Mind or minds

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 3304
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:39 am

AGE wrote:
Have you known any one who has even seen the human mind ?

Also is there such thing as the dog mind for example when the brain inside a dogs body is functioning ?
Or a dinosaur mind when the brain inside a dinosaurs body is functioning ?
Mind is not a physical thing so it cannot be seen but instead it is a function of a physical thing namely the brain

Dog minds are the function of dog brains / Dinosaur minds are the function of dinosaur brains

surreptitious57
Posts: 3304
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:51 am

AGE wrote:
There is only One constant change eternally NOW

That is because there could NOT be any separation thus NO different NOWS
NOW is all that exists but there are many NOWS all existing at the same time

The NOW you are experiencing is different from the NOW I am experiencing because we occupy different points in spacetime
This is because the speed of light is finite which means it takes time for anything of mass to travel from one point to another
Only massless particles with zero rest mass [ like photons for example ] can experience all points in spacetime simultaneously

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2226
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:54 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:35 pm
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:11 pm

Then logic is useless.
That is not true.
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:11 pm
Humans are incapable of unbounded comprehension.
That is not true either. In fact I have difficulty to understand a bounded universe. What is beyond the universe?
By what conception of “understanding”?

I mean modeling/accurate prediction.
Modeling.
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:11 pm
I don’t know what is “beyond the universe”.
And I am OK not knowing.
I am not ok with that. I am trying my best to have a comprehensive understanding of the reality.
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:11 pm
Some questions are meaningless or deserve “42” as response.
This is question is not sort of that.
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:11 pm
But if you think you are capable of reasoning without boundaries I am willing to demonstrate the error in your ways.
I believe that reality is structured so we can understand it. It is unbounded though.
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:11 pm
There is this theoretical notion of a finite state machine. It applies to minds and there are physical limits to their practical realisations.
I am not aware of that. Could you please elaborate? We are not machine though.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2226
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:40 pm

Walker wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:40 pm
Mind, with degrees of access to mind governed by both incarnation and varying degrees of incarnated capacity, depending upon the life-form.
What is your definition of mind?

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:56 am

bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm
Modeling.
So we are on the same page. Lets just skip the red herrings here again and any arguments over "how precise should a model be" and go for gold.

Every "thing" has a wave equation. Complex or simple.

There's also the down-side to it. Every model is subject to the "space-time trade-off" (google will help you).
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm
I am not ok with that. I am trying my best to have a comprehensive understanding of the reality.
You are appealing to "comprehension" whatever that means. Accurate prediction, I imagine? How accurate?

You are a physicist.
You understand that there are certain limits to certain things - because physics (not to mention that theoretical limits are far beyond our practical abilities most of the time)
You are made of the same stuff that you are trying to understand.
So those limits apply to you.

Those limits apply to your understanding/comprehension.

If what you mean by "comprehensive understanding" is theoretically, but not practically possible then it is impossible.
Say - if the wave equation you've come up with will take 10 universe lifetimes to solve with current computational power - you are shit out of luck.
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm
This is question is not sort of that.
How did you determine that?
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm
I believe that reality is structured so we can understand it. It is unbounded though.
I am getting a glimpse that we have similar thinking, but the above sentence strikes me as contradictory.

If reality is structured, but unbounded - then it's hypothetically possible for us to reduce reality to a wave equation, but it would be impossible to solve such an equation because it will have infinite inputs which would make it infinitely complex. If we can't solve the equation, then would you say that we "understand" reality?

Understanding requires a computable model. e.g a model from which I can get useful consequences which align with my experiences.
Colloquially we call those predictions.

If you can't compute the equation - you can't make any predictions. Therefore you don't understand.
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm
I am not aware of that. Could you please elaborate? We are not machine though.
If the world is quantum, then it's necessarily computational. Everything is a state machine.

I mentioned "space-time trade-offs" earlier, now I am going to refer to "spacetime complexity".
Google it also and you will end up at an intersection between Mathematics' category theory and computer science's complexity theory.

Which is along the lines of "We live in a computer simulation!" but far more boring and theoretical than the media hype would have you believe.

Now that I have introduced the new concepts on which my argument rests:
* The universe may well have a precise and exact wave equation - A Theory of Everything.
* The equation will be subjected to space-time trade offs if it is to be calculated in a human lifetime.

Because space-time trade-off and because you want a prediction you can't trade off time - you must necessarily trade-off space.

So - to solve the universe's wave equation in any reasonable amount of time you need more space (memory) than the size of the current universe. Oops :)

P.S I over-simplified this a little by ignoring the Margolus–Levitin theorem which imposes another limit on the amount of energy required to perform the computation.

But suffice to say that computation is a function of space, time and energy.

This page has a plethora of limits to be accounted for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_of ... cal_limits
Last edited by Logik on Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:24 am, edited 5 times in total.

Age
Posts: 2803
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:56 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:31 am
AGE wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
the Universe simply exists rather than experiences [ to me Mind and Universe are the same ]
But physical nerve endings experience that is how physical things KNOW where to place themselves and in what positions
Therefore some might argue that it is because of EXPERIENCE that the Universe / Mind has placed Itself in the place that It is
existing in NOW and in the position that It is existing in NOW
Physical nerve endings belong to biological organisms but most of the observable Universe is known or thought to be without life
If we accept and agree with that definition of the word 'life' that is being used here, then that is WHY some human beings are still looking for answers.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:31 am
And awareness of experience is not possible without life forms and this is why I think the Universe exists rather than experiences
Okay.

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:31 am
Also the Universe cannot place itself anywhere else because there is no such place as EVERYWHERE is the Universe
Exactly.

The Universe, can NOT be any thing different than what It IS NOW. The Universe IS absolutely Everything, and that MUST include absolutely EVERYWHERE also.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:31 am
So there is no space that exists outside the Universe because by definition that would also be part of the Universe
That is WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING.

YOU are the ONE that has been saying that there can be more than one Universe.

Absolutely EVERY thing is a part of thee Universe. Therefore, there can NOT be another Universe.

Age
Posts: 2803
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:01 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:39 am
AGE wrote:
Have you known any one who has even seen the human mind ?

Also is there such thing as the dog mind for example when the brain inside a dogs body is functioning ?
Or a dinosaur mind when the brain inside a dinosaurs body is functioning ?
Mind is not a physical thing so it cannot be seen
Are you absolutely 100% sure of this? Or,
Are you just giving what you THINK is the case, which could be partly or completely WRONG?

Can thoughts and/or emotions been seen? Are thoughts and/or emotions physical things?

Also, can the wind be seen? Is the wind a physical thing?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:39 am
but instead it is a function of a physical thing namely the brain
Are you absolutely 100% sure of this? Or,
Are you just giving what you THINK is the case, which could be partly or completely WRONG?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:39 am
Dog minds are the function of dog brains / Dinosaur minds are the function of dinosaur brains
If that is what you are THEY ARE, then that is WHAT THEY ARE, to you.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:02 am

Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:56 am
Absolutely EVERY thing is a part of thee Universe. Therefore, there can NOT be another Universe.
Could you describe the contents of the universe?

Age
Posts: 2803
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:08 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:51 am
AGE wrote:
There is only One constant change eternally NOW

That is because there could NOT be any separation thus NO different NOWS
NOW is all that exists but there are many NOWS all existing at the same time
The NOW you are experiencing is different from the NOW I am experiencing because we occupy different points in spacetime[/quote]

Are you absolutely 100% sure of this? Or,
Could you be wrong or partly wrong?

When you are able to answer properly and thus correctly, the questions Who/What is the 'I'?, and, who/what is the 'you'?, then you will understand far more.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:51 am
This is because the speed of light is finite which means it takes time for anything of mass to travel from one point to another
Only massless particles with zero rest mass [ like photons for example ] can experience all points in spacetime simultaneously
Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. So, it ALL depends on HOW you are looking or from WHAT perspective things are being looked from.

Some SEE from an ALL perspective while others can only see from a certain particular perspective.

Age
Posts: 2803
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:10 am

bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:54 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:35 pm

That is not true.

That is not true either. In fact I have difficulty to understand a bounded universe. What is beyond the universe?
By what conception of “understanding”?

I mean modeling/accurate prediction.
Modeling.
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:11 pm
I don’t know what is “beyond the universe”.
And I am OK not knowing.
I am not ok with that. I am trying my best to have a comprehensive understanding of the reality.
But sometimes you do not come across as appearing to be doing this at all.
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:11 pm
Some questions are meaningless or deserve “42” as response.
This is question is not sort of that.
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:11 pm
But if you think you are capable of reasoning without boundaries I am willing to demonstrate the error in your ways.
I believe that reality is structured so we can understand it. It is unbounded though.
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:11 pm
There is this theoretical notion of a finite state machine. It applies to minds and there are physical limits to their practical realisations.
I am not aware of that. Could you please elaborate? We are not machine though.

Age
Posts: 2803
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:14 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:02 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:56 am
Absolutely EVERY thing is a part of thee Universe. Therefore, there can NOT be another Universe.
Could you describe the contents of the universe?
Absolutely EVERY thing.

To me there is nothing complex nor hard.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:51 am

Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:14 am
Absolutely EVERY thing.
You are counting not describing. All those (many) things. In the Universe.

What are they like?

Age
Posts: 2803
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am

AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:06 am
AlexW wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:48 am
It cannot know what is not in agreement - which is: the conceptual content of thought.
I would say that It can KNOW what is NOT in agreement - the conceptual content of thought, because;
1. It is within EVERY thing and IS able to Observe/SEE EVERY thing.
2. The conceptual content of thought is always HEARD in spoken words and SEEN in written words.

The conceptual content of thought is actually SPLASHED throughout these pages, on this forum, for ALL to SEE.

The conceptual content of thought can also be SEEN through ALL of human beings' creations.

The conceptual content of thought is, literally, EVERYWHERE in this human made "world".
I think this is where we seem to have different opinions.
1: "It" is not within "EVERY thing" - simply because there are no things (there are only ideas of things).
If as you propose that there are no things, then there is NO 'it' also.

If, as you propose, there are NO things, then there is absolutely NOTHING, which must also include " 'ideas' of things" also. Yet, and funnily enough, there are these strange shaped black things appearing, (some times called letters, which become what are some times known as words, which then form what are some times labelled as sentences, in response, to other strange shaped black things, (which are also same as above) on and about some thing, in front of some thing.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
2. The heard is simply sound or thought - the content can not be heard or seen it can only be inferred by chains of thought which seem to generate meaning, but these meanings are only an abstraction they are not "real" (they don't really exist - they are ideas only)
But, according to you there are NO things, therefore there are NO abstractions NOR ideas.

Also, you did say that meanings are only an abstraction, which are NOT "real" and do NOT really exist - they are ideas only. But, WHERE did the ideas come from, and WHERE do they arise?

And, if there is a 'heard', then WHERE did the heard come from, AND, WHERE/WHAT did the 'heard' arise in?

Also, of course a thought of some thing, by definition means that the heard does NOT exist, so there is, as you put it, no thing. But also, which is just as obvious is the fact that the heard came from some thing.

The Truth is there IS no thing, when the sound or thought arises, but there WAS some thing that caused a sound, which then created a thought.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
Yes, "The conceptual content of thought is actually SPLASHED throughout these pages" , but it cannot be seen, it exists only in the map that is being created by interpreting the words that have been written.
But the conceptual content of thought, which is actually splashed throughout these pages, can be SEEN when, and if, written proficiently enough.

See, if we state "I feel the wind on my skin" then this is an interpretation - chains of thought might state that "It" can really feel/know "wind" or "skin", but ultimately this is not true. [/quote]

But WHY would a chain of thought state such a ridiculous thing?

I KNOW I certainly do NOT.

Of course chains of thoughts proclaim to KNOW such things, but that is just how thought, tricks itself into believing that it knows best.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
"It" can only know what it IS.
Disagree.

'It' can, for example, KNOW other things like when thought/concept/ideas arise and when thoughts/concepts are WRONG.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
"It" is not an idea, not a concept and can and will never be one.
Of course not. That just speaks for itself. No thing can be some thing else. That just stands to reason.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
"It" knows the direct experience of "wind on skin", the real (no-)thing, but not the interpretation -
But It can KNOW the difference between interpretation AND real. It can also KNOW when interpretation is taking place. It, after all, KNOWS EVERY thing, therefore It can KNOW Itself, and also KNOW and point out how 'you', the thinking/interpreting one is just thinking/interpreting, instead of LOOKING AT that, what IS real. For example, like when you just interpret things, like you are doing here, and when you do NOT look at what IS real and True. Like, that It can EXPLAIN and SHOW what 'It', actually IS.

You, through interpretative thought, say that It can NOT through words, terms, and language be able to EXPLAIN and SHOW exactly Who/What It is. But the REAL Truth is different from what the interpreting thinking brain thinks.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
"It" doesn't know any meanings - they are reserved for the map and for interpretative thought.
But the 'It', which is just thee one and only Mind, which does KNOW EVERY thing, does KNOW any and ALL meanings. Because 'It/Mind/I KNOWS ALL things, including interpretative thought.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
Yes, "It" also knows thought, but it has nothing to do with the ideas/beliefs that seem to be formed by linking thoughts up into imaginary pictures (like "wind on skin" or a "human made world").
WHY would 'you', a no thing, THINK it KNOWS more than what It/Mind/I KNOW?
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
This "human made world" exists only as an idea - even "world" is an idea, a concept that "It" can never know (yes, "It" knows the thought, but this thought has no meaning for "It").
It/Mind/ KNOWS ALL, so It can ALWAYS KNOW.

"The human made world" is, literally, just some "made up idea of (a) world".
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
Again:
"It" only knows itself by being itself.
"It" knows the terrain by being the terrain.
"It" cannot know the map as it is NOT the map.
It, I/Mind, KNOWS the map BECAUSE you/thought are seemingly always expressing your own individual maps. Again, the evidence is just about everywhere in this perceived up/conceptual "world" created by human beings. This is what the thinking brain does instead of just LOOKING AT the 'terrain', that is; the what IS.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
The map is an illusion/interpretation that exists only as chains of thought that seem to prove the existence of things, but these things are only ideas - they are not ultimately real
I agree up to now.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
and this "It" (=absolute reality) has nothing to do with them.
What do you mean has nothing to do with ALL of 'you', chain of thought, human beings?

The I/Mind/It has everything to do with you/thoughts. Absolutely EVERY thing has every thing to do with every thing. That is HOW the one and only Universe creates Itself.

Age
Posts: 2803
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:57 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:51 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:14 am
Absolutely EVERY thing.
You are counting not describing. All those (many) things. In the Universe.

What are they like?
Are you talking about any ones in particular? Or, just ALL of them?

In the simplest of terms they are physical matter with space between each of them, and around each of them.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:58 am

Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:57 am
Are you talking about any ones in particular? Or, just ALL of them?

In the simplest of terms they are physical matter with space between each of them, and around each of them.
Up to you. Are all the things in the universe the same as each other?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest