The Instigator
Anatta
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SamBuck
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

"Mind" ought to be added to the list of the five basic senses, making it six.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 905 times Debate No: 49557
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

Anatta

Pro

Arguments may be posted in first round.

“Human beings have six basic senses” is closer to the truth than “Human beings have five basic senses”.

Now for the sake of committing to my main point I am omitting stuff like this:

http://www.todayifoundout.com...

A lot of those things can be generalized back to the original five accredited to Aristotle, especially if you think of ‘touch’ more like ‘physical’ or ‘anything sensational or tangible (including pressure)’. But that’s beside the point.

So I hope you understand this is in the ‘rudimentary’ paradigm.

My argument is dependent on the premise that a ‘sense’ is to be strictly defined as; “A channel, through which we (particularly for this debate; humankind) have access to information pertaining to phenomena (or alternatively; ‘reality’), that is naturally (or perhaps alternatively; biologically) rooted and integrated into the body (not an artifact).”

Information’ is to be defined as “knowledge gained”.

The streaming of information through a channel we will call ‘perception’.

Of course we know the conventional five senses and there terms (taste, touch, sight, hearing, and smell), so for all practical purposes we will need a name or term to refer to the sixth sense that I am proposing to be a considerable element of its own, we shall call this sense; ‘mind’.

So to sum it up I instigate that this list:

  1. Taste
  2. Touch
  3. Sight
  4. Hearing
  5. Smell
  6. Mind

is more accurate in representing the aggregate of natural basic senses inherent in humankind than the same list with the sixth element omitted.

I have proposed the subject and terms, I do not wish to argue in this particular debate whether my premise (definition of ‘sense’, ‘perception’, and ‘information’) is true or not (though I will accept a challenge to that debate, but you must be the instigator of the negative [proposing that my definition of ‘sense’, ‘perception’, ‘information’ is false]). I wish to argue in this particular debate whether my instigation (mankind has six senses) is true given this premise (definition of sense explained above); consequently acceptance of the debate is acceptance of the premise (definition of sense).

Now this is my first debate, I think I have an idea of how this works, I want to state it clearly that it is not my intention to sit here on my computer and not move until the debate is over, time will pass. This is not to be abusive and/or quick. We will take our time, be thorough, and respectful my friend.

SamBuck

Con

I will be arguing that the mind should not be regarded as a sixth sense, nor should anything else. Our mind is a function of the human body which doesn't detect things, but it instead processes the information which is fed to it by our other five senses. For example, let us take a look at what I did when I saw this very debate. I saw the debate topic with my EYES, and then my mind thought that this would be an interesting debate topic. My mind did not detect anything. It simply decided how to respond to the current situation. The mind does not gather intelligence in any way, shape, or form, but it only decides what to do with the current information we have at hand.
Debate Round No. 1
Anatta

Pro

Anatta forfeited this round.
SamBuck

Con

Do you give up, or simply forget to meet the deadline? Please let me know.
Debate Round No. 2
Anatta

Pro

Anatta forfeited this round.
SamBuck

Con

SamBuck forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Anatta

Pro

Anatta forfeited this round.
SamBuck

Con

SamBuck forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Anatta

Pro

Anatta forfeited this round.
SamBuck

Con

SamBuck forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JesseR 3 years ago
JesseR
Not mind but consciousness, mind refers to the power source of all the senses if you think about it. The brain gives life to all other senses not including the five basic ones there are plenty more.
Posted by lightingbolt50 3 years ago
lightingbolt50
Mind isn't a sense, it takes in information from your senses, but it isn't one it self.
Posted by Tiger5573 3 years ago
Tiger5573
Ever heard this expression: Use your sense of mind? this is just an example of mind being a sense
Posted by Anatta 3 years ago
Anatta
Sorry for this being on the backburner, Im just swamped with work this week
Posted by LittleBallofHATE 3 years ago
LittleBallofHATE
My money is on Con. Pro doesn't have a case, no matter how well he argues.
Posted by Anatta 3 years ago
Anatta
Alrighty, so if I change it to where we can discuss my definition within that same debate, who wants to be the one I send the challenge to? Will the real-slim shady please stand up?
Posted by Pfalcon1318 3 years ago
Pfalcon1318
You've basically tried to seal this debate, with those definitions. That's intellectually dishonest, and downright shady. You're the one that's being lazy; you define the terms such that that it necessarily follows that mind should be a sense. And then you say that the definitions can't be changed.

If a sense is a way to interpreting or perceiving information, it follows that mind would have to be a sense.
Posted by Anatta 3 years ago
Anatta
Either my definition of sense is acceptable or it isn't, pretty simple.
If it is, I await a contender. (to discuss the mind as a sense)
If it isn't, I await a challenger. (to discuss what is a true constitution of a 'sense'.)
I think it's foolish to discuss rather "the mind is a sense or not" with the definition of 'sense' potentially being a variable.

What's illogical about that?
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 3 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Without your proper opening argument, this is an unfair debate.
You pick a definition out of the blue, don't tell us how exactly it relates to the "mind" being a "sense" and expect any of us to debate you on this unknown terrain where you alone make the rules.

Your premise is logically flawed, but since we're not allowed to attack your definiton, there's no way for us to win this debate.

And since you don't want to debate that here, we're not even allowed to discuss this with you in the comments.

Why don't you just title your debate "I'm right, right?" and wait for anyone to fall into that trap?
Posted by Anatta 3 years ago
Anatta
Duncan: Fallible statement. I didn't reject a premise that there are more than five senses in existence. I omitted all other argued over senses within the scientific community as being universally recognized rudimentary/fundamental senses, because they aren't. The unargued list of fundamental rudimentary senses (the main 5) is the list of which I proclaim ought to be augmented by making it very apparent that we need to do so given the proper insight (specifically by 1, the mind)

The reason I made this such a controlled focus is to, ironically, avoid running into the cheap tactic of which you just attempted to employ: Diverting the attention away from the main emphasis, or true nature, of the debate to a superfluous technicality and exaggerating it in an attempt to achieve a rhetoric fruitless victory. If you wish to argue what constitutes a "basic sense" that would be a separate debate altogether...a challenge of which I'd happy to accept. Read the post CAREFULLY, don't be lazy :P
No votes have been placed for this debate.