when comparing two propositions, we necessarily look for what is most truthful, even if our conception of truth is obscured by other factors.

"That doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t get you. Wouldn’t that one’s determination of an object can change, well isn’t that subjectivity? Have you misspoken or have I misunderstood?"

If that determination is based on the object's properties, or of the truth-value of the statement, then no, it is not subjective. It would show that one's former opinion was subjective and that one now at least believes one's new viewpoint to be objective. That it could still be subjective is, of course, a possibility.

"That seems quite convoluted to me, and in violation of reference frames. By recognizing “more truth” in another point of view and adopting it as one’s own (so to speak), one’s point of view changes. This does not establish anything objective. What’s to say that the “more truth” is actually truthier? (Just wanted to say truthier, pardon)"

Reference frames, if you are refering back to Einstein, are irrelevant here.

But okay Mr. Colbert, I ought to have noted "regardless of whether one's investigations are truly objective" one's newer conception of truth will at least attempt to seek the objective standard, for the process of evaluation requries arbitration by what seems to be the truth. That is, if one is to evaluate whether it is true that ducks fly, or not fly, one must look at some ducks. Now it could be that one sees some ducks that don't fly all that day and then one concludes erroneously that ducks do not fly, but the evaluation attempts to seek after the fact of the matter.

"As to the first sentence, of course not. I thought I made it clear, particularly with the last sentence in the quoted text from me. I’m speaking of knowing of course, in the most loose sense of the term – as knowledge is subjective and tentative at all times, which almost defeats the point of the word – but not quite."

I thought you went bishop Berkley on me for a moment. Glad to hear you did not.

So what you are saying is until we know something, we are incapable of determining its existence or not? In so much as this is so, yes.

But as to subjective knowledge, this does not stand to reason. For one, if this were so, however would we be able to even speak of things on a common level? FOr instance, two people look at a tree, then begin to discuss it. In all circumstances, they agree on every aspect of it. If knowledge is so subjective, how can this be?

"Actually it’s not necessary, but happens via mind’s propensity. And I don’t see how you reach the conclusion that I’m patently wrong, or what exactly you think I’m patently wrong about."

This was only relevant if you were claiming that unseen things don't actually exist. As you aren't holding such, this is irrelevant.

But are you saying that macroscopic existence does not demand the atomic structures beneath, which are unseen?

"This is a tricky subject. Meaning – as in, the impact of knowledge on a psyche – cannot exist without knowledge first existing. As such, there is literally no meaning in the unknown."

I agree.

"For instance – this screen in front of me exists. Let’s start there. I “know” it to exist. I can touch it, I see it, I interact with it. In my reality, there is a screen in front of me upon with lots of keen stuff appears like the letters I type, etc. However, without any means of sensing it – it would not “exist” to me. It may “actually exist”, as in “its ontological status is such that it is right in front of me”, but it would be utterly meaningless to me so much so as to “not exist” in my perspective of the universe."

It does not exist subjectively, yes, in a situation where you do not sense it.

"By “to exist” in the paragraph in question above, I mean “to be known to exist”. However, when something “exists” it “becomes known”. Otherwise it is unknown and as such, does not “exist” in a meaningful way."

From a subjective level, I agree.

"We can infer that, yes. It does not demand it exactly. You’re aware of the potential problems with inference?"

I am aware of some, yes. However, it is indeed demanded. Legitimate sensory data demands an exterior source existent before one's senses fall upon it. That is to say, in order for us to see the tree, the tree must first be there for us to see it. Moreover, I say legitimate, as obviously hallucinations have their genesis somewhere else entirely, although they too are caused by mental things which produce them, therefore, necessitating that the hallucinogenic experience must also have such a pre-existing cause before it can be sensed.

"No I don’t think so. I’m not exactly sure to which “such things” you’re referring though. My confidence that we’re on the same topic has depleted somewhat as I’ve broken this down. Pardon."

I was referencing "the source of sensory stimuli", I.E. objects such as rocks, trees, fruit, et cetera.

"I think the point stands that there is no means to determine ontological status without observation, as it is the very act thereof that performs the feat. Please if you can, provide an alternative method. I simply cannot imagine one at the moment."

In so much as this deals with the normal, empirical world, I agree. In so much as it would speak of certain necessary truths, I would not. In that case, we must resort to philosophical reasoning/logic, rather than the senses.

"It’s not that an object’s ontological status is impacted by observation, I’ve made no comments in that regard. I’m commenting on the fact that “to exist” is an act of granting a differentiation of ontological status of “this isn’t that”. “Objects” could be argued to be completely fictitious. It could be argued that there exists only one, seamless whole. In fact, until something is observed – any argument other than “the seamless whole” is inconceivable. Things are not “observed” by anything other than a perspective, hence the necessity of following AE’s lead with the whole reference frame thing."


Ah, now we're moving away from meaning? Or are we sticking to your "to exist" has "meaning" still involved?

But as to the whole notion of "one, seamless whole" as a "default". Well, actually, no, this would not be a default. For indeterminacy of unknown empirical facts does not imply that the object is, by default, a "seamless whole" and that objects are "fictious" because of this. Rather, there'd be no default status whatsoever to unseen empirical facts, just a simple, "I do not know, I have not yet observed, nor has another."

But yes, things are observed from a perspective, but if we are going to get into Albert Einstein - whom I think has no bearing on this conversation, but I'll go along with it anyway - reference frames do have the absolute reference of the speed of light.

"Well technically there’d be no “we” to be met with anything, but you just said the same thing I did in different words. Pardon, but to me “the Tao is the seamless whole” in question above. Oh and I suppose there wouldn’t be any “things” either, as a “thing” is a label, and no minds = no labels. There would be only pure function. "

You are correct, there'd be no we in this situation. But what I was attempting to show what we would be met with if we did come into being in that consciousness-less universe.

But there'd be most certainly things. That is to say, there'd be things like atoms, and molecules, and rock formations, and galaxies, et cetera, et cetera. Or rather, the universe would exist as it does not, but without any conscious creatures.

"I meant that you said “mind is the essence of mind”. Then you showed components of mind and their interaction, and pointed back to mind as its essence. Mind was the source of your components. As such, you merely stated an identity. If you’d said “the essence of mind is the interaction of these three components” I wouldn’t have objected in the same manner."

Ah, I see where we went off the track. My apologies for vague language. But yes, as mind is created from the interaction of its components, and thus is the gestaltean whole resulting from such interactions, the essence of mind is "the relation of its attributes".

"I just meant that if you start with mind, pick three things and talk of their interaction, then go back to “mind” then you’ve gone nowhere."

Understood. Though I think we've cleared up what I meant now, but still, apologies for the vague language.

"In that is “idea space” or “the abstract” solely, that allows for the inevitability of mind.

[...]

It’s that the configuration of the universe allow for such a phenomenon in the first place. It’s that “ideas” can and do exist… that such a thing is allowed by the geometry of space, time and whatever else is."

Ah. So you mean that it is possible for us to have a mind and be conscious, yes?

"Yes that it is even doable. By all my reflection on the topic, it simply shouldn’t be allowable were there nothing to the universe but space, time, matter and energy. It’s my opinion that “idea space” does not fit anywhere in the standard model."

Now we're striking the crux of the matter! Good, good.

I'd be interested then in what you would think of my current theory in regards to such. That is, that consciousness, like many other thing, results from the relation of its parts in such a way as they create things not found in their constituent parts. Just as you can have a wooden house and bridge, yet not be able to reduce "bridgehood" and "househood" into "wood", the relation of certain physical things found in biological organisms create "mind" which also creates the "Cartesian theatre" or "Idea space". I imagine the earliest example of this is a creature that has a sense organ, as immediatly with a sense organ, one must have a senser. So when life first formed, that initial bacteria, or whatever we'd call it, had a mind as soon as its senses clicked on.

"As I can see you’ve done! I’ll do my best to tackle it soon."

I look forward to your responses to them (they are the ones which Glaucon and I were briefly talking about, if you didn't see).

 

*sigh...

I will say it again... the essence of mind lies on the connection between a meaning and a word. You compare them, create an identification system and voila! You can think! :bugeye:

 

While this list does indeed seem fairly inclusive of some of the details we could discuss regarding the function of mind, it doesn’t really do it for me because of my strange view of how it works. I do think each of these could be mapped to the larger process though.

I see mind mostly as a geometry problem. “thought” itself for instance, being basically an act of “falling forward” through one’s mind as modulated by circumstance and the state of mind at a given time. It is the geometry of one’s conceptual inter-relationships that provides the framework and direction of mind, and to keep it interesting, the geometry is always changing at least to some degree.

But I’m meandering here, trying to find a good place to meet up with you on the subject. I’m just trying to get my internal ball rolling. Where would you place “formulation of concepts” or “abstraction” on your list?

Calculation eh? Hmm. Do you mean in the sense of “the ability to create and perform algorithms”?

What is cogitation?

What exactly is imagination?

Sensory perception is pretty straightforward.

Emotional perception isn’t quite as much so, but yeah. What about emotional imperception though? What about the “subconscious”?

Intention (will, resolve?). Hmm.. yes okay.

Memory storage/retrieval eh? Hmm.. embedded in conceptual relationships IMO, but yeah…

Personality? This is seeming like apples, oranges and horses to me. I don’t argue that each isn’t related to mind, but I’m not sure in which way they are related as you see it.

Preference? What is that exactly? Why is there preference? Why isn’t one thing as good as the other?

Perhaps it’s that to me each of these must be related to the other to offer any value, and I’m just nitpicking for lack of anything else to do with the information.

Oh and did you mention instinct in your mind thing above? Maybe it fits in somewhere I do not currently see. Regardless, I contend that ego is the resultant of the intersection of idea space, awareness and instinct. I can argue at great length that ego is “the survival instinct” as abstractly instanced in a particular circumstance of mind.

Just to be a pain, I’ll object on the basis that identification does not require intention. For instance, if you happen to glance at an object and the pattern matches the pattern in your mind, identification occurs even against your intention.

Comparison: One does not have to intend to compare something for comparison to occur, and comparison can occur without identification.

Intention: I really thought the doodad I read about intention was of very limited scope and demonstrated a very crude, one-dimensional analysis of mind (the one on the page which invert referenced). It was all about logic, and the mind is not so. So I think the philosophical notion of intention as presented there was basically useless to me and my comprehension of the mind. That’s not to say the analysis wasn’t kind of cool anyway, just that mind is not a logic based device in the way they seemed to frame it. The function of mind I do believe is quite logical, but the contents thereof are of course, not necessarily so at all. Of course they can be, but to take such a seemingly rare case and analyze it as if it were the norm seems very off the mark to me.

I may have demonstrated the opposite. I’m sure we’ll discuss the validity of the points I made.

Yah I don’t like the term intention in its usage in your trinity as I objected above. It just doesn’t fit for me, as I tried to explain.

I think there could be no such thing as intention without awareness. Without awareness, there could be only function. So intention intimately relies on awareness and ego. You’ll note that my usage of the term “ego” is not exactly typical, but there is good reason for it, which I’m sure I’ll get around to explaining again (as I’ve gone into it in depth in a few other threads over the last few years).

From my perspective, no… not quite, however, who am I to say? I can only compare what I think you’re saying to what I think I understand.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

TruthSeeker:

*SighhuffpuffsighhhHHHhhhh.*

CLEARLY, you didn't see my response to this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"I will say it again... the essence of mind lies on the connection between a meaning and a word. You compare them, create an identification system and voila! You can think!"

Create an identification system without being capable of identifying the objects? And being able to compare without identifying them?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

wesmorris:

"I see mind mostly as a geometry problem. “thought” itself for instance, being basically an act of “falling forward” through one’s mind as modulated by circumstance and the state of mind at a given time. It is the geometry of one’s conceptual inter-relationships that provides the framework and direction of mind, and to keep it interesting, the geometry is always changing at least to some degree."

Might you elaborate a bit here? I am unsure if I fully grasp your thoughts on this matter.

"But I’m meandering here, trying to find a good place to meet up with you on the subject. I’m just trying to get my internal ball rolling. Where would you place “formulation of concepts” or “abstraction” on your list?"

If by abstraction, we are continuing with the "internal perspective" of which we were speaking, then it would be present in all the individual aspects of mind united together, as they are, in one mind.

"Calculation eh? Hmm. Do you mean in the sense of “the ability to create and perform algorithms”?"

Yes. 1 + 1 = 2. 3 + 3 = 6. I am also not certain whether it is cogitation or calculation to see cause and effect in the world around us, specifcally when abstracted from events happening at the present time.

"What is cogitation?"

The process of thinking and contemplation, as differentiated from calculation, and as distinct from imagination.

"What exactly is imagination?"

Specifically, the taking of sensory memory and recombining it in speculative and fantastical ways. The creation of chimeric beasts are a great example.

"Emotional perception isn’t quite as much so, but yeah. What about emotional imperception though? What about the “subconscious”?"

You would have to clarify. When people are said to have unrecognized foundations for their emotional responses, ala Freud? I was also more thinking along the line of immediate perception of one's emotional state, I.E. the sensation of anger, of sadness, of happiness, of anxiety, et cetera.

"Memory storage/retrieval eh? Hmm.. embedded in conceptual relationships IMO, but yeah…"

Conceptual relationships themselves would have to have some place to store and retrieve, no?

"Personality? This is seeming like apples, oranges and horses to me. I don’t argue that each isn’t related to mind, but I’m not sure in which way they are related as you see it."

It would seem that a mind's capacity to begin to become acquainted with habits, to develop tastes, to formulate both ways of approaching and expressing concepts, preferences for actions, et cetera, et cetera, demand a personality.

"Preference? What is that exactly? Why is there preference? Why isn’t one thing as good as the other?"

Preference is related to personality as described above. Moreover, peoople likely develop preferences based on two things: 1. Pleasurable response (or conversely, displeasurable response from the alternative). 2. Course of least resistance to their physical or mental capacities.

"Oh and did you mention instinct in your mind thing above? Maybe it fits in somewhere I do not currently see. Regardless, I contend that ego is the resultant of the intersection of idea space, awareness and instinct. I can argue at great length that ego is “the survival instinct” as abstractly instanced in a particular circumstance of mind."

Well it depends on what one means by instinct. I am not so sure that instinct is as unconscious of a process as many suggest, but a phenomena that results from individuals being geared towards certain actions by virtue of their physical or mental makeup, rather than by an unconscious mandate to action.

"Just to be a pain, I’ll object on the basis that identification does not require intention. For instance, if you happen to glance at an object and the pattern matches the pattern in your mind, identification occurs even against your intention. "

The "passive intention" of which I speak, would cover such identification. That is, "the mind intended towards its senses". In fact, I think "intention" ought to be explicitly defined as: The mind focused and open to a thing, whether actively or passively, and whether in physical action or simply in the mental.

"Comparison: One does not have to intend to compare something for comparison to occur, and comparison can occur without identification."

How can you compare two things without identifying said two things? Or identifying two things to begin with? Moreover, see my "passive intention".

"The function of mind I do believe is quite logical, but the contents thereof are of course, not necessarily so at all."

Might you elaborate on this specifically? WHat do you mean precisely?

"Yah I don’t like the term intention in its usage in your trinity as I objected above. It just doesn’t fit for me, as I tried to explain."

I look forward to your replies to the above greatly, then.

"I think there could be no such thing as intention without awareness. Without awareness, there could be only function. So intention intimately relies on awareness and ego. You’ll note that my usage of the term “ego” is not exactly typical, but there is good reason for it, which I’m sure I’ll get around to explaining again (as I’ve gone into it in depth in a few other threads over the last few years)."

What is awareness precisely? And what do you mean by "there could be only function". But yes, if you could also clarify ego, that would be great.

"From my perspective, no… not quite, however, who am I to say? I can only compare what I think you’re saying to what I think I understand. "

We'll be discussing it more, then.

 

Clearly you completely missed the whole idea. Let me explain it veeeeery slowly, so that you can understand....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

First you identify the object by comparing it to the environment around it. When you look at your computer, you are identifying it as a computer because you are looking at it and comparing it with everything else. Without that distinction, you cannot identify "computer". It's a matter of perception. Your brain perceives differences in the environment by making comparisons and then attaches symbols to those ideas to construct a "reality" which can be communicated to the external world.

Capiche?

 

perplexity:

Hamlet, "What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable!"

TruthSeeker:

"First you identify the object by comparing it to the environment around it. When you look at your computer, you are identifying it as a computer because you are looking at it and comparing it with everything else. Without that distinction, you cannot identify "computer". It's a matter of perception. Your brain perceives differences in the environment by making comparisons and then attaches symbols to those ideas to construct a "reality" which can be communicated to the external world."

In any comparison, you must have at least two objects of comparison. Two be able to recognize the individuality of each specific object, one must be able to identify each as such individual objects. If one could not identify the banana from the pear, one could not begin to compare either. Hence, comparison hinges upon such recognition.

That being said, and as I have argued on numerous occasions in this thread - but I doubt -you- have taken the time to read that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- it is necessary that identy, comparison, and identity be united in a trinity of co-dependent existence. If you would look up at big-people talk, you might have some of the intelligent discussion rub off on you.

Comprende?

*Sigh*

I doubt it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Perplexity:

I would rather present it as a despairing on the part of Hamlet, on par with the later "to be or not to be" scene. A desire to to think what he says is true, coupled with an hatred of his circumstances.