Mind cannot be created

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

A Human
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:01 am

Re: Mind cannot be created

Post by A Human »

Greta wrote:
A Human wrote:
Greta wrote: You've provided your opinion, one with which I disagree. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Yes, exactly, provide information about any scientific experiment where we can take any particular person and prove that person has a mind.

There aren't any.
We appear destined to play a game of words that becomes increasingly abstracted and disconnected from the basic reality of being. If you feel that is a fruitful approach:

Mind. noun
1. (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind.
2. Psychology. the totality of conscious and unconscious mental processes and activities.
3. intellect or understanding, as distinguished from the faculties of feeling and willing; intelligence.
4. a particular instance of the intellect or intelligence, as in a person.
5. a person considered with reference to intellectual power: the greatest minds of the twentieth century.
6. intellectual power or ability.
7. reason, sanity, or sound mental condition: to lose one's mind.

Which of these do you accept or deny?

What is the broader point you wish to make by denying the existence of minds? People I've run into before who make such claims have either been trying to advocate for a stronger focus on the significance of the present moment or treating "mind" as an analog for "spirit" and using the denial as another plank in the well worn materialist v spiritualist debates.
I asked for you to provide information about any science experiments regarding mind, you could not find any, which I already knew, there aren't any.

Instead, you paste text from a dictionary since you have no proof, only words, not reality, to back your beliefs up.

Demonstrate repeatable experiments that prove your claims that anyone here can reproduce.

Or, paste more text instead.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Mind cannot be created

Post by Greta »

A Human wrote:
Greta wrote:
A Human wrote:
Yes, exactly, provide information about any scientific experiment where we can take any particular person and prove that person has a mind.

There aren't any.
We appear destined to play a game of words that becomes increasingly abstracted and disconnected from the basic reality of being. If you feel that is a fruitful approach:

Mind. noun
1. (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind.
2. Psychology. the totality of conscious and unconscious mental processes and activities.
3. intellect or understanding, as distinguished from the faculties of feeling and willing; intelligence.
4. a particular instance of the intellect or intelligence, as in a person.
5. a person considered with reference to intellectual power: the greatest minds of the twentieth century.
6. intellectual power or ability.
7. reason, sanity, or sound mental condition: to lose one's mind.

Which of these do you accept or deny?

What is the broader point you wish to make by denying the existence of minds? People I've run into before who make such claims have either been trying to advocate for a stronger focus on the significance of the present moment or treating "mind" as an analog for "spirit" and using the denial as another plank in the well worn materialist v spiritualist debates.
I asked for you to provide information about any science experiments regarding mind, you could not find any, which I already knew, there aren't any.

Instead, you paste text from a dictionary since you have no proof, only words, not reality, to back your beliefs up.

Demonstrate repeatable experiments that prove your claims that anyone here can reproduce.

Or, paste more text instead.
The entire field of psychology is the study of the mind so there are too many experiments to name. I didn't say it earlier due to the obviousness. I figured that you would argue that psychology is the study of the phenomena we refer to as "minds" but you would use different words.

So what is the basis of your claim? It is well accepted in society that psychology is the study of minds, so it is your claim that minds don't exist that needs to be justified, that carries the greater burden of proof (at least in developed societies, but no doubt various yogi in Himalayan caves would agree with you).

Varying the meaning of the word "mind" to define it as something other than the subject matter of psychology will convince no one to shift to your view (outside of a Himalayan cave). If you are suggesting that, since a mind has not been found during brain surgery, then it doesn't exist, you are treading on weak ground, and disregarding systematics and information science as studies of real things.
A Human
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:01 am

Re: Mind cannot be created

Post by A Human »

Greta wrote:It is well accepted in society that psychology is the study of minds, so it is your claim that minds don't exist that needs to be justified, that carries the greater burden of proof (at least in developed societies, but no doubt various yogi in Himalayan caves would agree with you).
Not a single person has been able to prove that a mind exists, not even you when you were asked.

Think about that, you fully believe and argue for something not a single person has found a way to prove it exists.

Prove minds exist instead of just saying that your society presupposes it to be fact.

Facts, show them instead of just saying 'my particular society i grew up in says it's true'.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Mind cannot be created

Post by Greta »

A Human wrote:
Greta wrote:It is well accepted in society that psychology is the study of minds, so it is your claim that minds don't exist that needs to be justified, that carries the greater burden of proof (at least in developed societies, but no doubt various yogi in Himalayan caves would agree with you).
Not a single person has been able to prove that a mind exists, not even you when you were asked.

Think about that, you fully believe and argue for something not a single person has found a way to prove it exists.

Prove minds exist instead of just saying that your society presupposes it to be fact.

Facts, show them instead of just saying 'my particular society i grew up in says it's true'.
Ah, now I get it. Rather than just conversing about the topic, you are providing a practical demonstration of the absence of mind in yourself. So, no matter what the response is to your "challenge", you will keep repeating the same claim. I didn't pick up the symbolism at first. Well done!

What is the basis of this claim? That the mind isn't a body part like the cortex?
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Mind cannot be created

Post by Ginkgo »

Greta wrote: Ah, now I get it. Rather than just conversing about the topic, you are providing a practical demonstration of the absence of mind in yourself. So, no matter what the response is to your "challenge", you will keep repeating the same claim. I didn't pick up the symbolism at first. Well done!

What is the basis of this claim? That the mind isn't a body part like the cortex?
The term "mind" expresses a relationship that exists between the physical brain and the properties the brain exhibits. You don't necessarily need the word "mind", but we need a word to express this relationship. The term "mind' is as good as any.
sthitapragya
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:55 pm

Re: Mind cannot be created

Post by sthitapragya »

Ginkgo wrote:
Greta wrote: Ah, now I get it. Rather than just conversing about the topic, you are providing a practical demonstration of the absence of mind in yourself. So, no matter what the response is to your "challenge", you will keep repeating the same claim. I didn't pick up the symbolism at first. Well done!

What is the basis of this claim? That the mind isn't a body part like the cortex?
The term "mind" expresses a relationship that exists between the physical brain and the properties the brain exhibits. You don't necessarily need the word "mind", but we need a word to express this relationship. The term "mind' is as good as any.
Nicely put. I think you explained it perfectly. Mind is a relationship not a thing or a separate entity.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Mind cannot be created

Post by Greta »

sthitapragya wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:The term "mind" expresses a relationship that exists between the physical brain and the properties the brain exhibits. You don't necessarily need the word "mind", but we need a word to express this relationship. The term "mind' is as good as any.
Nicely put. I think you explained it perfectly. Mind is a relationship not a thing or a separate entity.
So your mind is a relationship, lacking all the fixed qualities of "things"? No persistent preferences, tastes, values, abilities, shortfalls or patterns of behaviour? Nothing solid at all - just formless, flowing variation?

A perspective test: Do you think a storm is a process, a thing or both?
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Mind cannot be created

Post by Ginkgo »

Greta wrote:
sthitapragya wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:The term "mind" expresses a relationship that exists between the physical brain and the properties the brain exhibits. You don't necessarily need the word "mind", but we need a word to express this relationship. The term "mind' is as good as any.
Nicely put. I think you explained it perfectly. Mind is a relationship not a thing or a separate entity.
So your mind is a relationship, lacking all the fixed qualities of "things"? No persistent preferences, tastes, values, abilities, shortfalls or patterns of behaviour? Nothing solid at all - just formless, flowing variation?

A perspective test: Do you think a storm is a process, a thing or both?
It all depends if you are a dualist or a monist. If one was a property dualist then he/she would say that mind emerges from the brain process. Mind is not a distinct substance. We could explain a storm as an emergent process. From water droplets, clouds and heat we get something (a storm) that is more than the sum of its parts. On the other hand, you could argue that a storm is the latter as well.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Mind cannot be created

Post by Walker »

Greta wrote:
sthitapragya wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:The term "mind" expresses a relationship that exists between the physical brain and the properties the brain exhibits. You don't necessarily need the word "mind", but we need a word to express this relationship. The term "mind' is as good as any.
Nicely put. I think you explained it perfectly. Mind is a relationship not a thing or a separate entity.
So your mind is a relationship, lacking all the fixed qualities of "things"? No persistent preferences, tastes, values, abilities, shortfalls or patterns of behaviour? Nothing solid at all - just formless, flowing variation?

A perspective test: Do you think a storm is a process, a thing or both?
A storm is a thing. All things are compounds. In this way, a process is a chain-reaction thing, and also a component of other things. As a communication short-hand, storm can be referenced as a single entity, just as a complex, compounded person is referenced. Hurricanes are the largest and most destructive storms and traditionally were assigned a woman’s name. Male monikers for these violent and destructive forces of change appeared when sex turned relative.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Mind cannot be created

Post by Belinda »

One of the more useful ideas about mind is that mind and brain are the same i.e. mind and brain are identical but viewed from two aspects, the subjective and the objective aspects of the same.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Mind cannot be created

Post by Greta »

Ginkgo wrote:
Greta wrote:
sthitapragya wrote: Nicely put. I think you explained it perfectly. Mind is a relationship not a thing or a separate entity.
So your mind is a relationship, lacking all the fixed qualities of "things"? No persistent preferences, tastes, values, abilities, shortfalls or patterns of behaviour? Nothing solid at all - just formless, flowing variation?

A perspective test: Do you think a storm is a process, a thing or both?
It all depends if you are a dualist or a monist. If one was a property dualist then he/she would say that mind emerges from the brain process. Mind is not a distinct substance. We could explain a storm as an emergent process. From water droplets, clouds and heat we get something (a storm) that is more than the sum of its parts. On the other hand, you could argue that a storm is the latter as well.
As a science fan I don't think in terms of monism and dualism because I naturally assume that reality is all one thing that can be mentally divided whatever which way. Myths are interesting in terms of the human phenomena that creates them, but all they tell us about reality is how it appears when you don't don't know anything about nature. It's an odd thing that humans once knew incredible amounts about nature, then fell completely out of touch with it, operating in clueless ways. Now we are catching up, now with far more knowledge than before but still working on gaining an understanding as deep as indigenes immersed in the wild.

Depending on perspective, a storm can be thought of as either a thing and a process. Ditto life, planets, the universe itself. Each entity is made from matter, but it constantly changes. Both a dynamic thing and a persistent process.

There appears to be some hesitancy amongst many to embrace paradoxes, to consider different perspectives to each be correct in their own ways (taking into account that everything that's ever been known by humans has been wrong to varying degrees). Philosophy seems to operate like science in that we attempt to prove ideas to be right or wrong. Perhaps a more realistic approach would be to recognise that each entity has a valid perspective - their own - and the question then comes down to how broadly that perspective can be applied amongst other entities.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Mind cannot be created

Post by Greta »

Belinda wrote:One of the more useful ideas about mind is that mind and brain are the same i.e. mind and brain are identical but viewed from two aspects, the subjective and the objective aspects of the same.
It's true we don't have a mind if we don't have a functioning brain, but we don't have a mind without all the other body parts either. Increasingly the gut is being found to be influential, and often a pivotal influence, in all areas of our being. No doubt other organs also have varying influences on our personality and tastes.

Even a whole body approach to mind is limited because minds can't persist without external stimuli; they atrophy like a digestive system denied food. So the shifting environment available to our senses needs to also be included as constituents of minds. That makes a mind a shifting field of highly variable, relatively patterned and systematised perceptions moving through time and space, with the nucleus of that field perhaps being the brain or the gut (since in evolution metabolisms preceded brains). That field naturally includes the range of all senses as well as perception of other "mind fields" (often they can feel more like mine fields :).

The active component of the mind is in the filtering of what's "out there". It comprises range, direction, intensity and exclusivity of focus.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Mind cannot be created

Post by Lacewing »

Greta wrote:That makes a mind a shifting field of highly variable, relatively patterned and systematised perceptions moving through time and space...
Love that description!

I can imagine everything about us being like this -- "shifting fields of highly variable, relatively patterned and systematized" ENERGIES "moving through time and space", such that, on some level, we are no more solid and permanent than flickering images. Which could suggest that it's really quite magical that it can all seem so solid and real with continuity for us to play with.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Mind cannot be created

Post by Noax »

Greta wrote:So your mind is a relationship, lacking all the fixed qualities of "things"? No persistent preferences, tastes, values, abilities, shortfalls or patterns of behaviour? Nothing solid at all - just formless, flowing variation?

A perspective test: Do you think a storm is a process, a thing or both?
I like the storm analogy. Posters have taken both sides to your perspective test, and there seems to be no wrong answer. As you say: Embrace the paradox of it being both things depending on perspective.

If pressed, I would qualify it more as a process, not the matter itself that comprises the process, which changes all the time anyway. That same matter with different process is not a storm. I can point to a process, so a process is a thing as far as I'm concerned. Storm-as-processes have persistent abilities, properties, etc. just like mind. The one on Jupiter has been there quite a while, but it is not clear if it is actually stable.

Storms are capable of splitting and merging, and identity questions might arise: Was it the same storm that hit both our towns? The answer might not always be clear. Named storms tend to be large enough to effectively retain identity throughout their namings.
A Human
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:01 am

Re: Mind cannot be created

Post by A Human »

Greta wrote:Ah, now I get it. Rather than just conversing about the topic, you are providing a practical demonstration of the absence of mind in yourself.
When a person is cornered in thought and so switches to straight out personal attack of another forum member, I tend to not participate.

I am here for an exchange of ideas Greta, not to participate in your wars with people who post here.
Post Reply