PH's Stupidity: The "Mind" Does not Exist as Real

[Peter Holmes]

I'm being charged with denying that the human mind, containing mental things and events, exists - and that this is some kind of aberration or abnormality. Perhaps I can try some other tack.

When we say 'I feel this in my heart', or make a 'heartfelt response', I assume we agree that this is to speak metaphorically. We would think it odd to look for feelings in the heart. It's just an organic pump. But is to recognise this to deny the existence of feelings?

Of course, that's not to say that a strong emotional response may not manifest as a pain in the region of the heart, or in the chest - which may be the origin of the metaphor. Perhaps we feel things in our ribs or intercostal muscles. We certainly talk about knowing things in our bones.

Now, let's go up to the brain, which, like the heart, consists of nothing but organic tissue, in which electrochemical process occur. And I assume everyone sees what I'm getting at.

Metaphors are fine. Everyday language is laced with them. But the myth of the mind, 'containing' mental things and events, has long submerged or eradicated our recognition that it is a metaphor - a way of talking about our selves and our experiences - using shared language games that we learn from the cradle.

[Skepdick]

I'm being charged with denying that the human mind, containing mental things and events, exists - and that this is some kind of aberration or abnormality. Perhaps I can try some other tack.

When we say 'I feel this in my heart', or make a 'heartfelt response', I assume we agree that this is to speak metaphorically. We would think it odd to look for feelings in the heart. It's just an organic pump. But is to recognise this to deny the existence of feelings?

Of course, that's not to say that a strong emotional response may not manifest as a pain in the region of the heart, or in the chest - which may be the origin of the metaphor. Perhaps we feel things in our ribs or intercostal muscles. We certainly talk about knowing things in our bones.

Now, let's go up to the brain, which, like the heart, consists of nothing but organic tissue, in which electrochemical process occur. And I assume everyone sees what I'm getting at.

Metaphors are fine. Everyday language is laced with them. But the myth of the mind, 'containing' mental things and events, has long submerged or eradicated our recognition that it is a metaphor - a way of talking about our selves and our experiences - using shared language games that we learn from the cradle.

So your feelings don't exist.

Neither in the heart. Nor in the mind. Nor anywhere.

Your love for your wife; or children - nonexistent.

I am not saying you are an idiot...

[Harbal]

I'm being charged with denying that the human mind, containing mental things and events, exists - and that this is some kind of aberration or abnormality. Perhaps I can try some other tack.

When we say 'I feel this in my heart', or make a 'heartfelt response', I assume we agree that this is to speak metaphorically. We would think it odd to look for feelings in the heart. It's just an organic pump. But is to recognise this to deny the existence of feelings?

Of course, that's not to say that a strong emotional response may not manifest as a pain in the region of the heart, or in the chest - which may be the origin of the metaphor. Perhaps we feel things in our ribs or intercostal muscles. We certainly talk about knowing things in our bones.

Now, let's go up to the brain, which, like the heart, consists of nothing but organic tissue, in which electrochemical process occur. And I assume everyone sees what I'm getting at.

Metaphors are fine. Everyday language is laced with them. But the myth of the mind, 'containing' mental things and events, has long submerged or eradicated our recognition that it is a metaphor - a way of talking about our selves and our experiences - using shared language games that we learn from the cradle.

So your feelings don't exist.

Neither in the heart. Nor in the mind. Nor anywhere.

Your love for your wife; or children - nonexistent.

I am not saying you are an idiot...

You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding him.

[Peter Holmes]

I'm being charged with denying that the human mind, containing mental things and events, exists - and that this is some kind of aberration or abnormality. Perhaps I can try some other tack.

When we say 'I feel this in my heart', or make a 'heartfelt response', I assume we agree that this is to speak metaphorically. We would think it odd to look for feelings in the heart. It's just an organic pump. But is to recognise this to deny the existence of feelings?

Of course, that's not to say that a strong emotional response may not manifest as a pain in the region of the heart, or in the chest - which may be the origin of the metaphor. Perhaps we feel things in our ribs or intercostal muscles. We certainly talk about knowing things in our bones.

Now, let's go up to the brain, which, like the heart, consists of nothing but organic tissue, in which electrochemical process occur. And I assume everyone sees what I'm getting at.

Metaphors are fine. Everyday language is laced with them. But the myth of the mind, 'containing' mental things and events, has long submerged or eradicated our recognition that it is a metaphor - a way of talking about our selves and our experiences - using shared language games that we learn from the cradle.

So your feelings don't exist.

Neither in the heart. Nor in the mind. Nor anywhere.

Your love for your wife; or children - nonexistent.

I am not saying you are an idiot...

You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding him.

Thanks for that, Harbal. (Sorry.) Perhaps I shouldn't assume anything.

[Skepdick]

I'm being charged with denying that the human mind, containing mental things and events, exists - and that this is some kind of aberration or abnormality. Perhaps I can try some other tack.

When we say 'I feel this in my heart', or make a 'heartfelt response', I assume we agree that this is to speak metaphorically. We would think it odd to look for feelings in the heart. It's just an organic pump. But is to recognise this to deny the existence of feelings?

Of course, that's not to say that a strong emotional response may not manifest as a pain in the region of the heart, or in the chest - which may be the origin of the metaphor. Perhaps we feel things in our ribs or intercostal muscles. We certainly talk about knowing things in our bones.

Now, let's go up to the brain, which, like the heart, consists of nothing but organic tissue, in which electrochemical process occur. And I assume everyone sees what I'm getting at.

Metaphors are fine. Everyday language is laced with them. But the myth of the mind, 'containing' mental things and events, has long submerged or eradicated our recognition that it is a metaphor - a way of talking about our selves and our experiences - using shared language games that we learn from the cradle.

So your feelings don't exist.

Neither in the heart. Nor in the mind. Nor anywhere.

Your love for your wife; or children - nonexistent.

I am not saying you are an idiot...

You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding him.

I am really not.

The elaborate obscurantism about the location of feelings and the metaphorical use of "feeling in my heart" is skilfully engineered to distract you from the simple yes/no question of their existence. Irrespective of their location; and irrespective of the manner we speak about them.

The reason for the distraction is fairly obvious - it's an attempt to steer you away from challenging him about his non-existence belief.

[Peter Holmes]

I say. Gratifying to know I can construct a skilfully engineered obscurantist argument. Perhaps I'm not such a dumb c..t after all.

[CIN]

I'm being charged with denying that the human mind, containing mental things and events, exists - and that this is some kind of aberration or abnormality. Perhaps I can try some other tack.

When we say 'I feel this in my heart', or make a 'heartfelt response', I assume we agree that this is to speak metaphorically. We would think it odd to look for feelings in the heart. It's just an organic pump. But is to recognise this to deny the existence of feelings?

Of course, that's not to say that a strong emotional response may not manifest as a pain in the region of the heart, or in the chest - which may be the origin of the metaphor. Perhaps we feel things in our ribs or intercostal muscles. We certainly talk about knowing things in our bones.

Now, let's go up to the brain, which, like the heart, consists of nothing but organic tissue, in which electrochemical process occur. And I assume everyone sees what I'm getting at.

Metaphors are fine. Everyday language is laced with them. But the myth of the mind, 'containing' mental things and events, has long submerged or eradicated our recognition that it is a metaphor - a way of talking about our selves and our experiences - using shared language games that we learn from the cradle.

So your feelings don't exist.

Neither in the heart. Nor in the mind. Nor anywhere.

Your love for your wife; or children - nonexistent.

I am not saying you are an idiot...

You exist and you feel. That's all. If you say you have feelings, all you can truthfully mean is that you are feeling. You exist. Your feelings don't.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm being charged with denying that the human mind, containing mental things and events, exists - and that this is some kind of aberration or abnormality. Perhaps I can try some other tack.

I stated you deny the existence of the mind because you are assuming and using the mind metaphorically as a "container" and ultimately in the literal sense.
From this perspective, it is obvious there in no mind as a container in the brain.

In the case of a mind-proper, it should be viewed in term of an organic mechanical system with executable programs represented by its active neural correlates within the human brain and connected to other organics systems in the human body.

From this perspective, it undeniable a mind-proper exists as a physical thing [mechanical system] in the brain connected to all other system in the body.

When we say 'I feel this in my heart', or make a 'heartfelt response', I assume we agree that this is to speak metaphorically.

When you use the "container" metaphor for the heart, and is dogmatically stuck with it, you are limiting the reality of 'what is the heart-proper'.

We would think it odd to look for feelings in the heart. It's just an organic pump. But is to recognise this to deny the existence of feelings?

"It's just an organic pump."

You are so ignorant and stuck in 'primitive' time-trap especially when there is already an exponential expansion of knowledge and technological in my fields of knowledge.
You must admit you are ignorant to the core and wholly as a person.

Of course, that's not to say that a strong emotional response may not manifest as a pain in the region of the heart, or in the chest - which may be the origin of the metaphor. Perhaps we feel things in our ribs or intercostal muscles. We certainly talk about knowing things in our bones.

There is a direct link from the heart to emotions. There had a lot of scientific studies to support this thesis and reality.

What Science Tells Us About Emotion and Our Hearts
https://www.abbott.com/corpnewsroom/hea ... otion.html

The Heart Can Directly Influence Our Emotions
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opin ... ions-70995

There are tons of the above research, get the hell off your "dogmatic chair" and research on them.

Our earlier ancestors do not have a brain but have a heart. At the same time they need emotions [emote = to move] to respond within the environment to facilitate survival. As such the fundamental emotional programs are situated within the heart and still is at present [albeit subliminal].

Feelings are interdependent with the heart.

YOU MUST BE ALWAYS BE MINDFUL OF YOU IGNORANCE and being shallow and narrow minded.
You have been caught in such a situation a "million" of times already.
Your arguments are never supported by relevant references but merely relied from hearsays from your past archived bits of data.
Don't be an ULTRACREPIDARIAN to embarrass yourself.

Now, let's go up to the brain, which, like the heart, consists of nothing but organic tissue, in which electrochemical process occur. And I assume everyone sees what I'm getting at.

You are ignorant of the real facts, unfortunately almost everyone here are in the same shoe like yours.

It is a fact, a mind-proper should be viewed in term of an organic mechanical system with executable programs represented by its active neural correlates within the human brain and connected to other organics systems in the human body.
This is verified as a scientific fact within the scientific-biological-psychological FSK, thus objective.
It is only when the mind is recognized as a fact and objective organic mechanical system, that improvements can be made to facilitate humanity's progress.

Metaphors are fine. Everyday language is laced with them. But the myth of the mind, 'containing' mental things and events, has long submerged or eradicated our recognition that it is a metaphor - a way of talking about our selves and our experiences - using shared language games that we learn from the cradle.

The problem is you are dogmatically stuck with the idea that the mind is taken to be a container metaphorically.

If you change your perspective that
the mind is recognized as a fact and objective organic mechanical system, then improvements [objective morality, etc.] can be made to facilitate humanity's progress.

[Peter Holmes]

I'm being charged with denying that the human mind, containing mental things and events, exists - and that this is some kind of aberration or abnormality. Perhaps I can try some other tack.

I stated you deny the existence of the mind because you are assuming and using the mind metaphorically as a "container" and ultimately in the literal sense.
From this perspective, it is obvious there in no mind as a container in the brain.

In the case of a mind-proper, it should be viewed in term of an organic mechanical system with executable programs represented by its active neural correlates within the human brain and connected to other organics systems in the human body.

From this perspective, it undeniable a mind-proper exists as a physical thing [mechanical system] in the brain connected to all other system in the body.

When we say 'I feel this in my heart', or make a 'heartfelt response', I assume we agree that this is to speak metaphorically.

When you use the "container" metaphor for the heart, and is dogmatically stuck with it, you are limiting the reality of 'what is the heart-proper'.

We would think it odd to look for feelings in the heart. It's just an organic pump. But is to recognise this to deny the existence of feelings?

"It's just an organic pump."

You are so ignorant and stuck in 'primitive' time-trap especially when there is already an exponential expansion of knowledge and technological in my fields of knowledge.
You must admit you are ignorant to the core and wholly as a person.

Of course, that's not to say that a strong emotional response may not manifest as a pain in the region of the heart, or in the chest - which may be the origin of the metaphor. Perhaps we feel things in our ribs or intercostal muscles. We certainly talk about knowing things in our bones.

There is a direct link from the heart to emotions. There had a lot of scientific studies to support this thesis and reality.

What Science Tells Us About Emotion and Our Hearts
https://www.abbott.com/corpnewsroom/hea ... otion.html

The Heart Can Directly Influence Our Emotions
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opin ... ions-70995

There are tons of the above research, get the hell off your "dogmatic chair" and research on them.

Our earlier ancestors do not have a brain but have a heart. At the same time they need emotions [emote = to move] to respond within the environment to facilitate survival. As such the fundamental emotional programs are situated within the heart and still is at present [albeit subliminal].

Feelings are interdependent with the heart.

YOU MUST BE ALWAYS BE MINDFUL OF YOU IGNORANCE and being shallow and narrow minded.
You have been caught in such a situation a "million" of times already.
Your arguments are never supported by relevant references but merely relied from hearsays from your past archived bits of data.
Don't be an ULTRACREPIDARIAN to embarrass yourself.

Now, let's go up to the brain, which, like the heart, consists of nothing but organic tissue, in which electrochemical process occur. And I assume everyone sees what I'm getting at.

You are ignorant of the real facts, unfortunately almost everyone here are in the same shoe like yours.

It is a fact, a mind-proper should be viewed in term of an organic mechanical system with executable programs represented by its active neural correlates within the human brain and connected to other organics systems in the human body.
This is verified as a scientific fact within the scientific-biological-psychological FSK, thus objective.
It is only when the mind is recognized as a fact and objective organic mechanical system, that improvements can be made to facilitate humanity's progress.

Metaphors are fine. Everyday language is laced with them. But the myth of the mind, 'containing' mental things and events, has long submerged or eradicated our recognition that it is a metaphor - a way of talking about our selves and our experiences - using shared language games that we learn from the cradle.

The problem is you are dogmatically stuck with the idea that the mind is taken to be a container metaphorically.

If you change your perspective that
the mind is recognized as a fact and objective organic mechanical system, then improvements [objective morality, etc.] can be made to facilitate humanity's progress.

Stop press. Different parts of the body, our limbs and organs, such as the skin, can affect our emotions and moods. Perhaps we should look for emotions and moods in our legs or skins.

'So, you deny that emotions and moods exist?'

What gives you the impression that I'm denying anything? What shibboleth are you so desperate to maintain?

[Skepdick]

You exist and you feel... You exist. Your feelings don't.

You are going to have to ellaborate on that part. How does somebody feel a feeling that doesn't exist?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So your feelings don't exist.

Neither in the heart. Nor in the mind. Nor anywhere.

Your love for your wife; or children - nonexistent.

I am not saying you are an idiot...

You exist and you feel. That's all. If you say you have feelings, all you can truthfully mean is that you are feeling. You exist. Your feelings don't.

Anything that is experienced definitely exists, at least to the first-person.
As such to insist that feelings that are felt and experienced-feelings within one self don't exist' is self-deception and self-delusional.

However 'exist' is never a predicate.
As such, feelings experienced by oneself and exist must be predicated,
i.e. feelings exist as emotions triggered by the emotional neural correlates activated in action.

While feelings experienced by the first-person is subjective, it can be objectified via a Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge and its whole system of activities.
e.g. feelings can be objectified as real via the scientific-biology-psychology FSK.
This is undeniable, if not, prove it otherwise.

Feelings are very fundamental to survival and to recognize feelings as objective will enable one to survive more effectively and progressively.

Feelings must be recognized to exist so that we will not be slave to the passions.
Note how emotions and feeling must be recognized as real existence so that it can be managed, as in Aristotle's

• “ANYBODY can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry
  with the right person, and
  to the right degree, and
  at the right time, and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way,
  that is not within everybody's power, that is not easy.”

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm being charged with denying that the human mind, containing mental things and events, exists - and that this is some kind of aberration or abnormality. Perhaps I can try some other tack.

I stated you deny the existence of the mind because you are assuming and using the mind metaphorically as a "container" and ultimately in the literal sense.
From this perspective, it is obvious there in no mind as a container in the brain.

In the case of a mind-proper, it should be viewed in term of an organic mechanical system with executable programs represented by its active neural correlates within the human brain and connected to other organics systems in the human body.

From this perspective, it undeniable a mind-proper exists as a physical thing [mechanical system] in the brain connected to all other system in the body.

When we say 'I feel this in my heart', or make a 'heartfelt response', I assume we agree that this is to speak metaphorically.

When you use the "container" metaphor for the heart, and is dogmatically stuck with it, you are limiting the reality of 'what is the heart-proper'.

We would think it odd to look for feelings in the heart. It's just an organic pump. But is to recognise this to deny the existence of feelings?

"It's just an organic pump."

You are so ignorant and stuck in 'primitive' time-trap especially when there is already an exponential expansion of knowledge and technological in my fields of knowledge.
You must admit you are ignorant to the core and wholly as a person.

Of course, that's not to say that a strong emotional response may not manifest as a pain in the region of the heart, or in the chest - which may be the origin of the metaphor. Perhaps we feel things in our ribs or intercostal muscles. We certainly talk about knowing things in our bones.

There is a direct link from the heart to emotions. There had a lot of scientific studies to support this thesis and reality.

What Science Tells Us About Emotion and Our Hearts
https://www.abbott.com/corpnewsroom/hea ... otion.html

The Heart Can Directly Influence Our Emotions
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opin ... ions-70995

There are tons of the above research, get the hell off your "dogmatic chair" and research on them.

Our earlier ancestors do not have a brain but have a heart. At the same time they need emotions [emote = to move] to respond within the environment to facilitate survival. As such the fundamental emotional programs are situated within the heart and still is at present [albeit subliminal].

Feelings are interdependent with the heart.

YOU MUST BE ALWAYS BE MINDFUL OF YOU IGNORANCE and being shallow and narrow minded.
You have been caught in such a situation a "million" of times already.
Your arguments are never supported by relevant references but merely relied from hearsays from your past archived bits of data.
Don't be an ULTRACREPIDARIAN to embarrass yourself.

Now, let's go up to the brain, which, like the heart, consists of nothing but organic tissue, in which electrochemical process occur. And I assume everyone sees what I'm getting at.

You are ignorant of the real facts, unfortunately almost everyone here are in the same shoe like yours.

It is a fact, a mind-proper should be viewed in term of an organic mechanical system with executable programs represented by its active neural correlates within the human brain and connected to other organics systems in the human body.
This is verified as a scientific fact within the scientific-biological-psychological FSK, thus objective.
It is only when the mind is recognized as a fact and objective organic mechanical system, that improvements can be made to facilitate humanity's progress.

Metaphors are fine. Everyday language is laced with them. But the myth of the mind, 'containing' mental things and events, has long submerged or eradicated our recognition that it is a metaphor - a way of talking about our selves and our experiences - using shared language games that we learn from the cradle.

The problem is you are dogmatically stuck with the idea that the mind is taken to be a container metaphorically.

If you change your perspective that
the mind is recognized as a fact and objective organic mechanical system, then improvements [objective morality, etc.] can be made to facilitate humanity's progress.

Stop press. Different parts of the body, our limbs and organs, such as the skin, can affect our emotions and moods. Perhaps we should look for emotions and moods in our legs or skins.

'So, you deny that emotions and moods exist?'

What gives you the impression that I'm denying anything? What shibboleth are you so desperate to maintain?

Nah you are ignorant again and created your usual strawman.


You stated
"It's just an organic pump."
as such has nothing to do with feelings and emotions in a significant way.
The point is the heart has a significant and perhaps a fundamental role in generating feelings.
I have listed the above researches and there are many more of such researches that linked the heart as playing a significant role in generating feelings.

Your "different parts of the body, our limbs and organs, such as the skin, can affect our emotions and moods" merely have nerves that are connected to the main organs [heart and limbic's emotional parts] responsible for feelings.
These parts play a secondary role in generating feelings.

You insist "It's [the heart is] just an organic pump" and deny it has a major and significant role in generating feelings and emotions like the limbic emotional parts in the mid-brain.

[Iwannaplato]

When we say 'I feel this in my heart', or make a 'heartfelt response', I assume we agree that this is to speak metaphorically. We would think it odd to look for feelings in the heart. It's just an organic pump. But is to recognise this to deny the existence of feelings?

Actually the heart has a large number of neurons

Recent findings: Dr. Armour, in 1991, discovered that the heart has its "little brain" or "intrinsic cardiac nervous system." This "heart brain" is composed of approximately 40,000 neurons that are alike neurons in the brain, meaning that the heart has its own nervous system. In addition, the heart communicates with the brain in many methods: neurologically, biochemically, biophysically, and energetically. The vagus nerve, which is 80% afferent, carries information from the heart and other internal organs to the brain. Signals from the "heart brain" redirect to the medulla, hypothalamus, thalamus, and amygdala and the cerebral cortex. Thus, the heart sends more signals to the brain than vice versa. Research has demonstrated that pain perception is modulated by neural pathways and methods targeting the heart such as vagus nerve stimulation and heart-rhythm coherence feedback techniques. The heart is not just a pump. It has its neural network or "little brain." The methods targeting the heart modulate pain regions in the brain. These methods seem to modulate the key changes that occur in the brain regions and are involved in the cognitive and emotional factors of pain. Thus, the heart is probably a key moderator of pain.

As does the gut...

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/ ... o%20little.

The neurons in the heart and the gut are not just there to pump or digest and have very complicated relationships with the brain and endocrine systems, emotions also.

[Veritas Aequitas]

When we say 'I feel this in my heart', or make a 'heartfelt response', I assume we agree that this is to speak metaphorically. We would think it odd to look for feelings in the heart. It's just an organic pump. But is to recognise this to deny the existence of feelings?

Actually the heart has a large number of neurons

Recent findings: Dr. Armour, in 1991, discovered that the heart has its "little brain" or "intrinsic cardiac nervous system." This "heart brain" is composed of approximately 40,000 neurons that are alike neurons in the brain, meaning that the heart has its own nervous system. In addition, the heart communicates with the brain in many methods: neurologically, biochemically, biophysically, and energetically. The vagus nerve, which is 80% afferent, carries information from the heart and other internal organs to the brain. Signals from the "heart brain" redirect to the medulla, hypothalamus, thalamus, and amygdala and the cerebral cortex. Thus, the heart sends more signals to the brain than vice versa. Research has demonstrated that pain perception is modulated by neural pathways and methods targeting the heart such as vagus nerve stimulation and heart-rhythm coherence feedback techniques. The heart is not just a pump. It has its neural network or "little brain." The methods targeting the heart modulate pain regions in the brain. These methods seem to modulate the key changes that occur in the brain regions and are involved in the cognitive and emotional factors of pain. Thus, the heart is probably a key moderator of pain.

As does the gut...

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/ ... o%20little.

The neurons in the heart and the gut are not just there to pump or digest and have very complicated relationships with the brain and endocrine systems, emotions also.

PH must acknowledge his ignorance of the above and in general very ignorant of the latest advancing knowledge of human nature. The is the primary ground why PH and his like cannot grasp most of my proposals which are supported by the latest verified knowledge of human nature, etc. [with some reservations].

The point is the evolutionary default of philosophical realism is very primal and forceful that it act like a very sensitive and effect 'seat belt; i.e. at the slightest inkling of threat from new knowledge, his defense mechanisms will kick in instantly and block whatever is new knowledge.

[Atla]

I think there were even cases where people reported to have acquired feelings and preferences they didn't have before, after organ transplants.

Anyway that's beside the point now, the problem is the denial of the reality of experiences themselves. One pretends that they don't have a reality of their own, and just refers to them metaphorically or not even that (which thinking is, ironically, just a different kind of real experience).