Mind has no location

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

dxoutkast
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:31 am

Re: Mind has no location

Post by dxoutkast »

Dimebag wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:26 pm How does a direct realist explain things like change blindness, colour blindness, visual illusions such as muller lyer illusions, or many others?

If what we see is the way the world is, with no intervention from the brain, how do these things occur.

And also how do you explain dreams? Seemingly no world is present to create the dream world. Most theories think dreams are bits and pieces of memories assembled in the brain and presented in the perceptual system.

When you hear me say a word, but mis-hear it, why does that happen if what you are hearing just is the sounds out there?

These are serious questions, please don't deflect with ad hominem as you have been doing.

As a direct realist, do you still believe that the sense organs produce the sensations? Or do you think that they are simply apertures which carry the sensations from out there inside your head to where you are, so you, the homunculus, with its own eyes and ears, can hear and see things?

How does direct realism explain internally generated experiences, such as thoughts, or another good example is, hearing music in your head? When you have a song in your head, it can (if you know it well enough) sound exactly like the one you heard on say the radio for example. If your experience is that of direct contact with reality, with no mediating constructive representational layers in the mind and through perception, how can direct realism explain this, and why it is seemingly overlaid directly over the “external direct” conscious experiences of sounds, and blended seamlessly with them?

Another tough one to explain is the way in which the our experiences are seemingly filtered out based on importance, sensory habituation would be an example, a concrete example might be, imagine you spray yourself with a potent body spray, initially you can smell it strongly, but over the course of maybe minutes up to a few hours, your ability to detect that scent is greatly diminished, yet, other people will be able to detect it just as you did initially. So the sensation has seemingly decreased, yet it actually hasn’t. What actually happens, is the neurons detecting those olfactory signals become habituated to them and as they don’t receive any feedback about the smell being important, their strength it takes to detect those signals increases.

Give me an idea of what you mean when you say you believe in direct realism.


http://www.owl232.net/papers/dis.htm
Just read it all. It debunks all the nonsense you believe.

Direct realism is a recognizable fact. That's why we born knowing that when we are childs. Our nature never lies. What lies is human ego with their BS when they get older.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Mind has no location

Post by Dontaskme »

Dimebag wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:59 pm
I think you are wildly misreading what I am saying.

I have in no way said that the mind, or consciousness, or awareness, can or ever does leave the construct from which it arises, the brain. I never said it can become detached from the brain.

What I have been saying, needs to be understood from a certain perspective. If you currently identify your self with your brain, or your body, then this perspective is likely to and probably has completely gone over your head.

That’s the way identity works. It actually changes your perception of reality.

If you are identified with the body, as in, you, your very essence, is the body, then your understanding of what you fundamentally are, will be, the body.

But, if you inspect your own experience a little more, you might notice that your sense of having a body also appears within awareness.
Dimebag you are correct in saying others will misread your words. People can only HEAR what they want to hear. They can only KNOW what HAS been their own personal direct experience. We can only understand our own personal direct experience of being, that is unique to us.
While others will not understand someone elses direct experience of being. . I for example understand exactly what you are saying and agree with you. Honestly, it matters not if people try to tell you that you are wrong, for only you can know what you know, what is your own unique direct experience, aka your truth. Why should your truth be wrong and someone elses truth be right. It never makes sense because if someone elses truth is right then where did they get that truth from...??? they would have got it from exactly the same place as you got yours from...so we can all just see how silly arguing and debunking and refuting someone elses truth is? :wink:

Pain and sensation are experiences. Awareness is the experiencing.

You really can just waste so much time arguing with others over what is directly real for you. I don't bother to go there anymore, it's just not worth the effort.



Dimebag wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:59 pmWhat I am saying relates to the sense of identity.

Yes and that's the main problem with arguing a topic like the mind, it's very hard for the mind to close the gap between identity and non-identity.

The apparent gap between the views that ''I am this person'' and ''there is no person'' cannot be bridged by thought. The insight that there is ''no one there'' is prior to thought and thought, however logic and refined can never reach 'prior to thought' and this is what the debunkers fail to see.

Looking with the mind within the mind will turn up more mind/thought. The mind is the ''dual dividing knife'' clarity is the ''non-dual glue'' aka (the closing of the apparent gap ) ....it's much simpler then the mind can imagine. Not something known, but the unknowable knowing in which every some-thing arises and dissolves.

Anyways, keep on with the excellent posts. The truth hurts. In fact, it's not very nice 99.9999 % of people wouldn't touch it with a barge pole, so the opposition will always be strong, hold fast Dimebag.

.

Just remember, 99% of people never get what is being pointed to, aka the non-dual nature of reality. They will often fight to the death to defend their own truth, a truth that does not and never will exist.

It's the cosmic joke, and they will hate it, because all truth claims are fictions, believed to be real.

Yes, nothing is real, the dream is real as it is conceptually KNOWN ..a real can never be unreal :D

Duality can never be non-duality because there is no such thing as Nonduality. It's not a thing.

This baffles the mind, but it's the non-truth :wink:

People are more than welcome to have a problem with my nondual knowledge, I couldn't give a shite... but if they have a problem with me personally, then that's just sick, and that problem will never end well for them.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Mind has no location

Post by Dimebag »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:47 am
Dimebag wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:59 pm
I think you are wildly misreading what I am saying.

I have in no way said that the mind, or consciousness, or awareness, can or ever does leave the construct from which it arises, the brain. I never said it can become detached from the brain.

What I have been saying, needs to be understood from a certain perspective. If you currently identify your self with your brain, or your body, then this perspective is likely to and probably has completely gone over your head.

That’s the way identity works. It actually changes your perception of reality.

If you are identified with the body, as in, you, your very essence, is the body, then your understanding of what you fundamentally are, will be, the body.

But, if you inspect your own experience a little more, you might notice that your sense of having a body also appears within awareness.
Dimebag you are correct in saying others will misread your words. People can only HEAR what they want to hear. They can only KNOW what HAS been their own personal direct experience. We can only understand our own personal direct experience of being, that is unique to us.
While others will not understand someone elses direct experience of being. . I for example understand exactly what you are saying and agree with you. Honestly, it matters not if people try to tell you that you are wrong, for only you can know what you know, what is your own unique direct experience, aka your truth. Why should your truth be wrong and someone elses truth be right. It never makes sense because if someone elses truth is right then where did they get that truth from...??? they would have got it from exactly the same place as you got yours from...so we can all just see how silly arguing and debunking and refuting someone elses truth is? :wink:

Pain and sensation are experiences. Awareness is the experiencing.

You really can just waste so much time arguing with others over what is directly real for you. I don't bother to go there anymore, it's just not worth the effort.



Dimebag wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:59 pmWhat I am saying relates to the sense of identity.

Yes and that's the main problem with arguing a topic like the mind, it's very hard for the mind to close the gap between identity and non-identity.

The apparent gap between the views that ''I am this person'' and ''there is no person'' cannot be bridged by thought. The insight that there is ''no one there'' is prior to thought and thought, however logic and refined can never reach 'prior to thought' and this is what the debunkers fail to see.

Looking with the mind within the mind will turn up more mind/thought. The mind is the ''dual dividing knife'' clarity is the ''non-dual glue'' aka (the closing of the apparent gap ) ....it's much simpler then the mind can imagine. Not something known, but the unknowable knowing in which every some-thing arises and dissolves.

Anyways, keep on with the excellent posts. The truth hurts. In fact, it's not very nice 99.9999 % of people wouldn't touch it with a barge pole, so the opposition will always be strong, hold fast Dimebag.

.

Just remember, 99% of people never get what is being pointed to, aka the non-dual nature of reality. They will often fight to the death to defend their own truth, a truth that does not and never will exist.

It's the cosmic joke, and they will hate it, because all truth claims are fictions, believed to be real.

Yes, nothing is real, the dream is real as it is conceptually KNOWN ..a real can never be unreal :D

Duality can never be non-duality because there is no such thing as Nonduality. It's not a thing.

This baffles the mind, but it's the non-truth :wink:

People are more than welcome to have a problem with my nondual knowledge, I couldn't give a shite... but if they have a problem with me personally, then that's just sick, and that problem will never end well for them.
Thanks DAM, I was indeed getting lost in this illusion, it’s nice to have an external observer who can pull you out of yourself again, thank you.

I agree with you, the perspective difference might be too much to expect people to just get it, and of course you also have ego defences.

Better not to say anything. Unfortunately I took the bait this time, I had a good go at it, but now it’s time to swim away and live to fight another day.
Justintruth
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: Mind has no location

Post by Justintruth »

The mind can be located with some uncertainty by measuring the location of the brain that causes it relative to some frame of reference.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Mind has no location

Post by Dimebag »

Justintruth wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:47 pm The mind can be located with some uncertainty by measuring the location of the brain that causes it relative to some frame of reference.
It’s like asking what’s the location of the operating system on your computer. It’s simultaneously in you hard drive, RAM, motherboard, CPU, and monitor.
Justintruth
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: Mind has no location

Post by Justintruth »

Dimebag wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:59 pm ...simultaneously in you hard drive, RAM, motherboard, CPU, and monitor...
Your operating system, at least the bootstrap part, is located in some kind of non-volatile memory such as a prom, or your hard drive. Usually it is not in RAM because when you power down Ram is cleared. The prom can be on your motherboard but your motherboard contains other chips like your CPU. Instructions from the program stored in prom, or your hard drive, are sequentially loaded into your CPU and can temporarily be stored in a cache. They often loaded into RAM or virtual memory. So the operating system is not stored in your CPU unless you refer to the fact that some instruction is loaded there. As for your monitor...hmmm...I don't think your operating system is ever located on your monitor.

In fact your operating system is a form of information which can be stored in physical states.

As for mind, however, your analogy breaks down for the following reason. The presence of an operating system in a computer memory consists of a state of that physical system. That state is "physical" in that it is defined by the latest scientific physical theory...or that is our best understanding of it. There are no properties of an operating system loaded into a physical memory of any kind, that are not in theory predictable from the properties defined by our physical theories.

At this time this is roughly equivalent to saying that all measurements of a stored operating system are predictable from a Hilbert state vector that defines the state of the system, followed by a propagation of that state vector and subsequent use of an operator to retrieve the probabilities of attaining that measurement. In fact the entire behavior of the device, "...hard drive, RAM, CPU and monitor..." is a predictable outcome of the theory within uncertainties also defined by the theory.

By your mind is not like that. There are no quantum mechanical operators defined, nor measurements defined in any quantum theory that predict any form of experiencing. If you know of such an operator just tell me where I can find it but I see none in any of the literature I have read. The presence of mind, caused by the state of a subclass of physical system is NOT predicted by current physical science of any kind.

Simply put, an operating system can according to current physics, be stored in a physical device but whether a mind can or cannot be stored in a physical system cannot be determined on principle from current physics. That is because there are no operators that will define a measurement by operating on a physical state vector giving the probability of appearing of a mind.

I will temper that statement a little. We all know that coitus, a physical act, and its subsequent consequences can produce a physical system that thinks. We all know that destroying a brain thinking will destroy that thinking. But we also know that no matter what, let's say the bullet, does to the physical matter of the brain, current physics is incapable of describing how or why an experiencing ceases to occur. It is not just that the biological facts are not in. It is the fact that any state at all, any mechanistic system in any state, if it does only what is described by current physical laws, will not be predicted to either have or not have a mind. The physics is currently silent on the issue. That is not true of an operating system that evolves according to the laws of physics solely.

We know that our brains cause experiencing, and we know that the laws of physics describes our brains, and we also know that they say nothing about the fact that a mind will, or will not, occur. In fact "mind" itself is not defined in physics. The operating system of a computer, however, is defined by the physics of the device that it is stored in no matter what device it is stored in.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Mind has no location

Post by henry quirk »

Justintruth wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:42 pm
Dimebag wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:59 pm ...simultaneously in you hard drive, RAM, motherboard, CPU, and monitor...
Your operating system, at least the bootstrap part, is located in some kind of non-volatile memory such as a prom, or your hard drive. Usually it is not in RAM because when you power down Ram is cleared. The prom can be on your motherboard but your motherboard contains other chips like your CPU. Instructions from the program stored in prom, or your hard drive, are sequentially loaded into your CPU and can temporarily be stored in a cache. They often loaded into RAM or virtual memory. So the operating system is not stored in your CPU unless you refer to the fact that some instruction is loaded there. As for your monitor...hmmm...I don't think your operating system is ever located on your monitor.

In fact your operating system is a form of information which can be stored in physical states.

As for mind, however, your analogy breaks down for the following reason. The presence of an operating system in a computer memory consists of a state of that physical system. That state is "physical" in that it is defined by the latest scientific physical theory...or that is our best understanding of it. There are no properties of an operating system loaded into a physical memory of any kind, that are not in theory predictable from the properties defined by our physical theories.

At this time this is roughly equivalent to saying that all measurements of a stored operating system are predictable from a Hilbert state vector that defines the state of the system, followed by a propagation of that state vector and subsequent use of an operator to retrieve the probabilities of attaining that measurement. In fact the entire behavior of the device, "...hard drive, RAM, CPU and monitor..." is a predictable outcome of the theory within uncertainties also defined by the theory.

By your mind is not like that. There are no quantum mechanical operators defined, nor measurements defined in any quantum theory that predict any form of experiencing. If you know of such an operator just tell me where I can find it but I see none in any of the literature I have read. The presence of mind, caused by the state of a subclass of physical system is NOT predicted by current physical science of any kind.

Simply put, an operating system can according to current physics, be stored in a physical device but whether a mind can or cannot be stored in a physical system cannot be determined on principle from current physics. That is because there are no operators that will define a measurement by operating on a physical state vector giving the probability of appearing of a mind.

I will temper that statement a little. We all know that coitus, a physical act, and its subsequent consequences can produce a physical system that thinks. We all know that destroying a brain thinking will destroy that thinking. But we also know that no matter what, let's say the bullet, does to the physical matter of the brain, current physics is incapable of describing how or why an experiencing ceases to occur. It is not just that the biological facts are not in. It is the fact that any state at all, any mechanistic system in any state, if it does only what is described by current physical laws, will not be predicted to either have or not have a mind. The physics is currently silent on the issue. That is not true of an operating system that evolves according to the laws of physics solely.

We know that our brains cause experiencing, and we know that the laws of physics describes our brains, and we also know that they say nothing about the fact that a mind will, or will not, occur. In fact "mind" itself is not defined in physics. The operating system of a computer, however, is defined by the physics of the device that it is stored in no matter what device it is stored in.
for the little I understood: :thumbsup:
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Mind has no location

Post by Dimebag »

Justintruth wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:42 pm
Dimebag wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:59 pm ...simultaneously in you hard drive, RAM, motherboard, CPU, and monitor...
Your operating system, at least the bootstrap part, is located in some kind of non-volatile memory such as a prom, or your hard drive. Usually it is not in RAM because when you power down Ram is cleared. The prom can be on your motherboard but your motherboard contains other chips like your CPU. Instructions from the program stored in prom, or your hard drive, are sequentially loaded into your CPU and can temporarily be stored in a cache. They often loaded into RAM or virtual memory. So the operating system is not stored in your CPU unless you refer to the fact that some instruction is loaded there. As for your monitor...hmmm...I don't think your operating system is ever located on your monitor.

In fact your operating system is a form of information which can be stored in physical states.

As for mind, however, your analogy breaks down for the following reason. The presence of an operating system in a computer memory consists of a state of that physical system. That state is "physical" in that it is defined by the latest scientific physical theory...or that is our best understanding of it. There are no properties of an operating system loaded into a physical memory of any kind, that are not in theory predictable from the properties defined by our physical theories.

At this time this is roughly equivalent to saying that all measurements of a stored operating system are predictable from a Hilbert state vector that defines the state of the system, followed by a propagation of that state vector and subsequent use of an operator to retrieve the probabilities of attaining that measurement. In fact the entire behavior of the device, "...hard drive, RAM, CPU and monitor..." is a predictable outcome of the theory within uncertainties also defined by the theory.

By your mind is not like that. There are no quantum mechanical operators defined, nor measurements defined in any quantum theory that predict any form of experiencing. If you know of such an operator just tell me where I can find it but I see none in any of the literature I have read. The presence of mind, caused by the state of a subclass of physical system is NOT predicted by current physical science of any kind.

Simply put, an operating system can according to current physics, be stored in a physical device but whether a mind can or cannot be stored in a physical system cannot be determined on principle from current physics. That is because there are no operators that will define a measurement by operating on a physical state vector giving the probability of appearing of a mind.

I will temper that statement a little. We all know that coitus, a physical act, and its subsequent consequences can produce a physical system that thinks. We all know that destroying a brain thinking will destroy that thinking. But we also know that no matter what, let's say the bullet, does to the physical matter of the brain, current physics is incapable of describing how or why an experiencing ceases to occur. It is not just that the biological facts are not in. It is the fact that any state at all, any mechanistic system in any state, if it does only what is described by current physical laws, will not be predicted to either have or not have a mind. The physics is currently silent on the issue. That is not true of an operating system that evolves according to the laws of physics solely.

We know that our brains cause experiencing, and we know that the laws of physics describes our brains, and we also know that they say nothing about the fact that a mind will, or will not, occur. In fact "mind" itself is not defined in physics. The operating system of a computer, however, is defined by the physics of the device that it is stored in no matter what device it is stored in.
How does one view the operating system? Through the visual image on the monitor, which you use to manipulate via the keyboard and mouse. It is an essential part of an operating system in the functional sense, without it, the operating system is useless. Just as you are pretty screwed without your eyesight, hearing etc.

I am making an analogy at any rate. Memory is no doubt an essential storage area for programs to utilise as well as the operating system. It’s a highly integrated and dependent collection of systems, just like the brain. If you try to point to any one location on a computer and ask if that is where for example, the entire functional system of windows is, it would no doubt require all those components I mentioned. It is a distributed system of interdependent functions. That’s all I’m saying. Even if the analogy breaks, you know what I mean.

You can’t locate the mind in any one point of the brain, it is distributed over many different functional areas.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Mind has no location

Post by Sculptor »

Fake question
Fake posts
Fake thread

"Mind" although conceptual has location. It is indelibly necessary for the understanding and the meaning of "mind" to recognise the locations that generate minds.
Remove the source of the mind, and the mind disappears.
Damage the source at the location, and the mind is damaged.
Alter the source at the location and the mind is altered.
If you don't think your own mind has location, or cannot be altered, drop a tab of acid.
If you don't think your own mind has location, or cannot be damaged, remove some of your brain with a blunt knife.

Why have 125+ post been wasted on a question every single one of us knows to be false?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Mind has no location

Post by attofishpi »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:45 am If you don't think your own mind has location, or cannot be altered, drop a tab of acid.
What happened when you dropped a tab of acid?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Mind has no location

Post by Dontaskme »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:45 am If you don't think your own mind has location, or cannot be damaged, remove some of your brain with a blunt knife.
Image

I think what is possibly being suggested here is the actual location of the energetic source that is animating the mind as and through the material brain instrument?

When the brain becomes damaged by poking it with a sharp instrument that does not necessarily mean the mind can be located, the damage is just locating a particular area of the brain that is responsible for a specific function, that is no longer functioning, that doesn't mean that the mind is damaged.

.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Mind has no location

Post by Sculptor »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:58 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:45 am If you don't think your own mind has location, or cannot be damaged, remove some of your brain with a blunt knife.
Image

I think what is possibly being suggested here is the actual location of the energetic source that is animating the mind as and through the material brain instrument?

When the brain becomes damaged by poking it with a sharp instrument that does not necessarily mean the mind can be located, the damage is just locating a particular area of the brain that is responsible for a specific function, that is no longer functioning, that doesn't mean that the mind is damaged.

.
No.
Your image means nothing.
a massive list of exact and specific phenomena of mindful activity such as face recognition, memory, movement of specific body parts ad infinitem can be located exactly to specific area of the brain.
So not only is "mind" fully located in the brain, but specific items of mindful activity can be specifically located down to small clumps of neural matter.
With the right equipment I could remove a bean sized part of your brain and you would not be able to recognise your own mother, nor any specific person, From Hitler to Donald Trump.
And the more we learn about the brain the more possible it is ot locate specific functions.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Mind has no location

Post by Dontaskme »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 5:02 pm
No.
Your image means nothing.
a massive list of exact and specific phenomena of mindful activity such as face recognition, memory, movement of specific body parts ad infinitem can be located exactly to specific area of the brain.
So not only is "mind" fully located in the brain, but specific items of mindful activity can be specifically located down to small clumps of neural matter.
With the right equipment I could remove a bean sized part of your brain and you would not be able to recognise your own mother, nor any specific person, From Hitler to Donald Trump.
And the more we learn about the brain the more possible it is ot locate specific functions.
Yes, ok I get what you are saying and I agree in the sense of how what you are saying is known as neural functions.

But, when you mention things like memory recognitions like not being able to know my mother anymore, yes that is an impairment, but aren't those memory recognitions just appearances within the mind, appearances that can be there one minute and gone the next. This still does not imply the mind is damaged. It just means the mind is not imputing it's capacity to output memory recognition anymore?

In fact, the idea that I have a brain at all, or a mind, is just an idea that I cannot possibly see or locate myself, I would need a mirror to know that knowledge? I would need to open my skull and look at my brain in a mirror to even know it was there?

The point being made, is that the idea there is a person who has a mind is just an idea. An idea that is appearing to you, in essence, you have no idea how that happens, or what this you is, except as a conceptual idea.

And so the image you see of the brain in the mirror, is not the mind, it is an appearance appearing within the mind. You can only see images of the mind, you cannot see the mind directly by looking at it in a mirror, the mirror image is still appearing in some mind that is looking at it, so it cannot be the image.

When a brain surgeon looks at someones elses brain to see how it works, those findings/workings are only appearing inside the mind that is looking at it, it's not like the person who is having the brain looked at by someone else is able to see what the surgeon is finding. It still does not locate the actual mind of any single person. The findings are still just appearances within another mind...the mind cannot be located by another mind ..so to speak.

Did you know that the MIND IS A MYTH?

.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Mind has no location

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

bahman wrote: Sat May 16, 2020 9:50 pm In here we discuss that the reality is made of two things, minds and ideas. Minds are not due to/subjected to ideas. Therefore, they have no location.
Minds and Ideas, huh? That kind of reminds me of a song by Kansas, a Progressive Rock band. They sang: "...it's just love and miracles out of nowhere, love and miracles out of nowhere, out of nowhere..."!

It's a good song for several reasons.

But minds and ideas are not mutually exclusive. They are in fact bound together! To speak of ideas automatically speaks of minds!
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Mind has no location

Post by Dontaskme »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 5:58 pm
bahman wrote: Sat May 16, 2020 9:50 pm In here we discuss that the reality is made of two things, minds and ideas. Minds are not due to/subjected to ideas. Therefore, they have no location.
Minds and Ideas, huh? That kind of reminds me of a song by Kansas, a Progressive Rock band. They sang: "...it's just love and miracles out of nowhere, love and miracles out of nowhere, out of nowhere..."!

It's a good song for several reasons.

But minds and ideas are not mutually exclusive. They are in fact bound together! To speak of ideas automatically speaks of minds!
bahman has a valid point..in the sense a subjective idea is non-locatable, whereas, the idea that cannot be seen, does appear to manifest and is known as an objective image...aka a conceptual known within the mind, inseparable from the mind...this is a duality.
Post Reply