Hi I'm new too.

[David Swift]

Very entertaining, you two should be on late night television. By the way, it was Hobson's choice. He being the livery owner in Cambridge who rented horses to the students who were trying to impress their lady friends. You're right that he offered no choice: nag or stallion, you got what he offered or walked away. In philosophical discussion it has become shorthand for no choice.

Anyone interested in the philosophy of mind? Anyone at all?

[thedoc]

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.

As far as Bob Everson, give it some time and you will begin to see the delusions he is entertaining.
IC is OK, I think you have to read more of him to begin to understand his position, basically it's theistic as is mine.
If Ken howds the position of one universal mind, of which each individual is a part, that is a very Buddhist point of view.

For myself, I believe that we have advanced a bit from the ancient Greek beliefs. I believe that most of our cognition is in the brain and the sense organs only provide the raw material for the brain to work with. Of course I can't say for sure that perception is located entirely in the brain, but that seems to be the primary location, as science understands it. Religions give other explanations but I tend to think that science describes what actually happens in the physical world. Religion should not delve into areas that it doesn't have expertise in.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Very entertaining, you two should be on late night television. By the way, it was Hobson's choice. He being the livery owner in Cambridge who rented horses to the students who were trying to impress their lady friends. You're right that he offered no choice: nag or stallion, you got what he offered or walked away. In philosophical discussion it has become shorthand for no choice.

Anyone interested in the philosophy of mind? Anyone at all?

"By the way, it was Hobson's choice"

And what is the "it" of that?
I was very clear when I chose my handle. Having knowledge of Hobson and Hobbes; it's a play on words for those to take the trouble; and flies over the head for those that don't think.
Of course, the phrase first came to may attention due to that great David Lean film of the 1950s, in which Hobson did not offer the choice but was faced by having no choice.
In both ways any choice, for me is determined, and impressed upon me to keep hold of an idea until a better one comes along, where it impresses upon me a new "choice", which is no choice at all. Truth is indelible.

As for Philosophy of mind, or any philosophy for that matter, I'm still optimistic that the Forum will continue to attract people, like yourself, who are interested; but in truth I despair that the magazine's reputation continues to suffer from the rag tag motley crew that inhabit the Forum like the denizens of some sort of thought devoid swamp.

Perhaps you would care to outline you 2008 work.

Given that you use models from two ancient, do you think your work can be of use beyond given us an understanding of how mind was conceived historically since Epicurus and Hippocrates were not party to scientific knowledge of today?

[thedoc]

Anyone interested in the philosophy of mind? Anyone at all?

Yes, but I would say that philosophy should explain what science has discovered, rather that try to come up with alternate explanations that contradict what science has demonstrated.

[thedoc]

Very entertaining, you two should be on late night television. By the way, it was Hobson's choice. He being the livery owner in Cambridge who rented horses to the students who were trying to impress their lady friends. You're right that he offered no choice: nag or stallion, you got what he offered or walked away. In philosophical discussion it has become shorthand for no choice.

Anyone interested in the philosophy of mind? Anyone at all?

"By the way, it was Hobson's choice"

And what is the "it" of that?
I was very clear when I chose my handle. Having knowledge of Hobson and Hobbes; it's a play on words for those to take the trouble; and flies over the head for those that don't think.
Of course, the phrase first came to may attention due to that great David Lean film of the 1950s, in which Hobson did not offer the choice but was faced by having no choice.
In both ways any choice, for me is determined, and impressed upon me to keep hold of an idea until a better one comes along, where it impresses upon me a new "choice", which is no choice at all. Truth is indelible.

As for Philosophy of mind, or any philosophy for that matter, I'm still optimistic that the Forum will continue to attract people, like yourself, who are interested; but in truth I despair that the magazine's reputation continues to suffer from the rag tag motley crew that inhabit the Forum like the denizens of some sort of thought devoid swamp.

Hobson kept a stable, and probably spent some time mucking out stalls.

Hobbes is a cartoon character and was fictional, is that important?

Either personification seems appropriate.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Very entertaining, you two should be on late night television. By the way, it was Hobson's choice. He being the livery owner in Cambridge who rented horses to the students who were trying to impress their lady friends. You're right that he offered no choice: nag or stallion, you got what he offered or walked away. In philosophical discussion it has become shorthand for no choice.

Anyone interested in the philosophy of mind? Anyone at all?

"By the way, it was Hobson's choice"

And what is the "it" of that?
I was very clear when I chose my handle. Having knowledge of Hobson and Hobbes; it's a play on words for those to take the trouble; and flies over the head for those that don't think.
Of course, the phrase first came to may attention due to that great David Lean film of the 1950s, in which Hobson did not offer the choice but was faced by having no choice.
In both ways any choice, for me is determined, and impressed upon me to keep hold of an idea until a better one comes along, where it impresses upon me a new "choice", which is no choice at all. Truth is indelible.

As for Philosophy of mind, or any philosophy for that matter, I'm still optimistic that the Forum will continue to attract people, like yourself, who are interested; but in truth I despair that the magazine's reputation continues to suffer from the rag tag motley crew that inhabit the Forum like the denizens of some sort of thought devoid swamp.

Hobson kept a stable, and probably spent some time mucking out stalls.

Hobbes is a cartoon character and was fictional, is that important?

Either personification seems appropriate.

Have you ever heard of Thomas Hobbes?
Did you know that the cartoon Hobbes' associate was Calvin- also called after a significant philosophical figure John Calvin?

Do you think that is important?
Do you think anything is important?
Or are you just dedicated to making fatuous comments?

[thedoc]

Have you ever heard of Thomas Hobbes?
Did you know that the cartoon Hobbes' associate was Calvin- also called after a significant philosophical figure John Calvin?

Do you think that is important?
Do you think anything is important?
Or are you just dedicated to making fatuous comments?

Yes.

[Dubious]

Anyone interested in the philosophy of mind? Anyone at all?

"Anyone at all?" just about says it all!

[Walker]

Very entertaining, you two should be on late night television. By the way, it was Hobson's choice. He being the livery owner in Cambridge who rented horses to the students who were trying to impress their lady friends. You're right that he offered no choice: nag or stallion, you got what he offered or walked away. In philosophical discussion it has become shorthand for no choice.

Anyone interested in the philosophy of mind? Anyone at all?

Howdy David.

Check it out.

Philosophy of Mind
viewforum.php?f=10

[ForCruxSake]

Very entertaining, you two should be on late night television...

Anyone interested in the philosophy of mind? Anyone at all?

Welcome David,

I'm relatively new here myself and came to learn, more than anything. What I have actually come to learn, here, is that beyond the posturing, and adolescent anger, displayed by some here, there are also others who really know their stuff and still others who sit quietly on the sidelines soaking up the good stuff, involving themselves in the good stuff to which they can connect and finding a way to avoid the squabbles, unless grand claims are made. When they squabble they don't have to posture egotistically, or name call, and can actually keep their calm. They will likely be as interested in philosophy of mind as staying away from those who seem to be out of their minds.

You've had the luck in your introduction to experience a few of the 'worst', or should that be 'the best' , of the craziest and angriest folk here. Now that you know who they are, I suggest you settle yourself into a few good threads and try to avoid the ones that end up with no more value than a debate about who's genitals are biggest, most attractive or comporable to Calvin's and Hobbes'.

I look forward to following your future posts, should you decide to stay.

[David Swift]

“should you decide to stay.” Well, ForCruxSake where else would I go? You are my people. Thanks to all who have taken the time to indoctrinate a newbe. I’ll be taking Walker’s advice and will now post at the philosophy of mind section of this forum. Give me a couple of days to read the threads and then I’ll post. Perhaps I’ll take Hobbes’ Choices advice and outline the argument between the Epicurean and Hippocratic visions of mind. By the way, thedoc, while these ideas have ancient origins they are as current as the Donald’s alternate facts.

[thedoc]

“should you decide to stay.” Well, ForCruxSake where else would I go? You are my people. Thanks to all who have taken the time to indoctrinate a newbe. I’ll be taking Walker’s advice and will now post at the philosophy of mind section of this forum. Give me a couple of days to read the threads and then I’ll post. Perhaps I’ll take Hobbes’ Choices advice and outline the argument between the Epicurean and Hippocratic visions of mind. By the way, thedoc, while these ideas have ancient origins they are as current as the Donald’s alternate facts.

I should amend what I posted by saying that our understanding of the physical process of thinking and perceiving has advanced from what the ancient Greeks believed. But some of the concepts that they developed are still valid. As a side note, I have read that all the plot lines for stories were developed in the Greek plays, and everything that has been produced or written since then is just a variation on an existing theme.

[thedoc]

Something for you to consider when working on how the mind works is the effect of language on how the mind works. Many years ago I read that due to the differences between German and French, it's no wonder that the 2 countries have been at war for hundreds of years. Some years later I met a young person who was writing a paper on the cultural differences as influenced by language, but he was working on American English and Japanese. With these 2 it's not just the difference in what is said but what is meant. For a number of years I owned a hobby shop and would get a great deal of amusement reading directions for model kits that were produced in Japan, and the directions were translated into English by someone who didn't know English.

[David Swift]

thedoc wrote;

I should amend what I posted by saying that our understanding of the physical process of thinking and perceiving has advanced from what the ancient Greeks believed. But some of the concepts that they developed are still valid.

From my perspective, it appears that our current knowledge has accumulated over thousands of years. Each generation builds on the work of the previous. Hence, Newton's famous claim that he "stood on the shoulders of giants." It is my belief that our current inability to make any real progress in psychology results from our stubborn refusal to consider any alternative to the brain conscious concept of Hippocrates. Those who do not understand how past ideas shape current thought are locked into choices made by those who had no access to modern science. You may be interested in my recent post in the philosophy of mind section.
As to the effect of language, I understand that it's impossible to take the blame for your mistakes in Spanish, objects are thought to have broken themselves, and there is no way to state equal status in German, everyone else is either above or below you. I speak neither language, but if true would explain much of history.
The work I'm currently preparing for publication attempts to demonstrate, the claim that language is an inevitable consequence of human physiology and elevates our ability to think above that of other learning capable animals.

[ForCruxSake]

As to the effect of language. I understand that it's impossible to take the blame for your mistakes in Spanish, objects are thought to have broken themselves, and there is no way to state equal status in German, everyone else is either above or below you. I speak neither language, but if true would explain much of history.

This is so good, it's quotable!

My son is studying Spanish at school. No such luck for him, he constantly has to accept blame for the mistakes he makes. These are usually expressed in poor marks!