brain/mind

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This is a lovely 'motherhood' statement without actually saying anything.

What it says is what we've all been saying: Show us some mind without a brain. Hell, show us a controlled experiment demonstrating psychic projection.

~~ Paul

 

[aggle-rithm]

This is a lovely 'motherhood' statement without actually saying anything.

All right, you were unable to rise to billythekid's challenge to demonstrate a mind without a brain.

How about this: Can you describe the difference between the behavior of a person whose mind is generated by a brain, versus a person whose mind is independent of a brain? In other words, if your hypothesis were true, how would we know, and if it were false, how would we know?

 

[davidsmith73]

If it's (qualitative experience) not amenable to definition, why should anyone trust that the claimant is uttering words that have anything at all to do with the experience?

You don't need to ask that question because it makes no difference. If qualitative experience is not amenable to definiton then issues of inference do not come into play at all. I cannot utter words that have "anything at all to do with the experience", except to say that qualitative experience is reality that is not amenable to definition.

Why should we trust that the claimant's thoughts on the matter are even coherent?

Thoughts on what matter? The only thoughts I see that are relevant are the ones that point out the limits of language and physical definitions.

 

[davidsmith73]

Why should non-physical be excluded from logic and reason?

Because logic and reason are based on relationships. Non-physical reality is not.

Do you have faith that logic and reason can describe all that exists?

A hallucination is an internal stimulus, it is a perception that has no sensation to generate it.

You mean delusion.

No, I mean't hallucination in the sense that someone has experiences that are not open to "third party verification". The point I was making is that there is no real difference between "normal" and "hallucinatory" qualitative experience. There is only an inferred difference from our concepts of physical reality. Internal brain mechanisms or external stimulus all involve physical world concepts, but they do not change the direct nature of the qualitative experience.

 

[Dancing David]

You don't need to ask that question because it makes no difference. If qualitative experience is not amenable to definiton then issues of inference do not come into play at all. I cannot utter words that have "anything at all to do with the experience", except to say that qualitative experience is reality that is not amenable to definition.



Thoughts on what matter? The only thoughts I see that are relevant are the ones that point out the limits of language and physical definitions.

So words like love, happy and red don't exist. that is interesting.

Your argument begs the questions, how do you know that you have an experience?

If it can't be defined then it be explained by you to yourself either. How would you remember something, how would you make a journal entry.

To say that something is not definable is silly, people agree that qualia can be described and therefore they can be defined.

So if you can't describe or define an experience , how do you know you are having it?

What is an example that is an experience that can't be defined. Try one on me. I understand that it can't be defined but try, I think that you have just set up a semantic argument where you say "I don't have to explain myself , I have thise magic word *non-physical* that does not obey the rules and conventions of language. I can not explain it or define it or describe it."

That may not be your intent but it is the appearance.

I am sorry if I have misrepresented your position.

 

[Dancing David]

Because logic and reason are based on relationships. Non-physical reality is not.

Do you have faith that logic and reason can describe all that exists?

No I beleive that logic and reason are tools. If you can't define it then how do you know you are having the experience, how would you describe it.

If you can't describe non-physical experience then you are not having an experience.

No, I mean't hallucination in the sense that someone has experiences that are not open to "third party verification".

Uh huh, that is a misuse of the language of psychology. No experience has direct accesibility to a third party. That does not mean one can not study sensation, it means that one can study eprception without direct access.

The point I was making is that there is no real difference between "normal" and "hallucinatory" qualitative experience.

That appears to be magic word play again, state what the eperience is like that you feel is non-physical. this is like Titus rivas and the meta-cognition. You have not explained yourself however. Why should your word be different from any other word? Why is non-physical magicaly protected from the rules of language?

I again say I am sorry if that is not your intent or position.

There is only an inferred difference from our concepts of physical reality. Internal brain mechanisms or external stimulus all involve physical world concepts, but they do not change the direct nature of the qualitative experience.

You have yet to describe this 'qualitative experience' what makes you think that it is 'non-physical', stating "I think so" is not a very good answer.

Why are the words 'qualitative' and 'non-physical' exemptions from the rules of language.

How do you know you have an experience?

Again, I am very sorry if I seem rude or confrontational, or if I have misrepresented your position.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You don't need to ask that question because it makes no difference. If qualitative experience is not amenable to definiton then issues of inference do not come into play at all. I cannot utter words that have "anything at all to do with the experience", except to say that qualitative experience is reality that is not amenable to definition.
...
Thoughts on what matter? The only thoughts I see that are relevant are the ones that point out the limits of language and physical definitions.

So you can't define the experience, you can't utter coherent words about the experience, and you can't do any language-based, logical introspection about the experience. I daresay any conclusions you draw about the experience are meaningless.

Do you have faith that logic and reason can describe all that exists?

No, but you've convinced me that any conclusions I draw about the illogical, unreasonable aspects of existence are arbitrary and meaningless.

~~ Paul

 

[maatorc]

How about this: Can you describe the difference between the behavior of a person whose mind is generated by a brain, versus a person whose mind is independent of a brain? In other words, if your hypothesis were true, how would we know, and if it were false, how would we know?

I have not at any point in this thread stated that a person's consciousness is independent of the brain. I am saying that mind as a natural energy is not a function of matter. Our individual consciousness is a function of the interaction of the complex human brain structure and universal mind.
The possibility of knowing that mind as expressed in the individual consciousness is not generated by brain lies in the possibility of individuals experiencing the transmission and reception of various levels of mental activity such as we normally associate with and experience through our physical consciousness.

 

[maatorc]

Hell, show us a controlled experiment demonstrating psychic projection.~~ Paul

Any controlled test, even were it to be inferentially overwhelmingly convincing, is unproveable outside the personal conscious experience of the parties to the process.
This is why the JREF MDC cannot work beyond the scientifically currently inexplicable as distinct from the materially unproveable supposed actual "psychic, supernatural or occult" of the Rules.

 

[billydkid]

I have not at any point in this thread stated that a person's consciousness is independent of the brain. I am saying that mind as a natural energy is not a function of matter. Our individual consciousness is a function of the interaction of the complex human brain structure and universal mind.
The possibility of knowing that mind as expressed in the individual consciousness is not generated by brain lies in the possibility of individuals experiencing the transmission and reception of various levels of mental activity such as we normally associate with and experience through our physical consciousness.

Could you put this in plain English. I am having trouble understanding what you are saying. Richard Feynman said and I am inclined to believe that there is nothing authentic that can not be described in ordinary language.

Below I think you are making the argument that the kind of stuff you are describing can not be scientifically proved do to its nature. Well, I am not asking for proof, I am asking for evidence. A single demonstration of a phenomena that could only be attributed to existence of something like a "universal mind" would be enough to convince me and I think would have a large impact on anyone who witnessed it. I am interested in specifics. What would the observed phenomena consist of which would constitute evidence for the existence of a universal mind? I honestly don't have a clue. Is it like - I think of a number and you guess what it is? If you would speak in specifics - this can happen indicating that - for example, it would be helpful.

I have no idea what "...the transmission and reception of various levels of mental activity..." means. What is various levels of mental activity. If there were to be anything at all to your claims you are certainly doing your best to obscure their substance through the use of such language. A clairivoyant might say "I know what you are thinking." A person who claims telekinesis might say "I can move this thimble with my brain." All specific claims that can be easily demonstrated if they are true. It is my contention that the purpose of obscuring language is merely to obscure and protect from scrutiny.

 

[articulett]

It is my contention that the purpose of obscuring language is merely to obscure and protect from scrutiny.

Well, that, and it sounds all mystical and open to "personal interpretation". Add music, and some could experience an "inner knowingness" that would verify the mumbo jumbo to them experientially.

If he tossed in the words "verily" and "thine' would he be more convincing? Maybe you just aren't deep enough to grasp the "universal mind". Remember, Maatorc has spoken: "God is energy is mind is all".

 

[maatorc]

Could you put this in plain English. I am having trouble understanding what you are saying. Richard Feynman said and I am inclined to believe that there is nothing authentic that can not be described in ordinary language. Below I think you are making the argument that the kind of stuff you are describing can not be scientifically proved do to its nature. Well, I am not asking for proof, I am asking for evidence. A single demonstration of a phenomena that could only be attributed to existence of something like a "universal mind" would be enough to convince me and I think would have a large impact on anyone who witnessed it. I am interested in specifics. What would the observed phenomena consist of which would constitute evidence for the existence of a universal mind? I honestly don't have a clue. Is it like - I think of a number and you guess what it is? If you would speak in specifics - this can happen indicating that - for example, it would be helpful. I have no idea what "...the transmission and reception of various levels of mental activity..." means. What is various levels of mental activity. If there were to be anything at all to your claims you are certainly doing your best to obscure their substance through the use of such language. A clairivoyant might say "I know what you are thinking." A person who claims telekinesis might say "I can move this thimble with my brain." All specific claims that can be easily demonstrated if they are true. It is my contention that the purpose of obscuring language is merely to obscure and protect from scrutiny.

The convoluted style is deliberate to avoid endless semantic quibble. If you want to say 'different kinds' instead of 'various levels' of mental activity, no problem.
If a person said they knew what you were thinking, and correctly reported what you were thinking, would you accept this as proof that mind is not brain? Note, however, even if you were thinking what the person said you were thinking, you could not prove to anyone else that it was so: In this matter your word is not good enough. This, again, is the crux of the JREF MDC problem.
Do not be anxious about in-Articulett: She just has to go off like that, and cannot help herself.

 

[articulett]

The convoluted style is deliberate to avoid endless semantic quibble. If you want to say 'different kinds' instead of 'various levels' of mental activity, no problem.
If a person said they knew what you were thinking, and correctly reported what you were thinking, would you accept this as proof that mind is not brain? Note, however, even if you were thinking what the person said you were thinking, you could not prove to anyone else that it was so: In this matter your word is not good enough. This, again, is the crux of the JREF MDC problem.
Do not be anxious about in-Articulett: She just has to go off like that, and cannot help herself.

Your perceptions about me exist only in your delusional head. I don't think I'm making anyone but you "anxious'. And it is true, I can't help myself. You are an uber woo--an arrogant, ignorant, stupid, silly, uber woo, and it tickles me that you keep up the "persona" of "wise one".

So, let's pretend that you could tell what someone was thinking. Why can't someone just plan to be thinking about something very specific, write it down, think about it (we can record their brain waves and ensure it's the same during practice "thinking" and the actual experiment), and then you could read their mind and get the million dollars. Otherwise, what is to prevent you from telling people "you're thinking about x" and then insisting it is so whether they were or weren't? What makes you believe you can do this if you've never actually tested it because you've wrongly believed it could not be tested? Why not ask a group of people to write something down and think of it and then you go around the room and tell them what each of them are thinking. Get your friends...you trust them, right? What can you offer to prove you are not delusional? Because you sure do sound delusional--or maybe you just have a bad case of new age quantum mechanic woo-itis. What you are offering is nothing and what you are claiming is pretty big-- I think. I can't really tell what it is yet. But what is the evidence of this "universal mind"? And what is the evidence that you or anyone taps "into it". And what is the evidence that consciousness can exist outside of a living brain?

 

[Hokulele]

The convoluted style is deliberate to avoid endless semantic quibble. If you want to say 'different kinds' instead of 'various levels' of mental activity, no problem.
If a person said they knew what you were thinking, and correctly reported what you were thinking, would you accept this as proof that mind is not brain? Note, however, even if you were thinking what the person said you were thinking, you could not prove to anyone else that it was so: In this matter your word is not good enough. This, again, is the crux of the JREF MDC problem.
Do not be anxious about in-Articulett: She just has to go off like that, and cannot help herself.

I am just curious as to why you refuse to respond to me. Was it due to the fact that I responded to Articulett? Were my questions unclear? I think I understand what you are referring to, but how can any one person learn more? Is there a formal application process, or is it something I practice on my own until it happens? Is it the fact that I ask too many questions, rather than simply posting what I currently think?

 

[maatorc]

Your perceptions about me exist only in your delusional head. You are an uber woo--an arrogant, ignorant, stupid, silly, uber woo, What can you offer to prove you are not delusional? Because you sure do sound delusional--or maybe you just have a bad case of new age quantum mechanic woo-itis.

There you go again, as I told everyone you would, describing yourself.

 

[Slimething]

The convoluted style is deliberate to avoid endless semantic quibble.

No. Woos like you use the jargon generator to confound and evade. If you truly want to avoid semantic quibbles, define your major terminology. You stated earlier that "cause" was the same as "reason". I posted the definition from your cited source and it said nothing of the kind. Yet you still refuse to post the specific definition you say exists.

If a person said they knew what you were thinking, and correctly reported what you were thinking, would you accept this as proof that mind is not brain?

There are a number of possibilities that could explain that phenomenon if it existed that would not include the mind not being generated by the brain.

Note, however, even if you were thinking what the person said you were thinking, you could not prove to anyone else that it was so: In this matter your word is not good enough. This, again, is the crux of the JREF MDC problem.

So, let's say a testing protocol could not be reached with JREF. Would you decline a much larger prize that would not require any testing? A person with such abilities would make millions at blackjack (and similar games) and poker tables at casinos around the globe. What's stopping you? (Oh, never mind! )

 

[articulett]

There you go again, as I told everyone you would, describing yourself.

So is this a hit everyone? Did he predict this as he asserts? Was someone thinking that "articulett is describing herself--not maatorc"? Did anyone get a zing of "inner knowingness" yet?

And does Maatorc's convoluted style avoid endless semantic quibble as he "deliberately" intended?

(personally, I think I'm getting an inner knowingness about my own prescience.)

 

[Slimething]

There you go again, as I told everyone you would, describing yourself.

"I am rubber, you are glue..."

The Maatdork School of Puerile Taunting is open for business! Be the first kid on your block to be so annoying that no one cares if you're wrong! Learn the hidden mysteries of the ancient mantra set:

• Am not!
• Are so!
• Yeah? Well, so is you old lady!
• You've got cooties!
• My dad can beat up your dad!
• And Many, Many others! Maatdork's supply is limitless!

Maatdork, if I were you, I'd settle for a mind inside your head as opposed to none at all.

 

[articulett]

"Dodge, weave, obfuscate, switch goal posts, fling ad homs, claim to have deep truths, dodge some more, ignore, blah, woo, blah, promises, blah, blah, energy, blah, woo, obfuscaton, insult, random semantic crap, quantum mumbo jumbo, and endless nothing..."

Same ol' woo tactics every single time.

(but they are kinda amusing when they get peeved).

 

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by Complexity [URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
It appears that something named 'maatorc' joined while I was taking a break. It needn't have bothered. I'm not impressed. A sidekick named Invidious? Less impressive than its master.

... [reaction from maatorc]

I see we're finally reverting to schoolyard tactics of debate. Perhaps Moochie was right in wanting to see you explain the notion of god to first graders. From present evidence, you'd fit in better there than here.

My apology, Slimething. I took about five months off of JREF because my sliding into nastiness and then some personal hell. I'm not sure that I'm ready to rejoin the community in the manner that I would like to. I need the company right now, though. I'll do my best to avoid witless sniping and to post some thoughts occasionally.