Philosophy of Mind

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

HexHammer
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by HexHammer » Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:00 pm

pljamesone@att.net wrote:The mind is metaphysical within our brain. Is our brain conscious of itself and the mind plus our body? All I know is our mind-brain and body work together, when it is necessary. But then we lose our mental faculties, because our brain-mind and body disagree on the cause of the problem. It would seem we live better, when we as a whole person of mind body and brain are in some sort of a order contrary to disorder. Thoughts? Paul
This is pure nonsense and babble! It's only "recently" that science understood what the brain's function was, else in earlier times it has been thought that thinking was in the heart.

How does the brain-mind and body disagree? Seems you make up your own reality here.

User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by mtmynd1 » Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:20 pm

HexHammer wrote:This is pure nonsense and babble! This line is a totally unnecessary comment that has no purpose in a discussion. Had you left this out and just said -
It's only "recently" that science understood what the brain's function was, else in earlier times it has been thought that thinking was in the heart.
How does the brain-mind and body disagree? Seems you make up your own reality here.


You would've been taken more seriously.... if that is what you are aiming for.

HexHammer
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by HexHammer » Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:56 am

mtmynd1 wrote:
HexHammer wrote:This is pure nonsense and babble! This line is a totally unnecessary comment that has no purpose in a discussion. Had you left this out and just said -
It's only "recently" that science understood what the brain's function was, else in earlier times it has been thought that thinking was in the heart.
How does the brain-mind and body disagree? Seems you make up your own reality here.


You would've been taken more seriously.... if that is what you are aiming for.
No it gets the users attention better, I've seen too many times where cozy chatters will ignore pure factual scientific answers and continue their search for beautiful rhetorical answers that has NOTHING to do with philosophy.

People searching for the answer about "what is time" will always ignore the simple wiki quote I post, because it isn't beautiful rhetoric they are searching for. They're simply too stupid to comprehend it.

I'm a generous man, I haven't put a blatant retard like yourself on ignore and waste good amount of time spelling very simple things out for you.

User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by mtmynd1 » Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:25 am

HexHammer wrote:I'm a generous man, I haven't put a blatant retard like yourself on ignore and waste good amount of time spelling very simple things out for you.
You're certainly enjoying your continued use of negatives tossed about at people who you have absolutely no knowledge of. That is a sign of your extraordinary lack of self-respect. It is of no concern to me that a person from Denmark can pass judgement that is flawed upon a complete and total stranger to you other than find a degree of pity in you. But you'll be happy to know I won't lose any sleep over you.

That being said, I see no reason whatsoever for me to continue these dead-end conversations with a stranger who has no respect for others and even himself.

HexHammer
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by HexHammer » Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:47 am

mtmynd1 wrote:pass judgement that is flawed upon a complete and total stranger to you
You fail at your own game, you are not a complete stranger, on the contrary one has to be unusual dense in order not to make an impression of your lacking abilities, after all your constant nonsense and babble posts.

I find your whining amusing, so sweet..

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1564
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:02 pm

HexHammer wrote:
mtmynd1 wrote:pass judgement that is flawed upon a complete and total stranger to you
You fail at your own game, you are not a complete stranger, on the contrary one has to be unusual dense in order not to make an impression of your lacking abilities, after all your constant nonsense and babble posts.

I find your whining amusing, so sweet..
I wouldn't say it's babble, consciousness extends to the body through the brain's nervous system. While it seems silly that actual thoughts could happen in the body, according to actual out of body experiences, consciousness neeed not be centered in the brain. So, in theory, if one could have their brain shut-off, one might still experience a kind of thoughtless consciousness inside their body.

Mic84
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by Mic84 » Sat Feb 28, 2015 7:59 am

puto wrote:Direct awareness is not required for memory, or learning, in consciousness.
Can you explain more about this? I would love to hear about it.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1564
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:19 pm

Mic84 wrote:
puto wrote:Direct awareness is not required for memory, or learning, in consciousness.
Can you explain more about this? I would love to hear about it.
Think what they mean is you learn things in your subconscious, skills and information, but you aren't aware of it. Kinda like skills and memories that only surface when the time arises.

bergie15
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:18 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by bergie15 » Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:29 pm

What kinds of skills would surface to you at a particular moment? Could you provide an example?

User avatar
Sappho
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:40 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by Sappho » Fri Jul 10, 2015 12:16 am

RickLewis wrote:This section of the forum is for the discussion of anything to do with philosophy of mind.
I am currently trying to develop my opinion on the nature of consciousness and I feel as though this is the place I should be posting. If it's not, I apologize in advance.

As of now, a form of monism seems the most appealing to me. One in which there are both extrinsic and intrinsic properties of the same substance. The extrinsic properties would be all things physical (including the brain), and the intrinsic properties would be qualitative experiences. Possibly there are other kinds of intrinsic properties, but there are none that we can talk about in any meaningful way, save for our qualitative experiences, so we will disregard any others.

Having the mind and the brain as two different properties of the same substance appears to get around the mind-body problem while still maintaining that qualia cannot be represented by mere scientific explanation.

I have two questions. First, has anyone ever heard of a theory that is analogous to this one? Second, can anyone find a major flaw in this theory? (I'm guessing the latter of these two will be much easier for everyone.) Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Wyman
Posts: 941
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by Wyman » Fri Jul 10, 2015 12:43 am

Sappho wrote:
RickLewis wrote:This section of the forum is for the discussion of anything to do with philosophy of mind.
I am currently trying to develop my opinion on the nature of consciousness and I feel as though this is the place I should be posting. If it's not, I apologize in advance.

As of now, a form of monism seems the most appealing to me. One in which there are both extrinsic and intrinsic properties of the same substance. The extrinsic properties would be all things physical (including the brain), and the intrinsic properties would be qualitative experiences. Possibly there are other kinds of intrinsic properties, but there are none that we can talk about in any meaningful way, save for our qualitative experiences, so we will disregard any others.

Having the mind and the brain as two different properties of the same substance appears to get around the mind-body problem while still maintaining that qualia cannot be represented by mere scientific explanation.

I have two questions. First, has anyone ever heard of a theory that is analogous to this one? Second, can anyone find a major flaw in this theory? (I'm guessing the latter of these two will be much easier for everyone.) Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Sounds like a trinity, not monism. What's the justification - being appealing to you is not enough. Flaw - what does it explain, predict, simplify, etc.?

User avatar
Sappho
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:40 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by Sappho » Fri Jul 10, 2015 1:08 am

Wyman wrote:Sounds like a trinity, not monism.
I don't see this as a trinity. I am claiming that there is only one substance but that this substance can express itself in a physical and non-physical way. The best I can do, as of now, to describe this would be to talk about another kind of monism. Say, for instance, a physicalist. They believe that there is only one kind of substance--physical substance--and that this substance has a plethora of physical properties. And just because this substance is expressed through many different properties doesn't mean it is no longer monism...If that makes sense.

Wyman wrote: What's the justification - being appealing to you is not enough. Flaw - what does it explain, predict, simplify, etc.?
This theory, I believe, has the ability to solve the mind-body problem and the problem of qualia.

It solves the mind-body problem insofar as there is no longer a need to explain how something physical (the brain, the body) and non-physical (the mind) interact with one another. This is because they are one and the same substance. They are merely being expressed in two different ways.

It solves the problem of qualia because we can understand why a scientific explanation is explanatorily impotent with respect to our qualitative experiences [Now this is something I am still trying to develop, so bear with me]. Since our language has developed to discuss the extrinsic properties of the "Substance", it cannot express to you what it feels like for someone like me to see the color red.

User avatar
Rilx
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:54 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by Rilx » Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:01 pm

Hi Sappho,

In my opinion, your theory looks like Property dualism. If it's not, could you explain the difference?
Sappho wrote:This theory, I believe, has the ability to solve the mind-body problem and the problem of qualia.

It solves the mind-body problem insofar as there is no longer a need to explain how something physical (the brain, the body) and non-physical (the mind) interact with one another. This is because they are one and the same substance. They are merely being expressed in two different ways.

It solves the problem of qualia because we can understand why a scientific explanation is explanatorily impotent with respect to our qualitative experiences [Now this is something I am still trying to develop, so bear with me]. Since our language has developed to discuss the extrinsic properties of the "Substance", it cannot express to you what it feels like for someone like me to see the color red.
Solving the mind-body problem means that you can explain their relationship. The concept "monism" in itself doesn't explain it.

PS. I'm trying to understand your ideas, not tear them apart.

Wyman
Posts: 941
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by Wyman » Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:05 pm

Sappho wrote:
Wyman wrote:Sounds like a trinity, not monism.
I don't see this as a trinity. I am claiming that there is only one substance but that this substance can express itself in a physical and non-physical way. The best I can do, as of now, to describe this would be to talk about another kind of monism. Say, for instance, a physicalist. They believe that there is only one kind of substance--physical substance--and that this substance has a plethora of physical properties. And just because this substance is expressed through many different properties doesn't mean it is no longer monism...If that makes sense.

Wyman wrote: What's the justification - being appealing to you is not enough. Flaw - what does it explain, predict, simplify, etc.?
This theory, I believe, has the ability to solve the mind-body problem and the problem of qualia.

It solves the mind-body problem insofar as there is no longer a need to explain how something physical (the brain, the body) and non-physical (the mind) interact with one another. This is because they are one and the same substance. They are merely being expressed in two different ways.

It solves the problem of qualia because we can understand why a scientific explanation is explanatorily impotent with respect to our qualitative experiences [Now this is something I am still trying to develop, so bear with me]. Since our language has developed to discuss the extrinsic properties of the "Substance", it cannot express to you what it feels like for someone like me to see the color red.
But you're bringing in all kinds of vague and questionable concepts like 'interact' and 'expressed' - relations between types of 'substances.' I am familiar with the philosophical canon, so I know basically what you are getting at, but as it is, the vagueness of these concepts renders the overall viewpoint almost meaningless. Ambiguous philosophical terms of art such as 'qualia' and ' substance' are often vague for a reason - the authors want a way to squirm out of contradictions and absurdities in their theories. I am not accusing you of this; but if a word has the possibility of carrying thirty different meanings, all with subtle variations, then not only can its use be manipulated, but it can also easily lead you down many blind alleys.

bergie15
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:18 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by bergie15 » Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:55 pm

This does sound a lot like dualism, as someone else said. So you think that the brain and the mind are the same thing?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests