|
|
|
|
|
| | Are you your mind?Page 3 of 6 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) |
An organism's subjective self is, as I said, the "what it's like to be" an organism's guidance-system. A guidance-system designed to deal with the physical things of the physical world.
What, if anything, is the subjective self without the physical self then? Is it without any sensory perception of its own?
The organism's individual conditioned subjective self wouldn't be, without the organism, the body.
In "the physical story", which I've defined in previous posts, the individual's self, because it's the subject of the view of the animal's guidance-system, is there because the animal is there.
I say that about the individual conditioned self, but I don't say that about the Self, general Consciousness. That's where we differ.
We're all familiar with the direction of causation in the physical story: First the big bang, then the formation of stars and galaxies, and planets, and the chemical formation of biological life on at least one planet of this universe. And then conscious biological organisms. As I said, such a physical story is necessary to support the individual's life possibility story, which of ocurse requires a universe in which for the story's protagonist to have its life.
I've explained that at greater length in previous posts. Anyway, Physicalists take that story as fundamental ontological Truth. I don't. Since I suggest that Consciousness is what is, of course I also say that Consciousness doesn't depend on the physical world, or on any organism's body. I've explained my position on that, and you don't like for me to repeat.
What would we experience without any of those five physical senses?
Close your eyes and experience your anger toward people who don't agree with you.
Me: intellectually honest question
You: intellectually dishonest "answer"
Ok, it was a funny answer. But the serious answer is: Thoughts and feelings.
A new question regarding your earlier post:
Some prominent computer scientists (Raymond Kurtzweil is one) seem sure that someday it will be possible to copy your experiencing self into a computer, so that the computer will simulate your experiencing self.
How can a nonphysical thing (your experiencing self) be copied onto a physical thing (a computer) in light of your previous claim:
do you see the problem with expecting something nonphysical to "make itself known" to physical test instruments...
Good question. Here's what I meant:
What is copied into the computer is a program that simulates the person's guidance system.
As I said above, the individual conditioned self is the subject of the view of that guidance system--the "what it's like to be" of that guidance-system. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 8/27/2011 11:22:04 AM | The organism's individual conditioned subjective self wouldn't be, without the organism, the body.
In "the physical story", which I've defined in previous posts, the individual's self, because it's the subject of the view of the animal's guidance-system, is there because the animal is there.
I say that about the individual conditioned self, but I don't say that about the Self, general Consciousness.
So, what, if anything, is the general Consciousness without the physical self then? Is it without any sensory perception of its own?
In general, your feelings and thoughts are not using the five senses.
Indirectly, they do. Our thoughts and feelings are in response to information gathered from the five senses. We would have extremely little to think/feel about without them. Hunger for nourishment and the need to dispense waste might be the only feelings left, if even that. We might happily starve to death without any senses, upon further reflection on that scenario.
What is copied into the computer is a program that simulates the person's guidance system.
I recall you elsewhere claiming that a computer program is nonphysical, but for the sake of argument here I'll let it go. So, a physical program can accurately simulate the nonphysical?
Edit:
I agree that the five senses are physical and bodily. And I agree that nothing beyond this life and this world is knowable.
BTW, regarding the reality of this physical world and its events, I remind you of a thought-experiment that I described here a few times. Forgive the repetition, but said that there's evidence for the full and genuine existence of the physical world. In this post I've told of evidence to the contrary.
These two claims seem to be in need of reconciliation or clarification. How is something (this world) the only knowable thing while at the same time its existence is lacking evidence? Doesn't true knowledge require evidence? | |
|
x_file
| | Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 53 | |
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 8/27/2011 6:29:37 PM |
Are you your mind?
Who is this "YOU" that asks?
You might as well contemplate the more noble question "Who am I"?
Plato would probably say, "No". For him the soul, which contains the "mind" or the rational element, is who you are. You are a soul. Of course, that's of no help to one's understanding, for the question still remains, "What is a soul?"... which is another way of asking "Who am I?" or "What am I?"
Descartes would probably say "Yes". Why? Coquito ergo sum.
If I had to answer the question, I'd go with "No", but not because that's the answer, but rather because it is a safe answer. I rather assume I'm not the mind, and prove that I am.
In seeking an answer to questions like yours it is best not easily give into an answer, and if necessary remain with the uncomfortable feeling of not knowing, than to deceive oneself into thinking you know when you actually don't.
But it once again comes full circle to perception dictating one's reality.
For there to be a perception, there must be something beyond perception... something more basic, more "real" than perception itself - the conditions for perception itself.
Look up Kant's categories. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 8/28/2011 6:00:14 PM | Appreciative:
You strike me as being somewhat disturbed in your neurotic manner of responding.
Unfortunately, you are simply incapable of discoursing about these topics in an honest, educated, and sophisticated way. Rather, what you deliver is facile and very much intellectually disingenuous.
Try getting your views published in a leading peer-reviewed philosophical journal (you could also try to impress by aiming for publication in the prominent interdisciplinary publication 'Consciousness Studies').
You will not be able to, however, because your views are a bunch of incoherent rubbish. The peer-reviewers will call bloody murder on you.
That said, I will make only a few comments of a constructive sort, since there is no getting through to you about consciousness. So there's not point. Hopefully you will be able to engage these comments in an intellectually honest way.
You read lots of for-the-public descriptive science articles and books. I don't criticize that, but it doens't make you a scientist.
Pointless.
If you have an issue with these ideas, engage with them; they are not unique to me, nor did I concoct them. A growing number of physicists and cosmologists are taking such speculations very seriously, for empirical and theoretical reasons.
I haven't read those sources as much as you have, and so I could be mistaken about this, but I thought that Everett's many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics spoke of alternative universes with the same physical laws as those of our universe, but in which certain random events happened differently.
Yes.
Ok, if you believe that the notion of those parallel universes might be valid, even if they aren't physically related to ours via a comon spatial continuum, or via one universe generating another--if they're merely other possibilities--then yes, you _don't_ believe that this possibility world we live in is the only real one.
Depends on what you mean by physically related. The Everettian view broadly holds that they're all branching universes stemming from the universal wave function, of which we would be located within but one.
But do you discriminate in favor of alternative universes that have the same physical laws as those of our universe, and not include the alternative universes with entirely different physical laws?
The multiverse hypothesis is typically taken as being separate from -- but not mutually exclusive with -- the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Conceptually speaking, therefore, it is possible that both the multiverse and parallel Everettian universe hypotheses jointly obtain; and the eternalism thesis about time might also be true in combination with these two other theses.
I should also note that very recently there has been some chatter about how the hypothetical multiverse generated by eternal inflation might possibly be related to the cosmological observations made within our universe.
If I have time I might come back and post a link to a paper by Susskind and one of his colleagues published within the last few months that discusses the above possibility of cosmological observations.
Needless to say, this particular topic is a matter of fierce debate within the physics community, and perhaps is about as polarizing as string theory (which itself is now aligned with the multiverse hypothesis due to the landscape in M-theory).
Our universe is only a possibility-world. You yourself now agree that our universe is only one possibility-world among infinitely many, and is no more existent or real than the others.
Well, I don't outright believe any of what I'm suggesting (though so far as a description of physical ontology is concerned, I'm partial to a broad view known as 'structural realism', which I outlined in one of my posts, because there's compelling evidence in its favor).
The multiverse and parallel universe ideas I raise are those which I take to be respectable speculations that are very much live options and suspiciously consistent with various empirical and theoretical considerations.
Some have suggested that many independent lines of investigation are all convergently pointing in the direction of the multiverse.
Either way, we should not outright believe any of it, at least not yet. But I'm happy to discuss such matters, by virtue of their intellectual respectability.
Now you're speaking of a "multiverse", all of whose "sub-universes" are physically-related in at least one of the two ways I spoke of.
So which is it? Do you say that physically-unrelated possibility worlds are as real as ours, or do you say they're only as real as ours if they're physically related to it, as defined above?
Whether or not such universes in the hypothetical multiverse are in some way physically related or not -- even though it's not entirely clear what you precisely mean by this -- the point is that if they exist we should grant them equal existence status with our own universe.
They would all have been 'seeded' as bubble universes by inflation. It would thus be the false vacuum of inflation -- which theoretically would be expanding at an exponentially increasing rate, and faster than light -- that would 'contain' the infinite number of bubble universes, each of which is a true vacuum.
If you read the cosmologist Alex Vilenkin's book, he gives a rough description of how the scalar fields of the false vacuum of inflation decay quantum-mechanically in ways which give rise to the true vacua of the infinite bubble universes.
Relatedly, as per the landscape idea in M-theory, each bubble universe would therefore be characterized by one of the 10^500 different versions of string theory, which among string theorists is now essentially taken as an unavoidable and thus necessary component of the theory.
(This is how it then becomes possible for different universes to be characterized by different physics than the one observed here in our bubble universe.)
Hence, within the infinity of bubble universes there would be an infinite number of bubble universes having different physical constants than the ones extant in our particular universe.
...of which you, OffIShall, are not a member.
It doesn't matter who is and isn't a member.
What would matter, however, is when someone outside of a particular scientific community holds a view which runs counter to a consensus view, or makes claims that no such scientists are in fact making, or which are belied by the empirical evidence.
I merely report on aspects of these ideas that physicists and cosmologists have been working on.
Neither you or I are qualified to make firm conclusions on any of these matters. The best we can do is wait on the sidelines and take an interest in the actual views held by those qualified to have such views on these topics.
This is why I do not go to the park and navel gaze whilst mentally masturbating my way to metaphysical conclusions; instead I read what physicists, cosmologists and philosophers of physics have written on these matters, as an interested bystander. That's the rational thing to do.
By the way, the infinite eternal multiverse is the only thing that could save Phsyicalism from arbitrariness.
Well, actually, not so fast.
It's still possible that there is a unique theory which will explain why the various constants that we observe in our universe must, for some sort of deep mathematically self-consistent reason, be necessarily as they are.
Or maybe they will turn out to be that way for brute reasons which cannot in principle be probed further.
We shouldn't be so epistemically presumptuous to make such a strong conclusion. My own unqualified opinion is that the string theorists are right, particularly because of the value of the cosmological constant...which is rather spooky.
Leonard Susskind, one of the founders of string theory, basically takes the value of lambda -- Einstein's old cosmological constant -- as a sort of smoking gun pointing toward the multiverse hypothesis. A growing number of scientists agree with him.
But it would take more than that. Physicists would have to establish that that multiverse is the only possible self-consistent possibility world, and that it can't have several mutually-distinguishable configurations.
I'm not sure I see what you mean by "mutually-distinguishable configurations." Perhaps what I've already said above might address what you have in mind.
Recall that the M-theory landscape calls for different physics for different bubble universes -- in fact infinite numbers of each permutation.
In any case, arbitrariness isn't Phsyicalism's only problem. But that's ok because you've renounced Physicalism.
In the actual philosophical literature, physicalism is used in discussions within the philosophy of mind. It is alluded to as a thesis of consciousness being an exhaustively physical phenomena. I will cite numerous papers if you doubt me.
Any other notions that you attribute to me are entirely of your own fancy.
I'm a physicalist about the mind, as per the term's actual usage amongst contemporary academic philosophers. It would be best to construe the term physicalism as it is actually used, rather than what you think it means.
I've beens saying all along that this physical universe is merely a possibility-world, a world of "if" rather than "is".
Yeah, but using the words 'if' and 'is' in this manner is highly misleading. All of the views I've been highlighting are not dependent on consciousness in order to bring what they posit into existence.
In other words, according to, say, the multiverse hypothesis, there are infinite numbers of universes with physical constants that do not permit for even the possibility of biological life, let alone consciousness. Yet they would still be just as ontologically existent as this universe.
The physical world contains no objects with other than contextual existence. It's just a possibility story.
I'm not sure why you refer to such things as "possibility stories."
People will understand you better if you just consider all possibilities as real; unless of course it is an ideological requirement of your view that everything remain an unreal possibility story, so as to square it with these bizarre notions of a conscious ultimate reality that you hold.
And that, of course, is where you lose people like me, unfortunately.
Consciousness is now a theoretically tractable phenomenon within cognitive neuroscience.
On that point, notice that nowhere below the level of brains does their exist the kind of dynamic signatures of oscillating networks of neurons ephemerally shifting to and fro in phase synchrony.
To think otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the phenomenon of consciousness as we now understand it, and how and where it arises.
Tricking ourselves into thinking conscious phenomena can exist where our modern science tells us explicitly where it can't in fact exist is quite simply a delusion.
You might also want to check out the Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA, Francis Crick's book, 'The Astonishing Hypothesis', which forcefully makes the same point about consciousness.
Right, like the naive intuitive belief that causation goes from physical world to consciousness.
Heh! Actually, it's precisely the inverse: The widespread naive folk intuition is that consciousness is a distinct entity from the physical world. Recall Paul Bloom's book regarding humans as being innately predisposed to this view.
Everything we know about the brain, for instance in the clinical literature, amply demonstrates how completely dependent mentality and consciousness is on the brain and body. It ceases to exist without such a connection.
Belief in 'unconditioned' or 'supra-unconditioned' selves, or whatever the hell you're calling it now, simply is a constructed fantasy. I'm putting that nicely.
If we don't like that fact, too bad yeah?
I suggest that Consciousness isn't caused, and is all that is real.
Yes, you have suggested this. Unfortunately it's just not true.
I certainly have not been claiming this universe and its objects actually exist.
According to the argument I presented, the universe does indeed exist; it's just not ontologically comprised in the manner in which most of us think it is, in the manner of concrete objects engaging in intuitive causation and such. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 8/28/2011 6:19:58 PM | flyguy51:
If I may humbly assist you in interpreting Appreciative's metanonsense...
So, what, if anything, is the general Consciousness without the physical self then? Is it without any sensory perception of its own?
According to Appreciative, the "Consciousness" which he speaks of has no feelings, thoughts, or any such things which you or I or anyone subjectively experience phenomenologically from the first-person point of view.
Neither does it support any of the subconscious cognitive processes which depend wholly on physical brains and bodies.
Rather...such a "consciousness" -- or as Appreciative bills it, "Unconditioned Self" -- is something he has invented and declared by fiat to exist, non-physically. We are supposed to take his subjective word for it.
Of course, he doesn't have any evidence for what he speaks of, save for declarations of what his personal intuitions deliver to him, which he thinks is "obvious" and "uncontroversial" (though in reality only to him and those as blinkered about such matters as he is).
In this way he's like a religious sage that hears voices -- just like G. W. Bush "felt god" vetting his thought processes whilst deliberating to himself whether to invade Iraq.
And as I've been at pains to point out to him, the sciences of the mind are quite clear on how fallible our raw intuitions are, both about the world at large and our introspective access to our own minds.
For real objective data we need the third-person methods of the sciences; first-person reports about our own mind can complement third-person methods, but do not attain special status or possess veto power.
Ultimately, the objective data overrules the first-person reports whenever a conflict between the two arises.
In other words...what Appreciative is really trying to do so far as consciousness is concerned, is engage in good ol' fashioned "soul talk," but wrapped in the secular-sounding garb of New Age gobbledygook.
But either way one slices it, it still is the same old unsubstantiated, scientifically-illiterate Cartesian dogma of a res cogitans.
Just like a Cartesian, he believes dogmatically that there exists a mind entity which is distinct and separable from the living bodily organism, and which somehow will survive its corporeal death.
The overwhelming consensus amongst the professionals in cognitive neuroscience and philosophy of mind, of course, is the opposite conclusion.
His scientific illiteracy about these matters is astounding.
For instance, he asserted to you that "feelings and thoughts are not using the five senses."
How does he know this?
Answer: He doesn't. It simply is what things look like to him subjectively, by way of his own first-person introspection.
It's yet another indication that he has no understanding whatsoever of cognitive science and neurobiology.
If he did, then he would at least have a minimal understanding of the ways in which somatosensory brain resources (which link into and draw input from perception, sensory modalities, motor functions, etc.) and 'inward' proprioceptions (of bodily states and processes) are directly implicated in many domains of cognition and affect.
And then there's also the sorts of bi-directional commerce between high-level processing of the visual cortex and higher-cognitive functions, where attention can constrain various aspects of that processing stream, which in turn guide the cognitive processes in a reciprocal, dynamical fashion.
Along these lines, for instance, one of the hottest topics in cognitive science and philosophy of mind over the last 20 years has been the topic of 'embodied cognition', which investigates the extent to which bodily and sensory resources, broadly construed, contribute to the cognitive life of an organism, human or non-human, including what one might pre-reflectively call 'cold' or 'off-line' rational or symbolic thought.
It's one thing to be unwittingly innumerate about science and philosophy that bears on the issue one is pronouncing on; it's quite another matter to be proudly defiant and ignorant of those relevant empirical and analytical points.
In Appreciative's case, it's both. He neither knows what he doesn't know, nor does he really give a damn if what he asserts contradicts the contemporary sciences of relevance.
Instead we told declaratively how his phenomenon of interest is outside the purview of, cordoned off, and immune from the encroachment of science, just because he'd like it to be so.
People that know better see right through his game though.
Recently he tried to convince me that reality is "alive."
I brought to his attention one little problem with this:
It requires ignoring the inconvenient truth that life is a biological phenomenon which cannot exist in the make-believe realms which he was crafting in his own imagination.
I could go on for another couple of hours, but it's somewhat painful to write about someone so scientifically ignorant. One could write a book on the shortcomings of his fantasy.
My advice to him would be to close his eyes and experience his anger towards those who disagree with him. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 8/28/2011 9:47:17 PM | Heya Perception,
In case you didn't notice, this is a great question!!
There may be other good recommendations, but consider reading some of Ken Wilber:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber
This one is generally recommended for an introduction to his writings:
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Everything-Ken-Wilber/dp/1570627401
This guy attempts to provide a framework in which both metaphysics and scientism can meet and discuss, without the results of this thread thus far. He definitely does a great job of explaining how we got to this point.
"Who am I? is the only question worth asking and the only one never answered." -- Deepak Chopra
I salute your journey. The answer to your question has a tendency to change as you evolve. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 8/29/2011 5:56:20 PM | Kardinal-
Yes, well, whereas your posts often get summarily dismissed as "angry noises," I am a little more entertained by witnessing App's ample tapdancing skills on the subject.
I have several more questions to ask, but I think a slow trickle is best, especially when the answers often lead to more questions. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 8/31/2011 5:46:37 PM | Flyguy51:
The organism's individual conditioned subjective self wouldn't be, without the organism, the body.
In "the physical story", which I've defined in previous posts, the individual's self, because it's the subject of the view of the animal's guidance-system, is there because the animal is there.
I say that about the individual conditioned self, but I don't say that about the Self, general Consciousness.
So, what, if anything, is the general Consciousness without the physical self then?
This is going to sound evasive, but do you really expect animals (such as humans) to be able to explain what general Consciousness is, without the physical self? As I've said before, no anthropomorphic human assumptions are appropriate regarding Consciousness other than in regards to its human experience. We're that human experience, and, as animals designed by evolution to live and survive in our physical environment, that's all we can expect to understand.
Sure, we can talk around the subject ("tapdance", to use your phrase). Words can hint or suggest, but can't precisely describe, anything beyond this world and this life.
Is it without any sensory perception of its own?
Sensory perception is an attribute of animals. But only animals need it. Remember that we're speaking of something that isn't even in spacetime. Outside of time, there's nothing to do, and nothing needing to be done.
We humans have what could be called a "work-ethic" that says that, for happiness, something good needs to be happening. That's true for animals, but don't assume that it's so other than for animals. Outside of spacetime, nothing happens. And that's ok.
The Talking Heads once sang a song that said that in Eternity, nothing ever happens. They're quite right. But they misleadingly imply that that's boring. There's no boredom without time.
In general, your feelings and thoughts are not using the five senses.
Indirectly, they do. Our thoughts and feelings are in response to information gathered from the five senses. We would have extremely little to think/feel about without them. Hunger for nourishment and the need to dispense waste might be the only feelings left, if even that. We might happily starve to death without any senses, upon further reflection on that scenario.
Sure, fair enough. The senses are of course essential to what animals do and are.
But we're talking about something that isn't an animal and doesn't reside in spacetime.
What is copied into the computer is a program that simulates the person's guidance system.
I recall you elsewhere claiming that a computer program is nonphysical
Sure.
, but for the sake of argument here I'll let it go.
No, feel free to go with it. My discussion of the thought experiment doesn't assume that a computer program is a physical thing, though the computer, of course, is one.
So, a physical program can accurately simulate the nonphysical?
No. The computer program need only simulate the physical. The person's brain, body, and physical surroundings. The nonphysical subjective self, the implied subject of the out-looking view of the person/animal's guidance system is still implied, even in the obviously unreal world of the simulation. Lesson from story: The implied subject of the from-the-inside view of an organism is still implied, can still be spoken of, even in an unreal environment such as a computer simulation, where there is no organism that any of us would call "real". Selfness doesn't require a real world. Of course the self of the simulated organism is, as I say below, quite unreal from our point of view, and from any point of view other than its own.
I agree that the five senses are physical and bodily. And I agree that nothing beyond this life and this world is knowable.
BTW, regarding the reality of this physical world and its events, I remind you of a thought-experiment that I described here a few times. Forgive the repetition, but said that there's evidence for the full and genuine existence of the physical world. In this post I've told of evidence to the contrary.
These two claims seem to be in need of reconciliation or clarification. How is something (this world) the only knowable thing while at the same time its existence is lacking evidence? Doesn't true knowledge require evidence?
Good point. I do claim that our existence as experiencing self is the one thing that we know for sure. But I certainly don't claim that we can know things about our innermost selves, Consciousness itself.
Animals, including humans, know details about all sorts of things in the physical world. Humans can study such nonphysical subjects as logic and mathematics too. But those studies are activities of this life, the life of an animal in this world.
So what I meant to say was that as animals, we can't know about, describe or understand anything beyond this life and this world, the world in which our life-possibility-story takes place.
But yes, we do know one thing about something nonphysical: We know that we exist as experiencer, as the subject of our experience. But we don't understand, and can't look at, perceive or describe out innermost self.
The physical world's existence lacks evidence? Well, its contextual existence is quite evident to us, its inhabitants. As for it having more than contextual existence, as for claims about the physical world's primacy or fundamental existence, there isn't as good evidence for that. Well, "evidence" just means "reason to believe", and so you could say that our human perception of a physical world around is can be counted as a reason to believe that it exists if anything does. The requirements for a (not necessarily conclusive) reason to believe something are lenient. But note that, there's more than just "reason to believe", regarding the existence of you, the self, the subject of experience. The existence of that you is a certainty. Or, at least, you exist if anything does. To say that you have "evidence" for that would be an understatement. You have certainty of it.
I’d like to improve the wording of the thought-experiement:
Instead of speaking of simulating or copying particular brain functions or regions, it’s better to just say:
“It’s said by computer-scientist writers that it could be possible, at least in principle (even if not actually achievable for a long time, or ever) to accurately
simulate, in a computer, some particular person’s brain, body, and surroundings. The “virtual reality” simulation of the surroundings and external events could be designed to produce any kind of external events for the simulated individual.”
[The rest of the description of the thought-experiment would be unchanged from how I initially wrote it]
The above wording is better, clearer and simpler than speaking of copying yourself, or speaking of simulating only a particular function, such as guidance-system.
In my other post, I used that thought experiment to show that seeming real isn’t necessarily the same thing as being real. The simulation and is events are real in the context of the cyber-self’s experience. Other than in that context they aren’t real. Contextual reality doesn’t necessarily imply genuine, full reality, as the thought-experiment shows.
In fact, of course, because “real” and “exist” are undefined, no one is in a position to authoritatively say what is real or what exists.
But it seems to me that the thought-experiment is helpful, too, for clarifying what we’re all referring to when we speak of the self.
Someone could object that there wouldn’t be a self associated with the simulation of a brain and body. I disagree. What difference should it make whether the hardware is biological or is a computer, if the simulated brain emulates the actual one.
Even though it’s only a computer simulation, or even if it’s only a possibility-story, we can still speak of the “self” of that simulated individual. It’s probably tempting to say that that self doesn’t really exist, and that that point of view’s subject is just hypothetical. But what about the fact that _you_ are just such a point-of-view subject. You, after all, are the starting point of what you know.
No, I’m not saying that the self, simulated or otherwise, exists physically, or quasi-physically (ectoplasm or something). But it’s something that we can speak of, in a story or a simulation. And of course it’s something that you know first-hand, because you are one. You’re that “looking out”, the subject of that “from-the-inside view that is our experience”.
Of course the simulation is superfluous, in the sense that it doesn’t “create” the possibility-story that it simulates. That possibility-story is still “there” as a possibility, regardless of whether it is shown via a computer simulation. All that the simulation creates is a demonstration of that story for the computer-operator to observe.
Examining a brain, neuroscientists would find neurons, electrical charge, chemistry. They wouldn’t find the implied subject of a from-the-inside view, a “looking out”. That would be seen as an abstract topic, a (physically) nonexistent figment of philosophers’ imagination. …But, as I said, you are such a subjective self. No problem, because I never claimed that you, as subjective self, exist physically.
To an objective outside observer, from that point of view, you, as experiencer, don’t exist. But must we assume that that point of view is the fundamental authoritative one? In ontology, just as in physical science, we should be flexible enough to reconsider our assumptions. In this case, we shouldn’t have unquestioned assumptions about what is primary (physical world, or experiencing self).
As I said earlier, one could look at it either way, and call either the physical world, or Consciousness primary. The Physicalist proposes, as primary, something that, unlike you-as-experiencer, isn’t known to have full existence-status, known to exist if anything does.
In that way, the Physicalist is making more demands on your believingness, is making more assumptions than are required by the Monism of Consciousness. He’s offering to you a less credible claimant for primariness. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/1/2011 6:55:13 AM | | Celons moi l'esprit humain peut être divisé en trois partis se superposant à la manière d'une pyramide à la base il y à la perception du monde qui nous entoure grâce à nos sens c'est perceptions l'homme les interprète et les transformes en sentiments ou ressentit chose qu'il perçoit pour certain avec l'âme quoique que sont existence n'est jamais été prouvé enfin au sommet de cette pyramide il y à celons mois la pensé et la réflexion issu des ressenti et des sentiments. La réflexion vas orienter nos choix de tout les jours, nos choix de vie nous sommes donc logiquement notre esprit néanmoins il est prouvé que nos perception et nos sentiments peuvent être manipuler par des tiers personnes dans le but de profiter de nous dans ses situations notre esprit vas être manipulé nous prendrons donc des décision qui ne nous correspondrons plus vraiment nous ne serons donc plus vraiment notre esprit mais la simple perception que notre esprit à d'une vérité alterné se qui amène au sujet suivant qu'est ce que la vérité | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/1/2011 7:48:49 AM |
Or you can take it from a Shrodinger's Cat perception. I have a thought. But me, the observer must act upon it, for it to exist. And if I am acting upon it to bring it into a static state. Then my mind must not be me. Because i am the observer.
The Shrodinger's Cat thought experiment deals with the concept that the whole universe is made up of probability waves on the quantum level which exist in an unknowable state until their state is known.
As everything in the universe, your brain is made up of these waves as well, but they exist at a much lower level in the substructure of the universe than the neurons that make up the structure of your brain. So, by the time a thought exists in your head, the probability wave has already be collapsed by an observer. You aren't doing anything to bring a probability wave into a static state.
So yes, you are the observer, but no, you aren't acting to bring some separate part of your mind into a static state.
It was an interesting question, and I'm sure I could have done a much better job answering it.
As for your question of whether you are your mind, that depends....how do you define "you", "your mind", "perception", and "reality". If you come up with useful definitions from that, the answer to your question will be trivial from those definitions. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/1/2011 3:11:25 PM | Flyguy51:
Yes, well, whereas your posts often get summarily dismissed as "angry noises,..."
I don't summarily dismiss OffIShall's posts as angry noises. They don't contain only angry noises. They also contain misquotes, replies to and refutation of things I didn't say, capitalizations of things I don't capitalize, continual appeal to and invoking of authority (If he lived in medieval times, he'd be a vehement Catholic), and the ever-present claim (belied by most of what he says) that he is more educated in science and philosophy, and the claim that what I say is contradicted by science and by empirical evidence (though he can't supply examples of that contradiction). But yes, angry noises are one of his techniques too, and he relies on them heavily.
OffIShall:
Universes "seeded" by the same physical entity are physically related. They're part of the same physical system. I've never expressed any disagreement or objection to the multiverse idea. Quite possibly it will turn out that this "unverse" is not a universe at all, but rather is a subuniverse of a multiverse. As I use "this universe" it refers to the largest physically interrelated physical system in which we reside that is not physically related to anything not in it, is not part of a larger physical system.
Maybe that multiverse would be "this universe", unless it, too, is part of a still larger physical system.
Maybe we're in a multiverse. In any case, it has no bearing on this topic.
You read lots of for-the-public descriptive science articles and books. I don't criticize that, but it doens't make you a scientist.
You think that you know what "Phycialism" means...and that the authors of dictionaries and encyclopedias of philosophy, and authors of other books on philosophy don't know what it means. Is that an indication of how "educated" you are?
Erwin Schroedinger was rather more qualified in physics than you are. Schroedinger favorably described the ontology that I've described here. Does that mean that you also claim that Schroedinger was less educated in science than you are? :-)
I've beens saying all along that this physical universe is merely a possibility-world, a world of "if" rather than "is".
Yeah, but using the words 'if' and 'is' in this manner is highly misleading.
Your statement is highly vague and lacking in meaning. Maybe _anything_ is misleading, if is leads away from your beliefs :-)
Our grammar and vocabulary are for describing relationships within this world. Words like "is" have their meaning in that context. Glibly trying to apply them to the physical world itself is inappropriate. Assumptions need to be re-examined. So, I 'm saying that "is" isn't the best verb to use in regards to this physical world. What would it mean anyway? You seem unable to question your assumptions. That's an attribute of a dogmatist.
All of the views I've been highlighting are not dependent on consciousness in order to bring what they posit into existence.
I didn't say that Consciousness brought anything into existence.
None of the views that you've been highlighting explain the origin of this universe (as I mean that term). Physics discusses interactions among the parts of this universe. Scientists don't claim to explain the origin of the universe, or to tell us why there's a phsyical world. They merely tell us how the physical world works. They have theories about that, some of which are well-established to be consistent with observations.
In other words, according to, say, the multiverse hypothesis, there are infinite numbers of universes with physical constants that do not permit for even the possibility of biological life, let alone consciousness. Yet they would still be just as ontologically existent as this universe.
The physical world contains no objects with other than contextual existence. It's just a possibility story.
I'm not sure why you refer to such things as "possibility stories."
Such things as what? Physical universes? Individual lives? Yes.
Why? How do I refer to them as possibility-stories? How about because I suggest that they're possibilities rather than actualities? :-)
People will understand you better if you just consider all possibilities as real
...But I don't believe that. Maybe you mean that you now believe that all possibilities are real.
...unless of course it is an ideological requirement of your view that everything remain an unreal possibility story, so as to square it with these bizarre notions of a conscious ultimate reality that you hold.
Regardless of what you think my motivation is, the ontology that I've suggested posits only one existent, and that makes it simpler. ...And more parsimonious than Physicalism, for the reasons that I've described in previous posts.
In other words, according to, say, the multiverse hypothesis, there are infinite numbers of universes with physical constants that do not permit for even the possibility of biological life, let alone consciousness. Yet they would still be just as existent as this universe
Of course, because they're part of the same physical system that our "universe" is part of. That makes them just as real as our "universe". In fact, it makes them parts of the same universe that our "universe" is part of.
(In the above paragraph, I use "universe" to refer to a subuniverse component of a multiverse.)
You've forgotten how I said I mean the word "universe". I defined it again, earlier in this post. Refer to it.
To speak of a universe (as I use the term) that is without experiencer(s) is nonsense. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/2/2011 9:54:19 AM | Alan1212
The Shrodinger's Cat thought experiment deals with the concept that the whole universe is made up of probability waves on the quantum level which exist in an unknowable state until their state is known.
