brain/mind

[maatorc]

In addition to being grammatically incorrect, this statement is meaningless gibberish.

I appreciate it is necessary for you to say things like this so you can feel important.

 

[maatorc]

what? If anything, it is the other way round -- mind as pure phenomena (assuming your definition of mindnesses includes self-awareness). The other bits about phenomena being finite perceptions of the infinite noumena is plain gibberish -- among the many things we cannot say about noumenal reality, we cannot say whether or not it is infinite in nature.
Discussions about the nature of noumenal reality beyond some very basic mathematical/computational constraints is just pointless, IMAO. Blathering on about cannot help your theory one way or another.

If you had any idea what you are rabbitting on about I could discuss it, but you do not.

 

[maatorc]

Get on with your life, I don't think maatorc is reading what we write.

What you write is not worth reading.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The bottom line of all my comments is that brain-phenomena and mind-noumena are different aspects of one and the same thing: Each phenomena is the finite expression, in the sphere of our knowledge through the organs of sense, of something infinite.

Nothing in this string of words makes mind separate from brain. You are simply assuming that the supposedly infinite noumena includes some sort of fundamental mind, which our brains then perceive. Or something like that. It's a just-so story.

~~ Paul

 

[davidsmith73]

So what is the experience you are talking about then?

Any and all. We can pick an example of a word that refers to qualitative experience if you like. How about "beep"?

So what experience are you talking about? How do you know that you are not having it?

Yes, but the semantic argument that there 'are' these 'things' that you 'can't define' begs the question. How do you as a sentient being know that you are having that experience?

The process of discrimination. Discrimination makes it possible to say "I am having this experience instead of that one".

The usual culprits, words, you know that self referencing set of communications used by humans. Red, love, truth, those kinds of qualia.

How do these words define non-physical experience? They don't. They only act as arbitrary labels.

So which is the map refering to? It seems to me that you just saying that there is this area off the map that you can't reference.

Sorry, I should not have used the map and territory analogy because that implies that there is a relational definition going on. Its purpose was to distinguish language and qualitative experience.

So how do you kniow it exists?

Qualitative experience is direct knowledge of its existence. There is no reason to ask how I know if it exists. But saying it is non-physical comes through comparing what we conceive of as physical with qualitative existence.

But then you have just used a semantic categorization to say that it is different from the things that can be described. it is a semantic argument based solely upon the lanaguage usage.

I disagree. It is not based soley on language usage. It is based primarliy on qualitative existence and our comparison of relational things (such as language) with it. If there wasn't an existence that could not be defined relatonally though language, then I would have no reason to say such things would I?

the reason I say you are resorting to the magic word argument is that there are many words for things that absolutely do not exist, like 'society' and 'justice'.

Ah, but these things are relationally defined and refer to physical things.

Your argument is the same as saying "Red can not be counted and therefore it is not quantitative." You are correct, you may say that you can't express your thoughts, and that is fine. But being unable to define something means that you could try to define it, not just sit back and say "This is my magic and it resides in the abyss."

Well, I understand your frustration, but this is pretty much how it is. The reality is that it can't be defined so I know that no amount of trying will ever accomplish that. You can call it magic if you want!

To merely say something exists because it is not something you can describe in language , is not the same as trying to describe.

Yes it is not the same. But if you are trying to describe, then you clearly do not think that there is an existence that is un-describable! Which is why I do not try to describe.

I won't get all hung up on the words, what is vaugely like what you feel is a non-physical experience?

That's just a re-label. "like what you feel" and "quality" and "non-physical", all do not define what is being refered to.

i am sorry if I am being rude I am just trying to convey thoughts as you are.

I feel that you are just hiding behind an inability to express yourself.

I don't think you're being rude at all. Please don't hold back for my sake! You are right that a have an inability to express what I am refering to. That is the central point I am making! But I don't feel I am hiding anything.

 

[Mercutio]

Get on with your life, I don't think maatorc is reading what we write.

Much obliged....

 

[maatorc]

Nothing in this string of words makes mind separate from brain. You are simply assuming that the supposedly infinite noumena includes some sort of fundamental mind, which our brains then perceive. Or something like that. It's a just-so story.~~ Paul

Modern skepticism is but an obscure mid-twentieth century aberration of positivist philosophy and in the broader context of science and ontology is trully old-hat and something of an embarrassment to the broader understanding and knowledge held outside the narrow tunnel-visioned confines of what the movement and its founders would have the world believe.
In due time, and probably quite soon, the movement will pass into the bottomless well of extremist cults, and the true tradition of question and challenge will continue as if nothing had interrupted its service to true science and humanity.
Space and time, defining everything that we cognise by sensuous means, are in themselves just forms of our receptivity, categories of our intellect, the prism through which we regard the world -- or in other words, space and time do not represent the properties of the world, but just properties of our knowledge of the world gained through our sensuous organism.
The clear knowledge of phenomena does not make us more acquainted with things in themselves. The investigation of phenomena does not give us the comprehension of the true substance of things.
Mind is not brain, and the JREF MDC cannot work.

 

[Slimething]

...as if nothing had interrupted its service to true science and humanity.
Space and time, defining everything that we cognise by sensuous means, ...

Emphasis mine. Matdork has no understanding of science and even less of reality. Next time he bumps his head on space or time may be the first time he will have used that appendage in quite a while.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Modern skepticism is but an obscure mid-twentieth century aberration of positivist philosophy and in the broader context of science and ontology is trully old-hat and something of an embarrassment to the broader understanding and knowledge held outside the narrow tunnel-visioned confines of what the movement and its founders would have the world believe.
In due time, and probably quite soon, the movement will pass into the bottomless well of extremist cults, and the true tradition of question and challenge will continue as if nothing had interrupted its service to true science and humanity.
Space and time, defining everything that we cognise by sensuous means, are in themselves just forms of our receptivity, categories of our intellect, the prism through which we regard the world -- or in other words, space and time do not represent the properties of the world, but just properties of our knowledge of the world gained through our sensuous organism.
The clear knowledge of phenomena does not make us more acquainted with things in themselves. The investigation of phenomena does not give us the comprehension of the true substance of things.
Mind is not brain, and the JREF MDC cannot work.

What a silly twit. By the way, genius, what does "cognise" mean?
One point of agreement. Mind is not brain because brain exists and mind doesn't.

 

[maatorc]

What a silly twit. By the way, genius, what does "cognise" mean?

Look it, and its variant spelling, up, stupid!

 

[Jeff Corey]

Sorry, I didn't aginise that.

 

[nescafe]

If you had any idea what you are rabbitting on about I could discuss it, but you do not.

I see we have progressed to the "pound the table" stage of the discussion. However, your insults could use some work -- try some pithy sarcasm next time. I hear the Marquis offers some lessons, although his "fee" can be a bit... exotic.

 

[maatorc]

I see we have progressed to the "pound the table" stage of the discussion. However, your insults could use some work -- try some pithy sarcasm next time. I hear the Marquis offers some lessons, although his "fee" can be a bit... exotic.

Very amusing. Look at the stream of "I do not know what to say so I will ridicule you" posts.
I know what the essential problem is, and I am not offended, but I will occasionally spit back.

 

[trvlr2]

Very amusing. Look at the stream of "I do not know what to say so I will ridicule you" posts.
I know what the essential problem is, and I am not offended, but I will occasionally spit back.

No, sir, Mr. Mattorc--the correct term is "drooling".

 

[nescafe]

Very amusing. Look at the stream of "I do not know what to say so I will ridicule you" posts.
I know what the essential problem is, and I am not offended, but I will occasionally spit back.

Free hint: When everyone else says you are full of it, you might want to check.

 

[Causality]

Free hint: When everyone else says you are full of it, you might want to check.

Yeah, but....

What if Maatorc is the only entity in the universe, aside from the universal mind, and his, or rather the universal mind, is just imagining everyone else who says he is full of it?

Hey, it could happen

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I have seen this thread since a week or two. Whats the big deal? I have tried to read several posts, but keep losing "the problem"

 

[Dancing David]

What you write is not worth reading.

That is a substantial argument allright. So you can't defend your ideas, you get into the playground behavior.

Whoopee! You have two magic words, wave them around, create a breeze, have fun!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Modern skepticism is but an obscure mid-twentieth century aberration of positivist philosophy and in the broader context of science and ontology is trully old-hat and something of an embarrassment to the broader understanding and knowledge held outside the narrow tunnel-visioned confines of what the movement and its founders would have the world believe.
In due time, and probably quite soon, the movement will pass into the bottomless well of extremist cults, and the true tradition of question and challenge will continue as if nothing had interrupted its service to true science and humanity.

This does not convince me that mind is not brain.

Space and time, defining everything that we cognise by sensuous means, are in themselves just forms of our receptivity, categories of our intellect, the prism through which we regard the world -- or in other words, space and time do not represent the properties of the world, but just properties of our knowledge of the world gained through our sensuous organism.

Lovely.

The clear knowledge of phenomena does not make us more acquainted with things in themselves. The investigation of phenomena does not give us the comprehension of the true substance of things.

Perhaps not, but then there is no way to gain the comprehension.

Mind is not brain, and the JREF MDC cannot work.

Since your above argumentation was not compelling, you still had to resort to this just-so statement.

~~ Paul

 

[Invidious]

...space and time do not represent the properties of the world, but just properties of our knowledge of the world gained through our sensuous organism.

With all due respect, Maatorc, I thought this was a family program. We can't have people just going on and on about their sensuous organisms.

Also, one school of thought would maintain that the space and time your sensuous organism occupies will BE occupied regardless of whether you are aware of its occupation or not. Like a cosmic nocturnal emission, really.