Hi I'm new too.

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
David Swift
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:47 pm

Hi I'm new too.

Post by David Swift » Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:38 am

Hi, I graduated from Wilfred Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada with a BA (phil major) in 1972. I got interested in mind and researched for about twenty years (I'm kinda slow.) finally publishing (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, UK) The Epicurean Theory of Mind, Meaning and Knowledge in 2008. It examines the differences between the brain centered Hippocratic mind concept and the sense organs centered Epicurean mind concept. Since then I've been preparing a manuscript that examines the psychological implications of the Epicurean concept. Is anyone interested in how minds work? I'd like to hear from you.

bobevenson
Posts: 7208
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by bobevenson » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:57 pm

I'm interested in how minds work regarding hallucinations, visual, auditory and automatic writing.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:42 pm

David Swift wrote:Is anyone interested in how minds work? I'd like to hear from you.
Hi, David.

You'll find a fair number of folks around whose inclination for the question stops at saying, "It's the brain, dummy." Some don't even seem to want to admit there is such a thing as a "mind": maybe it seems to them to be too much like a "soul," or it threatens their Materialist faith, or it smacks of Cartesian Dualism, or it ruins Determinism.

In any case, there seem to be a few rather strident Monists about.

But I'd be interested.

ken
Posts: 1888
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by ken » Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:18 pm

David Swift wrote:Hi, I graduated from Wilfred Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada with a BA (phil major) in 1972. I got interested in mind and researched for about twenty years (I'm kinda slow.) finally publishing (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, UK) The Epicurean Theory of Mind, Meaning and Knowledge in 2008. It examines the differences between the brain centered Hippocratic mind concept and the sense organs centered Epicurean mind concept. Since then I've been preparing a manuscript that examines the psychological implications of the Epicurean concept. Is anyone interested in how minds work? I'd like to hear from you.
I am very interested in what you have to say, but I think you have already got it wrong. There is no plural of Mind.

thedoc
Posts: 6189
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by thedoc » Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:34 pm

Hello, I have looked up your paper and will read it later, but for now I would just say that some have posted that the mind is what the brain does, and I would agree with that.

David Swift
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:47 pm

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by David Swift » Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:39 am

Ok, first let me say thanks for the interest and the posts. I didn’t expect such a lively bunch. I guess almost everyone disagrees with me, so we’re in for some lively discussion. Let me respond to each of you.
Bobevenson: Do you mean to say that you’re interested in visual and auditory hallucinations and automatic writing? This sounds like psychology and that’s fine, a little beyond where I am right now, but I’m interested in any theories you might have.
Immanuel Can: I believe we are on opposite sides of this debate. I’m a scientific materialist. The Epicurean concept sees the mind as a system of organs, much like the digestive system. It includes the brain, nerves, sense organs, and muscles. It functions as a behavior selection or control system. The mind as a function of the soul comes to us through Plotinus, the Roman Platonist, and St. Augustine. Like I said, I’m a materialist, but glad to listen to any argument you might care to make.
P.S. Clever moniker.
ken: Very interesting. Do you mean that there is one universal mind? How would that work? Do we have separate identities?
thedoc: Ok, we seem to be more on the same page. I too believe that the mind is a biological function, but Epicurus said “the eye not the brain is what sees.” I take that to mean that consciousness is centered in the sense organs, not the brain. The conscious brain concept comes to us from Galen and Hippocrates of Cos and seems to me to be the result of faulty logic. Epicurus seems to have understood something I call the stereoscopic illusion. The idea that we see things where they are instead of in our eyes. In reality, only drunks see things as they really are: two, two dimensional images of the same thing from slightly different perspectives. They see double; the rest of us compensate for double vision using the stereoscopic illusion to accurately touch and grasp things within our reach. I believe the illusion is the result of the brain’s editing system and points to the part our brains play in the operations of our minds.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:48 am

bobevenson wrote:I'm interested in how minds work regarding hallucinations, visual, auditory and automatic writing.
Doesn't seem to do you any good since your AEP is still stuck in your mind. :lol:

PhilX

bobevenson
Posts: 7208
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by bobevenson » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:09 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
bobevenson wrote:I'm interested in how minds work regarding hallucinations, visual, auditory and automatic writing.
Doesn't seem to do you any good since your AEP is still stuck in your mind. :lol:

PhilX
Well, let's see, I've had the mystical perfection of seven divinely inspired visions, four visual, two auditory and one automatic writing, and they've all been related to Ouzo, not the AEP, which, of course, is also divinely inspired.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:33 pm

bobevenson wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
bobevenson wrote:I'm interested in how minds work regarding hallucinations, visual, auditory and automatic writing.
Doesn't seem to do you any good since your AEP is still stuck in your mind. :lol:

PhilX
Well, let's see, I've had the mystical perfection of seven divinely inspired visions, four visual, two auditory and one automatic writing, and they've all been related to Ouzo, not the AEP, which, of course, is also divinely inspired.
As I've said, self-referentials carry no weight with me. To put it another way, you're full of hot air.

PhilX

bobevenson
Posts: 7208
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by bobevenson » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:10 pm

Please, I have two mystical credentials that support my claims.
Last edited by bobevenson on Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:15 pm

bobevenson wrote:Please, I have mystical credentials to support my claims.
Self-referentials don't carry weight around here and you still are full of hot air. You can repeat yourself forever which still doesn't change the fact you are a charlatan.

PhilX

bobevenson
Posts: 7208
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by bobevenson » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:19 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
bobevenson wrote:Please, I have mystical credentials to support my claims.
Self-referentials don't carry weight around here and you still are full of hot air. You can repeat yourself forever which still doesn't change the fact you are a charlatan.

PhilX
Please, the letters from the Spiritual Counterfeits Project and the Cincinnati Public Library are mystical third-party endorsements.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:23 pm

bobevenson wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
bobevenson wrote:Please, I have mystical credentials to support my claims.
Self-referentials don't carry weight around here and you still are full of hot air. You can repeat yourself forever which still doesn't change the fact you are a charlatan.

PhilX
Please, the letters from the Spiritual Counterfeits Project and the Cincinnati Public Library are mystical third-party endorsements.
Misinterpretation on your part which is still self-referential. Also you claim to be a prophet, yet are unable to enrich yourself by playing the lottery or stock market.

PhilX

bobevenson
Posts: 7208
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by bobevenson » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:27 pm

Please, the letter from the SCP can only be interpreted as divine intervention, and the letter from the Cincinnati Public Library gives me credit for establishing the mystical origin of Cincinnati's Queen City name, something the rest of the world couldn't do in 170 years.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:36 pm

bobevenson wrote:Please, the letter from the SCP can only be interpreted as divine intervention, and the letter from the Cincinnati Public Library gives me credit for establishing the mystical origin of Cincinnati's Queen City name, something the rest of the world couldn't do in 170 years.
You've already been discredited on this, most notably by Lacewing. What you've just said doesn't change a thing.

PhilX

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests