The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3109
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:38 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:40 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:13 am
If you define the state of coma as a state that person doesn't experience then it means that the brain doesn't provide any input to mind. As I mentioned I have a proof for existence of mind that you can find it in here.
The brain is a critical part and parcel of a spontaneous emergent mind.
If the brain is dead, then there is no emergent mind.
As such there is no emergent mind at all in this case.
That is not correct as I argued in another thread.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3109
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:15 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:50 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:13 am
If you define the state of coma as a state that person doesn't experience then it means that the brain doesn't provide any input to mind. As I mentioned I have a proof for existence of mind that you can find it in here.
Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are two different states of affair. X has to vanishes before Y is caused.
There is, however, nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y.
Therefore, there must exist a mind that has ability to experience and cause.
here
Your argument is baseless and groundless.
Why? Could you please elaborate?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:50 am
According to Hume, he agreed there is a "mind" to experience that cause and effect.
How the mind cannot be an entity and still has ability to experience?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:50 am
But according to Hume, that mind that experience is an emergent mind not a mind as an independent entity.
He needs to prove that such an emergence is possible (I have an argument against the emergence of mind that you can find it in here).
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:50 am
Bundle theory, originated by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the ontological theory about objecthood in which an object consists only of a collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.

According to bundle theory, an object consists of its properties and nothing more: thus neither can there be an object without properties nor can one even conceive of such an object; for example, bundle theory claims that thinking of an apple compels one also to think of its color, its shape, the fact that it is a kind of fruit, its cells, its taste, or at least one other of its properties. Thus, the theory asserts that the apple is no more than the collection of its properties. In particular, there is no substance in which the properties are inherent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_theory
Hume's Bundle Theory claims there is no mind or self as an entity.
Both are merely a bundle of activities -collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.

To ensure any credibility of your claim, you'll need to prove Hume is wrong.
So he claimed that there is no mind as an entity. Where is his proof? I already provide my argument in favor of the existence of the mind.

By the way, I have another argument against the bundle theory. If the mind is a collection of abilities such as experience, decision, and causation that exist because of mater activity then why experience, decision, and causation always correlate with each other?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4121
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:44 am

bahman wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:15 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:50 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:13 am
If you define the state of coma as a state that person doesn't experience then it means that the brain doesn't provide any input to mind. As I mentioned I have a proof for existence of mind that you can find it in here.
Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are two different states of affair. X has to vanishes before Y is caused.
There is, however, nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y.
Therefore, there must exist a mind that has ability to experience and cause.
here
Your argument is baseless and groundless.
Why? Could you please elaborate?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:50 am
According to Hume, he agreed there is a "mind" to experience that cause and effect.
How the mind cannot be an entity and still has ability to experience?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:50 am
But according to Hume, that mind that experience is an emergent mind not a mind as an independent entity.
He needs to prove that such an emergence is possible (I have an argument against the emergence of mind that you can find it in here).
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:50 am
Bundle theory, originated by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the ontological theory about objecthood in which an object consists only of a collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.

According to bundle theory, an object consists of its properties and nothing more: thus neither can there be an object without properties nor can one even conceive of such an object; for example, bundle theory claims that thinking of an apple compels one also to think of its color, its shape, the fact that it is a kind of fruit, its cells, its taste, or at least one other of its properties. Thus, the theory asserts that the apple is no more than the collection of its properties. In particular, there is no substance in which the properties are inherent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_theory
Hume's Bundle Theory claims there is no mind or self as an entity.
Both are merely a bundle of activities -collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.

To ensure any credibility of your claim, you'll need to prove Hume is wrong.
So he claimed that there is no mind as an entity. Where is his proof? I already provide my argument in favor of the existence of the mind.

By the way, I have another argument against the bundle theory. If the mind is a collection of abilities such as experience, decision, and causation that exist because of mater activity then why experience, decision, and causation always correlate with each other?
bahman wrote:1) Knowledge is structured
2) Creation requires knowledge
3) Therefore, any created thing is structured
4) Free-agent is not structured (because otherwise there would be tension in decision)
5) Therefore, free-agent cannot be created
The above is another baseless and groundless argument.

The continuum of thought is from 1. Opinion to 2. Belief to 3. Knowledge.
Belief and knowledge are structured.
But knowledge required a structure that is empirically verified and justified, e.g. scientific knowledge justified within the structure of the Scientific Method.

2) Creation requires knowledge
This is baseless.

To create a computer need knowledge.
But Not all creations requires knowledge.
Many things are created merely by human actions without intentions nor application of knowledge.
If a person throw a bag of sand on the ground, a heap of sand is created. There is no knowledge required in this case. This is the same with lots of other human actions that result with things created without intention nor application of structured knowledge.
Your premise 2 is false, thus the conclusion is false.

Where is Hume's proof?
Surely if you are familiar with philosophy, you will understand Hume had presented his argument in the various books he has written.
The onus is on you to read and understand [not necessary agree] his argument and provide the necessary counter argument if you do not agree with his proof.
So you have to read Hume's book.
By the way, I have another argument against the bundle theory. If the mind is a collection of abilities such as experience, decision, and causation that exist because of mater activity then why experience, decision, and causation always correlate with each other?
Note experience, decision, causation can be verified empirically and justified as what they are.
There is no need to prove there is a mind as an entity that is responsible for them.

If you experience pain, it can be explained from your reaction to the pain from empirical observations which in general is common with all humans.
Your pain or any human that can experience pain can be tracked to the nerves involved and the neural activities in general via fMRI images.
There are so many ways to verify the experience of pain.
In fact, there is no need to identify a mind to explain the experience of pain.

As I had claimed, the identify of a mind is a matter of convenience to rope in the other related and associated neural activities as a collective [for simplicity sake].
There is no mind as an entity that is responsible to activate or feel the pain experience.

I think you are insisting on a mind as an entity towards the claim that independent mind is the independent soul that can survive physical death thus potential for eternal life?
It that the case?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3109
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:45 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:15 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:50 am

Your argument is baseless and groundless.
Why? Could you please elaborate?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:50 am
According to Hume, he agreed there is a "mind" to experience that cause and effect.
How the mind cannot be an entity and still has ability to experience?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:50 am
But according to Hume, that mind that experience is an emergent mind not a mind as an independent entity.
He needs to prove that such an emergence is possible (I have an argument against the emergence of mind that you can find it in here).
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:50 am


Hume's Bundle Theory claims there is no mind or self as an entity.
Both are merely a bundle of activities -collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.

To ensure any credibility of your claim, you'll need to prove Hume is wrong.
So he claimed that there is no mind as an entity. Where is his proof? I already provide my argument in favor of the existence of the mind.

By the way, I have another argument against the bundle theory. If the mind is a collection of abilities such as experience, decision, and causation that exist because of mater activity then why experience, decision, and causation always correlate with each other?
bahman wrote: 1) Knowledge is structured
2) Creation requires knowledge
3) Therefore, any created thing is structured
4) Free-agent is not structured (because otherwise there would be tension in decision)
5) Therefore, free-agent cannot be created
The above is another baseless and groundless argument.

The continuum of thought is from 1. Opinion to 2. Belief to 3. Knowledge.
Belief and knowledge are structured.
But knowledge required a structure that is empirically verified and justified, e.g. scientific knowledge justified within the structure of the Scientific Method.

2) Creation requires knowledge
This is baseless.

To create a computer need knowledge.
But Not all creations requires knowledge.
Many things are created merely by human actions without intentions nor application of knowledge.
If a person throw a bag of sand on the ground, a heap of sand is created. There is no knowledge required in this case. This is the same with lots of other human actions that result with things created without intention nor application of structured knowledge.
Your premise 2 is false, thus the conclusion is false.
Premise 2 is not false since we are talking about the creative acts which are intelligible, like the creation of the mind.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:44 am
Where is Hume's proof?
Surely if you are familiar with philosophy, you will understand Hume had presented his argument in the various books he has written.
The onus is on you to read and understand [not necessary agree] his argument and provide the necessary counter argument if you do not agree with his proof.
So you have to read Hume's book.
I cannot read a book to see what your claim is. If you really know his work well, then it would be easy for you to defend his proof in here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:44 am
By the way, I have another argument against the bundle theory. If the mind is a collection of abilities such as experience, decision, and causation that exist because of mater activity then why experience, decision, and causation always correlate with each other?
Note experience, decision, causation can be verified empirically and justified as what they are.
There is no need to prove there is a mind as an entity that is responsible for them.

If you experience pain, it can be explained from your reaction to the pain from empirical observations which in general is common with all humans.
Your pain or any human that can experience pain can be tracked to the nerves involved and the neural activities in general via fMRI images.
There are so many ways to verify the experience of pain.
In fact, there is no need to identify a mind to explain the experience of pain.

As I had claimed, the identify of a mind is a matter of convenience to rope in the other related and associated neural activities as a collective [for simplicity sake].
There is no mind as an entity that is responsible to activate or feel the pain experience.

I think you are insisting on a mind as an entity towards the claim that independent mind is the independent soul that can survive physical death thus potential for eternal life?
It that the case?
You obviously didn't get my argument.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4121
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:31 am

bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:45 am
2) Creation requires knowledge
This is baseless.

To create a computer need knowledge.
But Not all creations requires knowledge.
Many things are created merely by human actions without intentions nor application of knowledge.
If a person throw a bag of sand on the ground, a heap of sand is created. There is no knowledge required in this case. This is the same with lots of other human actions that result with things created without intention nor application of structured knowledge.
Your premise 2 is false, thus the conclusion is false.
Premise 2 is not false since we are talking about the creative acts which are intelligible, like the creation of the mind.
There is no intelligible explanation for the creation of the mind as an entity.
In the first place you have not even proven the existence of an independent mind which is claimed to be an entity.

The only mind we know is an emergent mind as convenience to represent a collection of activities from the brain, the whole body, the microbiome and the environment.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:44 am
Where is Hume's proof?
Surely if you are familiar with philosophy, you will understand Hume had presented his argument in the various books he has written.
The onus is on you to read and understand [not necessary agree] his argument and provide the necessary counter argument if you do not agree with his proof.
So you have to read Hume's book.
I cannot read a book to see what your claim is. If you really know his work well, then it would be easy for you to defend his proof in here.
Note you are the one who claimed Hume was wrong.
Thus the onus is on you to read his proof in his book and counter why Hume is wrong.

Hume already presented his argument in his book, there is no need for me to defend Hume.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:44 am
By the way, I have another argument against the bundle theory. If the mind is a collection of abilities such as experience, decision, and causation that exist because of mater activity then why experience, decision, and causation always correlate with each other?
Note experience, decision, causation can be verified empirically and justified as what they are.
There is no need to prove there is a mind as an entity that is responsible for them.

If you experience pain, it can be explained from your reaction to the pain from empirical observations which in general is common with all humans.
Your pain or any human that can experience pain can be tracked to the nerves involved and the neural activities in general via fMRI images.
There are so many ways to verify the experience of pain.
In fact, there is no need to identify a mind to explain the experience of pain.

As I had claimed, the identify of a mind is a matter of convenience to rope in the other related and associated neural activities as a collective [for simplicity sake].
There is no mind as an entity that is responsible to activate or feel the pain experience.

I think you are insisting on a mind as an entity towards the claim that independent mind is the independent soul that can survive physical death thus potential for eternal life?
It that the case?
You obviously didn't get my argument.
Not my fault.
That can only mean your communication is not clear and efficient.
You don't even have any coherent argument for me to counter.

In the first place, your claim [mind as entity] is a non-starter, that is why you cannot get a clear argument off the ground.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3109
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Tue Feb 25, 2020 2:08 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:31 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:45 am
2) Creation requires knowledge
This is baseless.

To create a computer need knowledge.
But Not all creations requires knowledge.
Many things are created merely by human actions without intentions nor application of knowledge.
If a person throw a bag of sand on the ground, a heap of sand is created. There is no knowledge required in this case. This is the same with lots of other human actions that result with things created without intention nor application of structured knowledge.
Your premise 2 is false, thus the conclusion is false.
Premise 2 is not false since we are talking about the creative acts which are intelligible, like the creation of the mind.
There is no intelligible explanation for the creation of the mind as an entity.
In the first place you have not even proven the existence of an independent mind which is claimed to be an entity.

The only mind we know is an emergent mind as convenience to represent a collection of activities from the brain, the whole body, the microbiome and the environment.
Here there is the proof for the existence of mind: Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are two different states of affair. X has to vanishes before Y is caused. There is, however, nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there must exist a mind that has ability to experience and cause.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:31 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:44 am
Where is Hume's proof?
Surely if you are familiar with philosophy, you will understand Hume had presented his argument in the various books he has written.
The onus is on you to read and understand [not necessary agree] his argument and provide the necessary counter argument if you do not agree with his proof.
So you have to read Hume's book.
I cannot read a book to see what your claim is. If you really know his work well, then it would be easy for you to defend his proof in here.
Note you are the one who claimed Hume was wrong.
Thus the onus is on you to read his proof in his book and counter why Hume is wrong.

Hume already presented his argument in his book, there is no need for me to defend Hume.
As I mentioned in other posts and the last comment mind is needed for any motion. No mind, no motion. Obviously you need mater motion for the emergence of mind which is problematic since you cannot have any motion without mind.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:44 am
Note experience, decision, causation can be verified empirically and justified as what they are.
There is no need to prove there is a mind as an entity that is responsible for them.

If you experience pain, it can be explained from your reaction to the pain from empirical observations which in general is common with all humans.
Your pain or any human that can experience pain can be tracked to the nerves involved and the neural activities in general via fMRI images.
There are so many ways to verify the experience of pain.
In fact, there is no need to identify a mind to explain the experience of pain.

As I had claimed, the identify of a mind is a matter of convenience to rope in the other related and associated neural activities as a collective [for simplicity sake].
There is no mind as an entity that is responsible to activate or feel the pain experience.

I think you are insisting on a mind as an entity towards the claim that independent mind is the independent soul that can survive physical death thus potential for eternal life?
It that the case?
You obviously didn't get my argument.
Not my fault.
That can only mean your communication is not clear and efficient.
You don't even have any coherent argument for me to counter.

In the first place, your claim [mind as entity] is a non-starter, that is why you cannot get a clear argument off the ground.
I asked you for a simple reason why do experience, decision, and causation always correlated? It should be a thing which makes this correlation possible. What is this thing? Is it subjective or objective?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4121
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am

bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 2:08 pm
Not my fault.
That can only mean your communication is not clear and efficient.
You don't even have any coherent argument for me to counter.

In the first place, your claim [mind as entity] is a non-starter, that is why you cannot get a clear argument off the ground.
1. I asked you for a simple reason why do experience, decision, and causation always correlated?
2. It should be a thing which makes this correlation possible.
3. What is this thing?
4. Is it subjective or objective?
I cannot any see any relevant question in your point 1.
What do you really mean by experience, decision, and causation are correlated?
Why these particular 3 elements only?
Are they correlated with each other, if so, it is a useless point.
Can you refer to one of the element only, e.g. "experience" to avoid too many variables and confusion.

You are too fast and presumptive, there must a 'thing' to the correlation.
Note also, correlation is not causation.
Worst 'causation' is subjective and psychological.
Your argument is loaded with too many blanks, that is why I stated your claim is baseless and groundless.

