Is the Mind Physical?: Dissecting Conscious Brain Tissue

[Age]

Speakin' only for me: I'm inclined to think my mind (self/'I'/soul) came to be when I was conceived and probably will go the way of the Tyrannosaur when I draw my last breath.

Mebbe you're party to some kind of universal overmind, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

I am not sure who this is directed at, not that it matters. But how could 'one's mind' be 'them'?

In other words, the word 'my' implies ownership, and in order to own some thing, then one would have to be separated from that thing. Unless of course you will SHOW us otherwise.

How could one have 'my ...(whatever)' but also at the same time be that (whatever)?

How could one be, what they have?

[Age]

Speakin' only for me: I'm inclined to think my mind (self/'I'/soul) came to be when I was conceived and probably will go the way of the Tyrannosaur when I draw my last breath.

Mebbe you're party to some kind of universal overmind, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

I’m no Einstein and I’d be suspicious of anyone who claims to be …

but with mathematics scientists can explain that attention causes a waveform to collapse into a distinct particle.

Has it be PROVEN without absolutely any doubt at all that attention causes a waveform to collapse into a distinct particle?

Could it be POSSIBLE that some thing else is occurring or happening here?

Since all things are made of particles,

Is this also ABSOLUTELY TRUE without any doubt at all?

Are 'thoughts', themselves, for example, made of particles?

If no, then okay.

If yes, then what EVIDENCE do you use for this claim?

this would account for consciousness creating the body.

Creating what 'body'?

Sri Ramana Maharshi simply says that attention creates the body. [/quote]

Okay but what 'body' are 'you' or "they" referring to exactly?

Did attention, itself, create the body 'earth', for example?

If no, then okay.

If yes, then who and/or what had the attention, and where was that attention coming from exactly?

The great Longchenpa expresses the same meaning with different words and references, should you need to triangulate some reading sources for personal clarification. The way I see it, need would be the only reason for doing such a thing. Now imagine a burning, survival-oriented need for such clarification, and you get the drift of what some folks go through.

All i got here was lost. The only drift I got was a way of course.

Just look at the room around you. If you have no windows or potted plants or if you live on dirt, everything you perceive beyond the electronic communicating device (the electronic communicating device being the focus of your world at this moment of comprehension) is or was created under mind-created copyright, or by mind before copyright. Walls, floor, ceiling, and other products made with clever hands and machines,

… “but only God can make a tree.”

Now I am further LOST.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that whatever was created by human beings was created by human beings and every thing else was created by God?

[Walker]

… “but only God can make a tree.”

Now I am further LOST.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that whatever was created by human beings was created by human beings and every thing else was created by God?

This is the fourth reference to the meaning of the universe. Begin with the words. The words are in quotations. Google the quote to find the source of the quotation. The source is a poem that says mind creates the principle of tree, thus aligning comprehension with the reality of daily life, both directly perceived and accumulated. And, you’ve used up your one question from the endless stream.

[Age]

… “but only God can make a tree.”

Now I am further LOST.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that whatever was created by human beings was created by human beings and every thing else was created by God?

This is the fourth reference to the meaning of the universe. Begin with the words. The words are in quotations.

I am getting further lost.

What was the first reference to the meaning of the Universe?

Google the quote to find the source of the quotation.

But I do not care about the source of the quotation.

The source is a poem that says mind creates the principle of tree, thus aligning comprehension with the reality of daily life, both directly perceived and accumulated.

Okay. But how does this at all relate to your allegation that mathematics "scientists" explaining attention causes a waveform to collapse into a distinct particle, and that since all things are made of particles, that this would account for consciousness creating the "body" (whatever the "body" is)?

And, you’ve used up your one question from the endless stream.

Are you saying that you will only answer one clarifying question, and then that is it?

[henry quirk]

"mathematics scientists can explain that attention causes a waveform to collapse into a distinct particle."

I don't believe that: the cat in the box is dead or is alive. It doesn't exist as both dead and alive till observation fixes its state.

As I say elsewhere: Reality exists independent of me. The apple on the table didn't spring into being on account of me, doesn't continue to exist on account of me, doesn't flicker into and out of being cuz my attention wavers.

[henry quirk]

"how could 'one's mind' be 'them'?"

My fingers, my face, my bald head, my crooked nose, my self, my mind, my soul: it's self-possession. It's self awareness. It's the assertion 'I am this'.

Don't let the limits of language blind you to the obvious.

[henry quirk]

I missed this up-thread...

I'm not saying that's a wonderful analogy

...regarding my comment mind (self/'I') is software, brain/body is hardware. The two interdepend but are not synonymous.

I agree, it ain't perfect, but it captures the spirit of the composite individual in a way that doesn't off-put.

[Age]

"how could 'one's mind' be 'them'?"

My fingers, my face, my bald head, my crooked nose, my self, my mind, my soul: it's self-possession. It's self awareness. It's the assertion 'I am this'.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying here is; I am "what I posses", correct?

If no, then what are you saying?

If yes, then when you say, I have 'my' body, what you mean is I am 'my' body, which still does NOT make any sense. If, however, 'you' were to say, I am 'this' body, then that at least makes some sense, from where we could begin to discuss and dissect this further.

Don't let the limits of language blind you to the obvious.

But what is the "obvious" to 'you' is CERTAINLY NOT the 'obvious' to 'I'.

Also, I am the one who SAYS, that through language thee Truth of things can be SHOWN, learned, and KNOWN.

I do NOT see there being a limit to language, so that is just ONE MORE example of what is "obvious" to 'you' is NOT at all 'obvious' to 'Me'.

Remember, what is OBVIOUS to Me IS; Everything fits together PERFECTLY, forming a CRYSTAL CLEAR picture of ALL-THERE-IS.

And, what is also just as OBVIOUS, to me, is 'you' are STILL searching and seeking Answers. You are STILL NOT sure what is absolutely True, Right, and Correct, correct?

[henry quirk]

"how could 'one's mind' be 'them'?"

My fingers, my face, my bald head, my crooked nose, my self, my mind, my soul: it's self-possession. It's self awareness. It's the assertion 'I am this'.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying here is; I am "what I posses", correct?

If no, then what are you saying?

If yes, then when you say, I have 'my' body, what you mean is I am 'my' body, which still does NOT make any sense. If, however, 'you' were to say, I am 'this' body, then that at least makes some sense, from where we could begin to discuss and dissect this further.

Don't let the limits of language blind you to the obvious.

But what is the "obvious" to 'you' is CERTAINLY NOT the 'obvious' to 'I'.

Also, I am the one who SAYS, that through language thee Truth of things can be SHOWN, learned, and KNOWN.

I do NOT see there being a limit to language, so that is just ONE MORE example of what is "obvious" to 'you' is NOT at all 'obvious' to 'Me'.

Remember, what is OBVIOUS to Me IS; Everything fits together PERFECTLY, forming a CRYSTAL CLEAR picture of ALL-THERE-IS.

And, what is also just as OBVIOUS, to me, is 'you' are STILL searching and seeking Answers. You are STILL NOT sure what is absolutely True, Right, and Correct, correct?

Like I say: I'm out.

[Walker]

Now I am further LOST.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that whatever was created by human beings was created by human beings and every thing else was created by God?

This is the fourth reference to the meaning of the universe. Begin with the words. The words are in quotations.

I am getting further lost.

What was the first reference to the meaning of the Universe?

Google the quote to find the source of the quotation.

But I do not care about the source of the quotation.

The source is a poem that says mind creates the principle of tree, thus aligning comprehension with the reality of daily life, both directly perceived and accumulated.

Okay. But how does this at all relate to your allegation that mathematics "scientists" explaining attention causes a waveform to collapse into a distinct particle, and that since all things are made of particles, that this would account for consciousness creating the "body" (whatever the "body" is)?

And, you’ve used up your one question from the endless stream.

Are you saying that you will only answer one clarifying question, and then that is it?

To you I'm saying that with endless questions an intellectual beggar feeds off the goodwill and generosity of a community and offers nothing in return.

Figure that one out.

[henry quirk]

With endless questions, an intellectual beggar feeds off the goodwill and generosity of a community and offers nothing in return.

[Immanuel Can]

With endless questions, an intellectual beggar feeds off the goodwill and generosity of a community and offers nothing in return.

I second that emotion.

[Age]

This is the fourth reference to the meaning of the universe. Begin with the words. The words are in quotations.

I am getting further lost.

What was the first reference to the meaning of the Universe?

Google the quote to find the source of the quotation.

But I do not care about the source of the quotation.

The source is a poem that says mind creates the principle of tree, thus aligning comprehension with the reality of daily life, both directly perceived and accumulated.

Okay. But how does this at all relate to your allegation that mathematics "scientists" explaining attention causes a waveform to collapse into a distinct particle, and that since all things are made of particles, that this would account for consciousness creating the "body" (whatever the "body" is)?

And, you’ve used up your one question from the endless stream.

Are you saying that you will only answer one clarifying question, and then that is it?

To you I'm saying that with endless questions an intellectual beggar feeds off the goodwill and generosity of a community and offers nothing in return.

Figure that one out.

Now that was, for me, much easier to understand.

Also, with so called "endless" questions an "intelligent one" might be revealing what the community believes is true actually is NOT.

We will just have to wait and SEE.

Also, if the community is NOT providing answers to the so called "endless" questions, like for example, which can be witnessed here, in this forum, the "intellectual beggar" is starving.

[Age]

With endless questions, an intellectual beggar feeds off the goodwill and generosity of a community and offers nothing in return.

Will you provide an example of one clarifying question I asked you, which out of goodwill and/or generosity, you answered, or just answered?

[Age]

With endless questions, an intellectual beggar feeds off the goodwill and generosity of a community and offers nothing in return.

I second that emotion.

Will you provide an example of one clarifying question I asked you, which out of goodwill and/or generosity, you answered, or just answered?