Not exactly. The wave function doesn't have the multiple states. The "collapse" of the wave function, giving a particle a particular position and velocity has multiple possibilities. Some, including Einstein didn't like the random nature of that. Everett avoided that problem by suggesting that all of the collapse realities are equally real, each corresponding to a different possible alternative universe. The reason we find the particle in one particular position is because we happen to be in that one particular alternative universe. Why that one, instead of a different one? Remember that there's a "you" in each one of them, and each "you" could ask the same question.
That "many worlds" interpretation avoids the randomness problem, and seems neater and more elegant.
For other reasons, I've been suggesting a probably broader set of possibility worlds, some perhaps with entirely different physical laws, &/or physical constants, to the extent that that works in self-consistent possibility-worlds. If someone can accept the many-worlds interpretation, then it isn't really much more to look at a broader set of possibility worlds such as the one that I've sugested.
Just as are the alternative universes in "many-worlds", the possibility worlds that I suggest are all equally real and existent (or unreal and nonexistent).
The use of "real" and "existent" is especially questionable when speaking of the universe, and all the more so, given that "real" and "exist" are undefined.
As everything in the universe, your brain is made up of these waves as well, but they exist at a much lower level in the substructure of the universe than the neurons that make up the structure of your brain. So, by the time a thought exists in your head, the probability wave has already be collapsed by an observer. You aren't doing anything to bring a probability wave into a static state.
If the randomness of wave-function collapse were what goverened brain activity, then the brain would give random results, instead of acting as the brain that it's evolutionarily designed as. You're right, that the innermost you doesn't guide the physics of the neurons. But, the individual you does, in the following sense: Speaking of "you", this time, as the individual you, your preferences, wishes, instincts, etc. are all recorded in the brain, and of course they _do_ influence what the brain does. So the brain records associated with the individual you are influencing brain activity. I'm not saying that the brain records _are_ the individual "you", but the individual "you" corresponds to them.
When speaking of the self, as opposed to the hardware of the brain, there's the subtle distinction of what we mean by reality and existence. We shouldn't be too quick to be sure of such things, given the undefinedness of those words. My simulation thought-experiment was intended to illustrate that.
The same caution about firmly-believed assumptions, and the same questionableness of word-meanings, apply when speaking of the "reality" or "existence" of the physical world and its events.
In other words, what would it mean to say that the physical world, as a whole is existent, and that it and its events are real? Surely those words only have meaning with respect to a context. In what context do we speak of the whole universe? What do we mean if we say that it has absolute, primary and fundamental existence and reality?
Likewise, what would it mean to say that you, as experiencer, as the implied subject of the from-the-inside view of a biological organism, are a physical thing? As before, the thought-experiment was intended to show the questionableness of word meanings and assumptions in that matter. Is the implied subject of the from-the-inside view of computer-simulated person a physical thing too? If the simulation accurately emulates your brain, why shouldn't we be able to speak of a self associated with it, just as your self is associated with your brain? And what if we're talking about a hypothetical person in a hypothetical possibility story, a possibility-story that could be, but might not be, simulated in a computer? Why should it matter if the simulation is or isn't being done? (...other than that a simulated story can be watched by the computer-operator). Isn't it just as meaningful to speak of the subject of the from-the-inside view of an organism in that possibility-story, regardless of whether the possibility-story is run on a computer?
Some are uncomfortable with the questionableness implied by this approach, and with not having physicality as an absolute firm reality. But questionableness is the nature of assumptions. And assumptions and terminology are only applicable within particular limited venues.
Expecting assumptions useful in the context of practical worldly life to be valid in these broader areas is inapprorpriate. There, we should ask ourselves "what it means" to say something, and what we mean by it.
As for your question of whether you are your mind, that depends....how do you define "you", "your mind", "perception", and "reality".
Yes, and some of those are difficult or impossible to define, making any assumptions or conclusions questionable. Nothing wrong with that. We should accept questionableness in philosophical matters such as these.
| |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/2/2011 8:09:39 PM |
Not exactly. The wave function doesn't have the multiple states. The "collapse" of the wave function, giving a particle a particular position and velocity has multiple possibilities.
Is there a difference between "multiple states" and "multiple possibilities for position and velocity". I'm not trying to debate the issue, I just don't see the distinction you're making.
Some, including Einstein didn't like the random nature of that.
True, and if you go by modern mainstream physics, that was one of the times Einstein was wrong. He spent the last 30 years of his life trying to disprove it and he failed. Though with fun like the EPR paradox he unintentionally did a spectacularly good job of adding support to that random nature.
Remember that there's a "you" in each one of them, and each "you" could ask the same question.
Right, this is the anthropic principle, though I'm not clear what that has to do with what I was talking about. All I said was by the time "you" are "you", the wave function has already collapsed.
For other reasons, I've been suggesting a probably broader set of possibility worlds, some perhaps with entirely different physical laws
This is quite possible, but now you're the one who's saying Einstein is wrong (and attacking his theory of relativity), since he assumed all inertial frames have the same properties. I'm not disagreeing with your idea here since I tend to agree. I'm just saying you can't cite Einstein as gospel in one place and then disagree where it suits you.
But, the individual you does, in the following sense: Speaking of "you", this time, as the individual you, your preferences, wishes, instincts, etc. are all recorded in the brain, and of course they _do_ influence what the brain does.
Is it that way or the other way around? The way your brain is wired determines your preferences, wishes, instincts, etc. Don't you choose as you do because of how your brain is already configured?
Likewise, what would it mean to say that you, as experiencer, as the implied subject of the from-the-inside view of a biological organism, are a physical thing?
Yes, and maybe we're just harmonic vibrations on strings in the substructure of the universe, while at the same time those strings don't even exist. So then none of us or the universe exists in any real sense. Then the whole universe is no more real than a thought that never happened. (This is pretty much in line with what you said, only taking it a bit further).
Some are uncomfortable with the questionableness implied by this approach, and with not having physicality as an absolute firm reality. But questionableness is the nature of assumptions. And assumptions and terminology are only applicable within particular limited venues. [/quotes] Absolutely. I still have yet to find a useful universal definition of "time", and without that how can we any model have an absolute firm reality. Yes, and some of those are difficult or impossible to define, making any assumptions or conclusions questionable. And that was my whole point. The original question is meaningless because it's not well enough defined to answer without making so many assumptions that the answer becomes meaningless. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/2/2011 11:08:12 PM | | The mind is a tool. You are either its master or its slave. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/3/2011 7:27:06 AM |
The mind is a tool. You are either its master or its slave.
That's a totally empty, meaningless statement. How are you defining "mind" and "you"?
That's pretty much the entire point of this thread, so I think the whooshing sound you heard was the thread racing by above your head. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/3/2011 1:26:45 PM | Alan1212:
Today, do to very little time available, this will just be a brief preliminary partial reply, to a few questions or remarks:
Not exactly. The wave function doesn't have the multiple states. The "collapse" of the wave function, giving a particle a particular position and velocity has multiple possibilities.
Is there a difference between "multiple states" and "multiple possibilities for position and velocity". I'm not trying to debate the issue, I just don't see the distinction you're making.
There's a difference between saying that the wave function has multiple states and saying that the particle has multiple states. The wave function has one state, and that state could collapse to any one of very many position/velocity states for the particle.
Some, including Einstein didn't like the random nature of that.
True, and if you go by modern mainstream physics, that was one of the times Einstein was wrong. He spent the last 30 years of his life trying to disprove it and he failed. Though with fun like the EPR paradox he unintentionally did a spectacularly good job of adding support to that random nature.
Well, according to the many-worlds interpretation, the wave function collapse results aren't random, because each outcome happens in its own universe. No dice-game.
I'm not saying that Einstein was wrong about anything, and I'm no questioning special relativity. I don't know enough about general relativity to question it, but those who know more do question it, and suggest that it probably needs work. No one knows how it will eventually be, last I heard.
Remember that there's a "you" in each one of them, and each "you" could ask the same question.
Right, this is the anthropic principle, though I'm not clear what that has to do with what I was talking about.
I merely wanted to answer the person who wants to know why he happens to be in this particular one of the many worlds.
I don't cite Einstein as gospel, and nor do I express any disagreement with him.
All I said was by the time "you" are "you", the wave function has already collapsed.
For other reasons, I've been suggesting a probably broader set of possibility worlds, some perhaps with entirely different physical laws
This is quite possible, but now you're the one who's saying Einstein is wrong (and attacking his theory of relativity), since he assumed all inertial frames have the same properties. I'm not disagreeing with your idea here since I tend to agree. I'm just saying you can't cite Einstein as gospel in one place and then disagree where it suits you.
But, the individual you does, in the following sense: Speaking of "you", this time, as the individual you, your preferences, wishes, instincts, etc. are all recorded in the brain, and of course they _do_ influence what the brain does.
Is it that way or the other way around? The way your brain is wired determines your preferences, wishes, instincts, etc. Don't you choose as you do because of how your brain is already configured?
Yes, and that's what I said. The preferences, desires and instincts recorded in your brain influence the brain's choices and decisions, the organism's choices and decisions.
Likewise, what would it mean to say that you, as experiencer, as the implied subject of the from-the-inside view of a biological organism, are a physical thing?
Yes, and maybe we're just harmonic vibrations on strings in the substructure of the universe, while at the same time those strings don't even exist. So then none of us or the universe exists in any real sense.
The substructure of the universe isn't relevant to this discussion. And yes, some physicists do have a string theory that sounds somewhat similar to the one that you describe.
Sorry, but for string theory, they've beaten you to it.
Your string theory doesn't bear on the question of the reality of the universe.
...then the whole universe is no more real than a thought that never happened.
That isn't a consequence of any physical theory, including string theory. If you think that your own string theory has that as a consequence, then you must specify your theory better, and then show that it has that consequence. In general, physical theories don't bear on the reality of the universe.
(This is pretty much in line with what you said, only taking it a bit further).
No, not really. I made no suggestion of a theory about the substructure of the universe.
The original question is meaningless because it's not well enough defined to answer without making so many assumptions that the answer becomes meaningless.
Then don't make assumptions. No, it isn't necessary to make assumptions to suggest answers to these questions. Suggestions aren't assumptions. Assumptions are to be avoided in these matters. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/4/2011 7:45:36 PM | No its not. The mind is indeed a tool to navigate life. No mind, no life.
Mind: my tool for achieving some form of understanding and consciousness.
Me: my mind determines if I live informed and conscious.
What is my mind? The whoosing sound that I heard from those who accentuate the confusion and never refine the spectacular, the singular, the importance of open-mindness and kudo to those who are born stripped of the ability of the mind to navigate the hard and cold sciences and rely on the heart and minds of those who have the ability to exercise their mind's. Oh well. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/5/2011 6:54:17 AM |
There's a difference between saying that the wave function has multiple states and saying that the particle has multiple states. The wave function has one state, and that state could collapse to any one of very many position/velocity states for the particle.
Okay, I understand what you meant then. But in that case the wave function would have no state at all in the sense you're. It's a function of possible states the particle could collapse to over the probabilities of collapsing to that state. And the difference between what you said and what I said is just a matter of semantics, I wasn't precise enough in my wording but I think you're arguing the point for the sake of creating confusion.
Well, according to the many-worlds interpretation, the wave function collapse results aren't random, because each outcome happens in its own universe. No dice-game.
I'm not aware of a many-worlds interpretation that takes that point of view. Admittedly, you're already way off the mainstream point of view, but what model are you using? For every possible outcome for every single wave function for every single particle there's a new world forming where that outcome happens? If that's what you're saying, it's a bit over the top and unless you can back it up, I think you're too far out on a limb on that one.
I don't cite Einstein as gospel, and nor do I express any disagreement with him. Some, including Einstein didn't like the random nature of that. I've been suggesting a probably broader set of possibility worlds, some perhaps with entirely different physical laws, &/or physical constants
Then why drop Einstein's name like it alone proves me wrong. And your other comment I just quoted certainly does contradict general relativity.
Then don't make assumptions.
I'd start listing some of the way-out assumptions you've made in your past few posts but I don't have all day. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/5/2011 7:03:11 AM |
The mind is indeed a tool to navigate life. No mind, no life.
Where is the mind of an amoeba, or do you not include the Protista Kingdom as part of "life". Your comments are too simplistic and ignore pretty much everything.
Mind: my tool for achieving some form of understanding and consciousness.
Me: my mind determines if I live informed and conscious.
This is null. Your definition of "Me" relies on "Mind", and "Mind" is too abstract. You're missing something very fundamental. How do you know you have any understanding and consciousness if your mind is your tool to achieve it and your tool for knowing if you've achieved it? And what is consciousness according to your mind? Prove to me you are conscious if you believe you can.
The whoosing sound that I heard from those who accentuate the confusion and never refine the spectacular, the singular, the importance of open-mindness and kudo to those who are born stripped of the ability of the mind to navigate the hard and cold sciences and rely on the heart and minds of those who have the ability to exercise their mind's. Oh well.
I really have no idea what you're talking about here. Would you care to try again, maybe in English this time? | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/6/2011 3:47:20 AM |
If you are your mind, who does your mind belong to?
Why are you assuming it has to belong to anybody or anything? | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/6/2011 9:35:17 AM |
Because I'm capable of considering the origin the mind's contents objectively.
Clearly you aren't. You're assuming someone/something that takes ownership put the contents there. There's so many other possibilities outside the artificial constraint of your assumption. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/6/2011 10:51:29 AM |
There's a difference between saying that the wave function has multiple states and saying that the particle has multiple states. The wave function has one state, and that state could collapse to any one of very many position/velocity states for the particle.
Okay, I understand what you meant then. But in that case the wave function would have no state at all in the sense you're. It's a function of possible states the particle could collapse to over the probabilities of collapsing to that state. And the difference between what you said and what I said is just a matter of semantics, I wasn't precise enough in my wording but I think you're arguing the point for the sake of creating confusion.
Not my intention at all. Let's consider the example of the wave function of the electron in an uncombined hydrogen atom. At a particular energy level it has a particular wave function. The value of that wf at a particular point corresponds to the probability of the electron being there. One wave function, many possible positions for the electron.
So, when we're speaking of that one wave function, no it doesn't have states. But there are various different wave functions, each for a different energy-level of the electron in that atom. They have different shapes. The lowest energy-level wf shape is 3-dimensionally radially-symmetrical, spherical. Next is a 6-lobed shape, with 6 mutually-perpendicular lobes, etc. ...
We don't want to make this thread into a physics discussion, because it might bore people who look at this thread because they're interested in philosophy--ontology and metaphysics in particular.
For physics discussion, it would be better to start another thread.
Well, according to the many-worlds interpretation, the wave function collapse results aren't random, because each outcome happens in its own universe. No dice-game.
I'm not aware of a many-worlds interpretation that takes that point of view.
Sorry, but that is the whole point of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Admittedly, you're already way off the mainstream point of view
We needn't debate whether many-worlds is mainstream. It's highly-regarded.
, but what model are you using? For every possible outcome for every single wave function for every single particle there's a new world forming where that outcome happens?
Yes. Each different outcome represents a different alternative version of our universe.
If that's what you're saying, it's a bit over the top and unless you can back it up, I think you're too far out on a limb on that one.
I didn't originate the suggestion. It came from a physicist named Hugh Everett.
It's the quantum mechanics interpretation that doesn't require randomness. In that way, it's the elegant interpretation.
Out on a limb? Which interpretation isn't "out on a limb"?
It's a topic that consists of limbs to be out on. So is ontology. Maybe you don't like philosophy. Remember that this is a philosopnical thread.
I don't cite Einstein as gospel, and nor do I express any disagreement with him.
[...]
Some, including Einstein didn't like the random nature of that.
[...]
I've been suggesting a probably broader set of possibility worlds, some perhaps with entirely different physical laws, &/or physical constants
Then why drop Einstein's name like it alone proves me wrong.
I "dropped [his] name" because he would probably like Everett's interpretation, since he didn't like the randomness. I didn't mean to imply that the mention of Einstein proved you wrong.
And your other comment I just quoted certainly does contradict general relativity.
Which comment? How does it contradict general relativity?
Are your referring to my comment that most physicists knowledgable on the subject feel that general relativity needs work? That isn't a contradiction from me. It's merely a report about how physicists feel.
But please remember that this is a philosophy thread, not a physics thread.
Then don't make assumptions.
I'd start listing some of the way-out assumptions you've made in your past few posts but I don't have all day.
Well then, if you don't specify any of them, then you're in a poor position to say that they've been made, aren't you.
In ontology, I make suggestions, not assumptions.
But, if I do make an assumption, I don't claim that it's more than an assumption. It's a working assumption, openly designated as an assumption. It certainly isn't an article of belief. In other words, it's offered as a "maybe", a suggestion.
As for "way out": If you don't like "way out", and if you prefer "way in", then a philosophy thread is not for you. Probably what you mean by "way out" is "outside of alan1212's assumptions". | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/6/2011 11:01:59 AM |
Because I'm capable of considering the origin the mind's contents objectively.
Clearly you aren't. You're assuming someone/something that takes ownership put the contents there. There's so many other possibilities outside the artificial constraint of your assumption.
Of course we look at out mind and thoughts. In fact, the best defininition of your mind that I've heard is: "Your thoughts".
Anything that you can look at, describe, etc., isn't you. You can say that your mind is an outer-more part of you, but it certainly isn't the innermost you. There's a "you" that can look out (all looking is outward, from a center of perception) at your mind, your thoughts.
So the answer to this thread's question is: Of course you aren't your mind, because you can look at it. Therefore there must be more to you than your mind, an object of your experience. You, as perceiver, are the subject, not the object. You can't look at yourself, the center of perception. As I said, looking is only outward. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/6/2011 2:35:00 PM |
So the answer to this thread's question is: Of course you aren't your mind, because you can look at it. Therefore there must be more to you than your mind, an object of your experience. You, as perceiver, are the subject, not the object. You can't look at yourself, the center of perception. As I said, looking is only outward.
Interesting. Leaving the physics discussion aside for a while.
So then "you" is some central concept that looks out at "your thoughts" and separately "your senses" to perceive reality. I suppose then we could add "your body" as something else outside of "you" then.
I'm still having trouble seeing "you" and "your thoughts" as separate constructs, but I think I see where you're going.
Is "you" the "inner dialog" or thread of consciousness or whatever you want to describe it? Or are you thinking of something else. | |
|
| Are you your mind?
Posted: 9/6/2011 10:15:20 PM | The beauty of the mind is that it can be objective and subjective at the same time. For me, when I broke though the barrier into knowing I am so much more than my mind.....a whole new expansive reality came to be.
The biggest difficulty I had was the " ego's mind" need to stay alive vs the god or universal mind. The ego mind is all about separation born of fears........while the god mind is about unification that is of love. I read years ago..."we can either be a slave to our thoughts of the master of our mind". From that day to this I am still a student learning to master my mind. And this is the conclusion I came to.....
While I have a mind, I am not my mind. I am me and my mind, like my brain, my emotion, my thoughts, my intuition, my body etc..... are all a part of who "I AM".
The "I AM " being me....
One of my favorite quote is "We are everything and We are nothing" because it is the truth.
Challenging the mind and what it holds as reality is the only what to break through the barrier of the mind.
The mind is limited ....... but "I am" not. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
3
of
6 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
|
|
Home
login 