My point;
A person has a self.
Whatever experience, decision, causation related to the person is leveraged [or correlated] to the self.
The self is not an independent entity by itself but merely a bundle of activities as proven by Hume. Note,
This theory [Bundle Theory] owes its name to Hume, who described the self or person (which he assumed to be the mind) as 'nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement' (A Treatise of Human Nature I, IV, §VI).
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... ory-of/v-1
Generally, the self has a mind but such a mind is not an entity.
The mind of the self [bundle of activities] is an emergent from a bundle of activities in flux.

Since the mind is leveraged upon [or correlated] the self [the subject], it is subjective and not objective, i.e. an object-in-itself.

Anyway, I have enough since I have to repeat so many times.

If you want to continue, you need to present a very precise 'Problem Statement' that is understandable and has possibility to counter or accept.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3109
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:36 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 2:08 pm
Not my fault.
That can only mean your communication is not clear and efficient.
You don't even have any coherent argument for me to counter.

In the first place, your claim [mind as entity] is a non-starter, that is why you cannot get a clear argument off the ground.
1. I asked you for a simple reason why do experience, decision, and causation always correlated?
2. It should be a thing which makes this correlation possible.
3. What is this thing?
4. Is it subjective or objective?
I cannot any see any relevant question in your point 1.
It is very relevant because I am claiming that such a correlation is not possible without mind.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
What do you really mean by experience, decision, and causation are correlated?
Let me give you an example: Suppose that you have a cup of tea next to you now while you are reading my post from your computer. You look at the cup of tea and experience wanting tea. You then decide to drink some tea. You then cause your hand to move and drink some tea. So there are three steps in here: 1) experience of wanting tea, 2) decision to drink tea and 3) taking tea. These three steps as you can see are correlated. For example, you won't go and take some coffee after you decide to drink tea, etc.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
Why these particular 3 elements only?
Because there are these three elements in any act, experience, decision, and causation. You need to experience in order to have a need for doing something. You then decide considering all priorities. And finally, you cause.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
Are they correlated with each other, if so, it is a useless point.
They are always correlated. That is a very important point.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
Can you refer to one of the element only, e.g. "experience" to avoid too many variables and confusion.
No. There are three elements here and they correlate.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
You are too fast and presumptive, there must a 'thing' to the correlation.
Why? You see such a correlation in all your actions if you reflect and study them well. My question is why they always correlate? It cannot be a matter of chance.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
Note also, correlation is not causation.
I didn't say so.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
Worst 'causation' is subjective and psychological.
Yes, causation together with experience and decision are subjective.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
Your argument is loaded with too many blanks, that is why I stated your claim is baseless and groundless.
I hope things are clear now.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
My point;
A person has a self.
Person cannot exist in materialism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
Whatever experience, decision, causation related to the person is leveraged [or correlated] to the self.
The self is not an independent entity by itself but merely a bundle of activities as proven by Hume. Note,
So self to you is a name to a collection of activities?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
This theory [Bundle Theory] owes its name to Hume, who described the self or person (which he assumed to be the mind) as 'nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement' (A Treatise of Human Nature I, IV, §VI).
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... ory-of/v-1
Generally, the self has a mind but such a mind is not an entity.
If the mind is not an entity/objective then it must be subjective. There is no other option. A subjective thing such as mind cannot cause, decide and experience since these activities are subjective too. Simply a subjective thing cannot cause, decide and cause because they belong to the same category.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
The mind of the self [bundle of activities] is an emergent from a bundle of activities in flux.

Since the mind is leveraged upon [or correlated] the self [the subject], it is subjective and not objective, i.e. an object-in-itself.

Anyway, I have enough since I have to repeat so many times.

If you want to continue, you need to present a very precise 'Problem Statement' that is understandable and has possibility to counter or accept.
Yes, the mind is subjective in your perspective and that is the source of the problem. A subjective thing, mind, cannot experience, decide and cause since these three activities are subjective too. Why this is correct? Because the mind in your perspective is only a state of mater or a configuration of mater. A configuration cannot experience since experience to you is a state or configuration of mater too.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4121
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:37 am

bahman wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
What do you really mean by experience, decision, and causation are correlated?
Let me give you an example: Suppose that you have a cup of tea next to you now while you are reading my post from your computer. You look at the cup of tea and experience wanting tea. You then decide to drink some tea. You then cause your hand to move and drink some tea. So there are three steps in here:
1) experience of wanting tea,
2) decision to drink tea and
3) taking tea.
These three steps as you can see are correlated. For example, you won't go and take some coffee after you decide to drink tea, etc.
You should have done the above explanation long ago. That is why I complained your communication is not clear, thus wasting a lot of time and we talking pass each other.

Your point 1 is misleading.
All the 3 points 1-3 constitute experience by the empirical person.
Note 'empirical person' is the person we can all see and observed as existing alive.

The fact that you have a cup of tea beside you is already indication you has wanted to drink tea.

The more factual situation in the above is;
  • 1. All humans has the primal urge for nutrition, food and drink
    2. Decision is triggered to drink tea as a drink and its nutrients.
    3. Caused to drink the tea.
The above three steps are sequential, not correlated.

The ultimate root cause of the above is reducible to the survival drive of the individual which contribute to the preservation of the human species.
This survival drive trigger in the person the urge to eat food [hunger pangs] and drink water [liquids] [thirst].

There is no need to bring in the term 'mind' to explain the above.
More so, there is no need for a mind as an entity to explain all the above actions.

The only reason to introduce the term "mind" [as defined] is merely as a placeholder to represent the collection of brain activities plus activities from the whole person plus activities from the gut bacteria is participating in the whole series of actions 1 to 3.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
Why these particular 3 elements only?
Because there are these three elements in any act, experience, decision, and causation. You need to experience in order to have a need for doing something. You then decide considering all priorities. And finally, you cause.
Your 3 points are badly presented and I have corrected them and explained to you the root cause. There is no need for a mind as an independent entity.

Are you aware, there are many parasites that infect a person and they alone can control and drive a person to drink [e.g. rabies] or eat certain food.
In this case, you are implying these parasites are the independent mind as an entity that is correlated? This would be absurd.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
You are too fast and presumptive, there must a 'thing' to the correlation.
Why? You see such a correlation in all your actions if you reflect and study them well. My question is why they always correlate? It cannot be a matter of chance.
I explained they are not correlated but a triggered in sequence from root causes.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
Your argument is loaded with too many blanks, that is why I stated your claim is baseless and groundless.
I hope things are clear now.
Your explanation in your first point exposed the flaw therein and I have corrected them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
My point;
A person has a self.
Person cannot exist in materialism.
Regardless, the point is the person exists as a real empirical being that can be verified and justified as objective.
The point of 'materialism' [not tenable] is not the issue.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
Whatever experience, decision, causation related to the person is leveraged [or correlated] to the self.
The self is not an independent entity by itself but merely a bundle of activities as proven by Hume. Note,
So self to you is a name to a collection of activities?
You see an empirical person as a self and can easily explain that real empirical person [self] as a collection of activities.
I state, you yourself are a collection of activities. What is wrong with that.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
This theory [Bundle Theory] owes its name to Hume, who described the self or person (which he assumed to be the mind) as 'nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement' (A Treatise of Human Nature I, IV, §VI).
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... ory-of/v-1
Generally, the self has a mind but such a mind is not an entity.
If the mind is not an entity/objective then it must be subjective. There is no other option. A subjective thing such as mind cannot cause, decide and experience since these activities are subjective too. Simply a subjective thing cannot cause, decide and cause because they belong to the same category.
Nah you got rhetoric here.
An entity is objective which is intersubjective, thus fundamentally subjective.
You as a self, i.e. a person can experience from your primal drives to eat, drink and do whatever.
There is no need to introduce the idea that you have a mind that is an independent entity.

Where I refer to your mind, that is merely a collection of activities which is a part of another collection of activities, called the self.
Yes, the mind is subjective in your perspective and that is the source of the problem. A subjective thing, mind, cannot experience, decide and cause since these three activities are subjective too. Why this is correct? Because the mind in your perspective is only a state of mater or a configuration of mater. A configuration cannot experience since experience to you is a state or configuration of mater too.
That my and your mind is intersubjective, i.e. fundamentally subjective is not the problem.
Such a intersubjective mind can be verified with evidence and agreed upon consensus by scientists and others.

Your mind as an independent entity is not proven, but speculated.
Your argument re,
  • 1) experience of wanting tea,
    2) decision to drink tea and
    3) taking tea.
is too flimsy and prove nothing regarding an mind as an entity.

Fundamentally there is no thing-in-itself,
the mind is a thing
therefore there is no thing as mind-in-itself.

Note whatever things humans can speak of, such things cannot be independent of the human conditions.
And as Wittgenstein stated,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Note,

An independent entity cannot be spoken [not verifiable] of,
The mind you claimed to exists is an independent entity.
Therefore the mind you claimed to exists cannot be spoken of,

Since the mind you claimed to exists cannot be spoken of, you have to shut up on such a claim.

jayjacobus
Posts: 951
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:44 am

Speak softly on Friday.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3109
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:37 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
What do you really mean by experience, decision, and causation are correlated?
Let me give you an example: Suppose that you have a cup of tea next to you now while you are reading my post from your computer. You look at the cup of tea and experience wanting tea. You then decide to drink some tea. You then cause your hand to move and drink some tea. So there are three steps in here:
1) experience of wanting tea,
2) decision to drink tea and
3) taking tea.
These three steps as you can see are correlated. For example, you won't go and take some coffee after you decide to drink tea, etc.
You should have done the above explanation long ago. That is why I complained your communication is not clear, thus wasting a lot of time and we talking pass each other.

Your point 1 is misleading.
All the 3 points 1-3 constitute experience by the empirical person.
Note 'empirical person' is the person we can all see and observed as existing alive.

The fact that you have a cup of tea beside you is already indication you has wanted to drink tea.

The more factual situation in the above is;
  • 1. All humans has the primal urge for nutrition, food and drink
    2. Decision is triggered to drink tea as a drink and its nutrients.
    3. Caused to drink the tea.
The above three steps are sequential, not correlated.

The ultimate root cause of the above is reducible to the survival drive of the individual which contribute to the preservation of the human species.
This survival drive trigger in the person the urge to eat food [hunger pangs] and drink water [liquids] [thirst].

There is no need to bring in the term 'mind' to explain the above.
More so, there is no need for a mind as an entity to explain all the above actions.

The only reason to introduce the term "mind" [as defined] is merely as a placeholder to represent the collection of brain activities plus activities from the whole person plus activities from the gut bacteria is participating in the whole series of actions 1 to 3.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
Why these particular 3 elements only?
Because there are these three elements in any act, experience, decision, and causation. You need to experience in order to have a need for doing something. You then decide considering all priorities. And finally, you cause.
Your 3 points are badly presented and I have corrected them and explained to you the root cause. There is no need for a mind as an independent entity.

Are you aware, there are many parasites that infect a person and they alone can control and drive a person to drink [e.g. rabies] or eat certain food.
In this case, you are implying these parasites are the independent mind as an entity that is correlated? This would be absurd.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
You are too fast and presumptive, there must a 'thing' to the correlation.
Why? You see such a correlation in all your actions if you reflect and study them well. My question is why they always correlate? It cannot be a matter of chance.
I explained they are not correlated but a triggered in sequence from root causes.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
Your argument is loaded with too many blanks, that is why I stated your claim is baseless and groundless.
I hope things are clear now.
Your explanation in your first point exposed the flaw therein and I have corrected them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
My point;
A person has a self.
Person cannot exist in materialism.
Regardless, the point is the person exists as a real empirical being that can be verified and justified as objective.
The point of 'materialism' [not tenable] is not the issue.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
Whatever experience, decision, causation related to the person is leveraged [or correlated] to the self.
The self is not an independent entity by itself but merely a bundle of activities as proven by Hume. Note,
So self to you is a name to a collection of activities?
You see an empirical person as a self and can easily explain that real empirical person [self] as a collection of activities.
I state, you yourself are a collection of activities. What is wrong with that.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am


Generally, the self has a mind but such a mind is not an entity.
If the mind is not an entity/objective then it must be subjective. There is no other option. A subjective thing such as mind cannot cause, decide and experience since these activities are subjective too. Simply a subjective thing cannot cause, decide and cause because they belong to the same category.
Nah you got rhetoric here.
An entity is objective which is intersubjective, thus fundamentally subjective.
You as a self, i.e. a person can experience from your primal drives to eat, drink and do whatever.
There is no need to introduce the idea that you have a mind that is an independent entity.

Where I refer to your mind, that is merely a collection of activities which is a part of another collection of activities, called the self.
Yes, the mind is subjective in your perspective and that is the source of the problem. A subjective thing, mind, cannot experience, decide and cause since these three activities are subjective too. Why this is correct? Because the mind in your perspective is only a state of mater or a configuration of mater. A configuration cannot experience since experience to you is a state or configuration of mater too.
That my and your mind is intersubjective, i.e. fundamentally subjective is not the problem.
Such a intersubjective mind can be verified with evidence and agreed upon consensus by scientists and others.

Your mind as an independent entity is not proven, but speculated.
Your argument re,
  • 1) experience of wanting tea,
    2) decision to drink tea and
    3) taking tea.
is too flimsy and prove nothing regarding an mind as an entity.

Fundamentally there is no thing-in-itself,
the mind is a thing
therefore there is no thing as mind-in-itself.

Note whatever things humans can speak of, such things cannot be independent of the human conditions.
And as Wittgenstein stated,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Note,

An independent entity cannot be spoken [not verifiable] of,
The mind you claimed to exists is an independent entity.
Therefore the mind you claimed to exists cannot be spoken of,

Since the mind you claimed to exists cannot be spoken of, you have to shut up on such a claim.
No offense is taken. You are not a person in the end. Experience, decision, and causation just happen in you.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4121
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:44 am

bahman wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:33 am
No offense is taken. You are not a person in the end. Experience, decision, and causation just happen in you.
Scientific proof based on empirical evidence will prove I am a person just as the same to any human being that is alive.
Do you dispute Science?

Forget about your "Experience, decision, and causation" examples. I have shown them to be a mess.
Suggest you reframe your question and provide new examples.

Why don't you use examples of NDE [near death experiences], reincarnation when the person move into another entity after physical death.
These are definitely better presentation than your "Experience, decision, and causation" examples, but ultimately they are nonsensical.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3109
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:23 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:33 am
No offense is taken. You are not a person in the end. Experience, decision, and causation just happen in you.
Scientific proof based on empirical evidence will prove I am a person just as the same to any human being that is alive.
Do you dispute Science?
How do you define the person?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:44 am
Forget about your "Experience, decision, and causation" examples. I have shown them to be a mess.
Suggest you reframe your question and provide new examples.
These three steps are fundamental in any act made by an agent. You want another example, 1) you read my post or experience it, 2) You then decide whether to reply to it or not, and 3) you cause by which I mean you reply.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:44 am
Why don't you use examples of NDE [near death experiences], reincarnation when the person move into another entity after physical death.
I have tremendous amount of spiritual expeirneces but I don't need to mention them for the sake of discussion.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:44 am
These are definitely better presentation than your "Experience, decision, and causation" examples, but ultimately they are nonsensical.
You need to reflect to see that experience, decision and causation are fundamental steps in any agent's action.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests