• 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:
It still appears you had your definitions backward, and I still don't know what any of this has to do with whether your claim can be verified objectively.~~ Paul
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Maatorc
...they are not knowable because they cannot be perceived, but they must be thinkable because ... scientific investigation cannot proceed without the assumption that they exist.
Click to expand...
The whole point of the incommensurability of noumena and phenomena is that noumena cannot be verified by phenomena.
In exactly the same way, the JREF MDC cannot work.
 
Maatorc said:
The whole point of the incommensurability of noumena and phenomena is that noumena cannot be verified by phenomena.
Click to expand...
Correct, it can only be approached indirectly using science. I repeat, what does this have to do with your claim?

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Invidious said:
Maatorc,You seem to arguing for transcendentalism (specifically perhaps for transcendental idealism?). Would you agree? If not, what would you say the major differences are between what you're describing and transcendentalism?
Click to expand...
I hope you are not offended if I do not discuss this subject here. The brain-mind question seems more than enough.
 
maatorc said:
It is not in any way mysterious:
1... The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.
noumenon(n´mnn´´) (KEY) , in the philosophical system of Immanuel Kant, a “thing-in-itself”; it is opposed to phenomenon, the thing that appears to us. Noumena are the basic realities behind all sensory experience. According to Kant, they are not knowable because they cannot be perceived, but they must be thinkable because moral decision making and scientific investigation cannot proceed without the assumption that they exist.
2... A standard dictionary quote: Object of intellectual intuition devoid of all phenomenal attributes;... antithesis to phenomenon.
Click to expand...


So it is an argument based upon semantics solely, you have defined it that way and then defend it based upon the defintion. That is not an argument, that is dogma.
 
maatorc said:
The whole point of the incommensurability of noumena and phenomena is that noumena cannot be verified by phenomena.
In exactly the same way, the JREF MDC cannot work.
Click to expand...

This is silly, the magic word noumena, whoopee! If you experience the noumena, in other words than you percieve it. So it can be discussed and therefore effects of alleged noumena can be discussed.

If someone recieves a psychic projection, it can be discussed.

You are silly.

Paging Mercutio, paging Mercutio.
 
Maatorc said:
It means mind is not brain and the JREF MDC cannot work.
Click to expand...
How do you figure it means that? The noumenal is the external world as it is. The phenomenal is our perception of the external world. How does this prove that the mind* is not the brain?

~~ Paul

* So far undefined in this converation.
 
Slimething said:
Five, if you include slimething. :D
Click to expand...

:D Make that six!

maatorc has me all paranoid now, thinking about where my mind is. I thought it was in my brain, but now I'm not so sure.

Today my pet fish almost seemed to wink at me. Could it be that my mind is my pet fish???

Then when I flushed my toilet, the water sort of swirled down in what could be described as an intelligent fashion. Could the toilet be my mind?

I saw a few other usual suspects, some clouds, a coffee maker, a bird. And a really sinister cat. I think the cat is my mind, or maybe the fish. Or the cheese, I love cheese, maybe that's a sign that the cheese is my mind.

That's my report for today for the "Search for the Mind" :D (It's in here somewhere).
 
Last edited:
maatorc said:
I hope you are not offended if I do not discuss this subject here. The brain-mind question seems more than enough.
Click to expand...
No offense taken. It seemed as though the disconnect between yourself and Paul C, Dancing D, et al, might be along the philosophical lines; I was just trying to facilitate the introduction of a shared vocabulary (right now it feels as though you're pitching in one stadium, and they're batting in another).

I'll just stick to the bleachers and heckle, I guess.
Cheers!
 
Invidious said:
No offense taken. It seemed as though the disconnect between yourself and Paul C, Dancing D, et al, might be along the philosophical lines; I was just trying to facilitate the introduction of a shared vocabulary (right now it feels as though you're pitching in one stadium, and they're batting in another).

I'll just stick to the bleachers and heckle, I guess.
Cheers!
Click to expand...
It ain't philosophical. There are some people in here genuinely trying to get at the truth and there are other's engaging in obfuscation. Bulls**ting is all fine and good, but at a certain point a person might consider saying "I don't care what the truth is. I want to believe what I want to believe." Things are either so or they are not so and people can choose what they want to believe is so based on reality or they just decide to believe things willy nilly. A person is free to believe things willy nilly, but they shouldn't go around pretending they have legitimate reasons to believe them. If there is some basis for what Maatorc believes - in as much as it runs counter to everything we know about the mind and the brain - he should be able support his beliefs and demonstrate there is actually some reason to maintain them. If it is true that the mind is not an expression of the brain it should be easy enough to confirm. Forget "proof". A simple demonstration would do fine. Demonstrate it for me. I'm sure the good doctor will take my word for it. Or do it for him and I'll take his.
 
Originally Posted by Maatorc
It means mind is not brain .........
Click to expand...
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
1... The noumenal is the external world as it is.
2... The phenomenal is our perception of the external world.
3... How does this prove that the mind* is not the brain?~~ Paul
4... ...mind*... So far undefined in this conversation.
Click to expand...

1... A noumenon is not external to anything. A noumenon and a phenomenon are not different things but merely different aspects of one and the same thing.
2... A phenomenon is likewise not external to anything. A phenomenon is the three dimensional expression of a given noumenon. This three-dimensionality depends upon the three-dimensional forms of our knowledge, i.e., speaking simply, upon our brains, nerves, eyes, and finger-tips.
3... A phenomenon is the three-dimensional expression of a given noumenon.
4... Call it consciousness: The property or faculty of knowing.
 
maatorc said:
1... A noumenon is not external to anything. A noumenon and a phenomenon are not different things but merely different aspects of one and the same thing.
2... A phenomenon is likewise not external to anything. A phenomenon is the three dimensional expression of a given noumenon. This three-dimensionality depends upon the three-dimensional forms of our knowledge, i.e., speaking simply, upon our brains, nerves, eyes, and finger-tips.
3... A phenomenon is the three-dimensional expression of a given noumenon.
4... Call it consciousness: The property or faculty of knowing.
Click to expand...


The problem I have with the last statement, is that it is possible to "know" something that is patently untrue. Does this mean that the mind is fallible?
 
Dancing David said:
This is silly, the magic word noumena, whoopee! If you experience the noumena, in other words than you percieve it. So it can be discussed and therefore effects of alleged noumena can be discussed.

If someone recieves a psychic projection, it can be discussed.

You are silly.

Paging Mercutio, paging Mercutio.
Click to expand...
I have no idea how I missed this thread for 10 pages. DD, let me know if it is worth reading to get up to speed. Anything here that Interesting Ian didn't already try more intelligently? :D (seriously, I have not read it--I will on your recommendation, or I will continue to go about my life...)
 
Maatorc said:
1... A noumenon is not external to anything. A noumenon and a phenomenon are not different things but merely different aspects of one and the same thing.
Click to expand...
The dictionary definition of noumenon:

: a posited object or event as it appears in itself independent of perception by the senses

So it is external to the senses. I agree that the noumenon and phenonemon are two aspects of the same thing.

2... A phenomenon is likewise not external to anything. A phenomenon is the three dimensional expression of a given noumenon. This three-dimensionality depends upon the three-dimensional forms of our knowledge, i.e., speaking simply, upon our brains, nerves, eyes, and finger-tips.
Click to expand...
Right, the phenomenon is our internal perception of the noumenon. I'm not sure what dimensions have to do with it. Are you suggesting that the noumenon is dimensionless?

3... A phenomenon is the three-dimensional expression of a given noumenon.
Click to expand...
And, yet again one more time, how does this prove that the mind is not the brain?

4... Call it consciousness: The property or faculty of knowing.
Click to expand...
Defining mind as consciousness doesn't get us very far.

~~ Paul
 
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
Originally Posted by Maatorc
1... A noumenon is not external to anything. A noumenon and a phenomenon are not different things but merely different aspects of one and the same thing.
Click to expand...
The dictionary definition of noumenon: a posited object or event as it appears in itself independent of perception by the senses
So it is external to the senses. I agree that the noumenon and phenonemon are two aspects of the same thing.
Quote:
2... A phenomenon is likewise not external to anything. A phenomenon is the three dimensional expression of a given noumenon. This three-dimensionality depends upon the three-dimensional forms of our knowledge, i.e., speaking simply, upon our brains, nerves, eyes, and finger-tips.
Click to expand...
Right, the phenomenon is our internal perception of the noumenon. I'm not sure what dimensions have to do with it. Are you suggesting that the noumenon is dimensionless?
Quote:
3... A phenomenon is the three-dimensional expression of a given noumenon.
Click to expand...
And, yet again one more time, how does this prove that the mind is not the brain?
Quote:
4... Call it consciousness: The property or faculty of knowing.
Click to expand...
Defining mind as consciousness doesn't get us very far.
Click to expand...
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.
 
maatorc said:
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.
Click to expand...
In addition to being grammatically incorrect, this statement is meaningless gibberish.
 
maatorc said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mercutio said:
I have no idea how I missed this thread for 10 pages. DD, let me know if it is worth reading to get up to speed. Anything here that Interesting Ian didn't already try more intelligently? :D (seriously, I have not read it--I will on your recommendation, or I will continue to go about my life...)
Click to expand...


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

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom