• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

brain/mind

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
1... Are you saying that mind-energy is hidden in one of these, or that it is an unknown fifth force, or that it is a more fundamental force from which the four known forces somehow arise? Or are you saying that mind-energy is a principle, not a force?
2... I would be careful not to become the pot calling the kettle black.~~ Paul
Click to expand...
1... I am saying mind-energy IS the universe.
2... I guess, inevitably, as seems to be the case on this site, we are into personalities rather than subjects.
 
Jekyll said:
.......
Quote:
and pure energy is seen as the primary starting point of the universe by some, the primary existential power underlying all things.
How about these people who see this, are they physicists?
Click to expand...
An example, as mentioned in an earlier post, is "The Universe - A Biography" by John Gribbin, Chapter 4.
 
cyborg said:
... Being ambiguous about the meaning of 'energy' will not be accepted.
Click to expand...
Science does not define energy, it describes what it does. This is one reason energy is but a mathematical abstraction of matter-motion without actual material existence to some, which analogously equates with saying 'being' is but an ontological abstraction of existence and therefore being cannot actually 'be'.
 
maatorc said:
Science does not define energy, it describes what it does.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

This is one reason energy is but a mathematical abstraction of matter-motion without actual material existence to some, which analogously equates with saying 'being' is but an ontological abstraction of existence and therefore being cannot actually 'be'.
Click to expand...

That stream of words is unmitigated guff.
 
Well namely you are trying to argue against physics as it is ontological whilst providing an ontology of your own - the basic problem being that your ontology not having any merit to it.
 
cyborg said:
1... Well namely you are trying to argue against physics as it is ontological
2... whilst providing an ontology of your own -
3... the basic problem being that your ontology not having any merit to it.
Click to expand...
1... Physics is existential, dealing with phenomena, and not ontological.
2... Energy, also, is existential, dealing with phenomena, and not ontological.
3... What ontology, exactly, have I put forward? If you can identify the alleged ontology, explain in what manner it does not have any merit.
 
Physical descriptions are ontological.

The ontology you have proposed interjects a combined mind-energy.

FOR NO GODDAMN REASON.
 
Maatorc said:
1... I am saying mind-energy IS the universe.
Click to expand...
So you are making a metaphysical claim about what the universe is. It is mind-energy. I didn't think you were making a coherent claim about a physical aspect of the universe. Now, how can we distinguish this mind-energy universe from a universe that is something else?

2... I guess, inevitably, as seems to be the case on this site, we are into personalities rather than subjects.
Click to expand...
Yes, as started by your crack to Slimething. Anyway, I'm sure we can stay on track if we try.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Yo, maatorc, I'm back at your kind invitation! I really couldn't leave after finding you so wisely using physics terms incorrectly while pulling their meanings out of Uranus.

maatorc said:
Science does not define energy
Click to expand...

I wish I'd know that before I read this!! :p

This is one reason energy is but a mathematical abstraction of matter-motion without actual material existence to some
Click to expand...

Energy an abstraction? To some? Who? You? Like I told you before, you're n-1 with you being the -1. Better than being a zero, I guess, maybe.

So, what do we do with special relativity now? Discard it because it contradicts you?

which analogously equates with saying 'being' is but an ontological abstraction of existence and therefore being cannot actually 'be'.
Click to expand...

Take your Jargon Generator back to the Dollar Store. It's not working right.
 
Maatorc said:
3... What ontology, exactly, have I put forward? If you can identify the alleged ontology, explain in what manner it does not have any merit.
Click to expand...
You have retreated from any claim about physical aspects of the universe and decided to make an ontological claim: The universe is mind-energy. This is a metaphysical claim and does not have any merit for the same reason that all metaphysical claims are without merit: There is no way to distinguish one ontology from another.

~~ Paul
 
I think the very concept of mind is metaphysical nonsense. As an immaterial concept, it's immaterial to me.
I deal with psychology, the science of behavior, with ever having to use the term "mind".
Never mind, it don't matter, 'cause it ain't matter.
 
Slimething said:
Energy an abstraction? To some? Who? You?
Click to expand...
If you go back to the post where I made that comment, you will see you either did not read it properly, or you fail to understand its meaning: Your above comment does not reflect what I said and meant, which is that some, but not I, see energy that way as an argument against its very existence.
 
Last edited:
Maatorc said:
If you mean the claim that 'mind' is a product of matter as in a function of brain, as put forward as a necessary corollary to the anti-psychical obsession of modern skepticism, then I fully agree.
Click to expand...
The metaphysical claim that everything is "matter" is just as useless as any other metaphysical claim. Science need not make any metaphysical claims at all, only ontological ones.

That said, are you suggesting that (what we call) mind is not a function of the brain? If so, can you explain (a) why we never see mind except with a brain; and (b) why every sort of modification to the brain results in modification to the mind?

~~ Paul
 
maatorc said:
If you go back to the thread where I made that comment,
Click to expand...

I am in the thread where you made that comment! Oh, but let me guess, my definition of "thread" is not the same as the definition of "thread" that you pull out of Uranus. Where can I find a Maatorc Dictionary (tm)?

you will see you either did not read it properly, or you fail to understand its' meaning:
Click to expand...

Mea culpa. I read what you wrote. Did you not write it?

Your above comment does not reflect what I said and meant, which is that some, but not I, see energy that way as an argument against its' very existence.
Click to expand...

BTW, let me help you out. There are two words spelled i-t-s: its and it's. There is no its'. Well, at least not outside of Uranus. The form you want to use is "its" as "it's" is the contraction for "it is". See? Learning isn't as difficult as you make it seem!
 
Slimething said:
I am in the thread where you made that comment! Oh, but let me guess, my definition of "thread" is not the same as the definition of "thread" that you pull out of Uranus. Where can I find a Maatorc Dictionary (tm)?Mea culpa. I read what you wrote. Did you not write it?BTW, let me help you out. There are two words spelled i-t-s: its and it's. There is no its'. Well, at least not outside of Uranus. The form you want to use is "its" as "it's" is the contraction for "it is". See? Learning isn't as difficult as you make it seem!
Click to expand...
You and I are the olny pcefret plpoee in the wlrod and setmmoeis I wrroy aubot you. Sunaru to you too.
 
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
1... are you suggesting that (what we call) mind is not a function of the brain?
2... If so, can you explain (a) why we never see mind except with a brain;
3... and (b) why every sort of modification to the brain results in modification to the mind?~~ Paul
Click to expand...
1... Our personal consciousness IS a function of the integrated interaction of mind and brain.
2... Our personal consciousness is an unseparated segment of universal mind.
3... Our personal consciousness will change as the nature and functioning of the brain changes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom