Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

The Mind Vs Body

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 9:28:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hill Top productions presents.

.........................The Mind vs Body are epistemilogically different.

Boone knocks on the door of is psychologist office nervously…………..He knocks a second time. But he hears no sound. Boone slowly moved his ear towards the door to try and listen in. But the door swiftly opens to his surprise. Someone yells into his ear!!

Strange man: BoooM!

Boone: What!?

Strange man: BOoooom!

Boone looks up to see a short stubby, dark skinned man in hooded purple one piece suit with large black stars spotted across it. He is shaking what seems to be children rattle.

Boone: I don't understand.

Strange man: BOOOOOMM!

Boone notices something is amiss with this guy's face. His eyes seem to drift inward and outward giving an appearance as though they are spinning around in their sockets synchcronized with his childish rattle.
Boone begins to feel weary and dizzy.

Strange man: Boone?..... Boone Pickens.

Boone: Oh I thought you were saying Boom.

The Fool: No I was saying Boone as in Boone Pickens. That's your name right?

Boone: yes it is, but I could have sworn you were saying Boom.

The man looks at him seriously his eye No longer seem to be goggling.

Strange man: I believe you are here to see me… Mr. Pickens.

Boone: Yes sorry

Boones looks around the rooms for certificates of merit.

Strange man: Foolman, the name is Doctor Foolman.

Foolman puts out his hand to be met with a solid shake.

Dr. Foolman:
So sit down, have a seat in my star player chair.

Boones sits down in a small purple and soft chair with yellow wheels.

Dr. Foolman: So I hear your having problems with your mind.

Boones: Yes people as of late keep saying that I am out of my mind.

Dr. Foolman: well are you?

Boone: I don't know. I don't see it. Your the Doctor.

Dr. Foolman: Ohhhhh.. you mean you don't observe it or experience it.

Boone: Yeah that right! Boy you are Good.

Dr. Foolman: Oh flattery will get you everywhere Boone. You little Einstein you!

Boone: I have to admit I was a little concerned at first, you don't really look like a doctor. Why is almost everything in this room Purple? Except that huge yellow flashy clock you have there on the wall and these oval video monitors.

The clock covered a about 7 feet in diameter, the arms and frame where bright yellow. But there were no numbers but rather a Huge picture of earth that seem to be taken from outer space.

Dr. Foolman: Well I tend to lose track of time, so it's important to know what it really is.

The Doctor stayed silent for a moment.

Dr. Foolman: So out of you mind eh. Lets get you fixed up!

Boone notices for a moment that one of the Doctors eyes is looking at clock and the other at him.

Boone: are you sure you are okay.

The doc's Grins as his eyes line up looking at Boone.

Dr. Foolman:
Trust me Boone, Im a doctor.
It's a simple cure for a simple man Boone. I am just going to get you to look at something's and ask you a few questions.

The doctor, moves Boones chair to the window, where the two video monitors are, The Doctor put some high tech looking head gear on his head.

Dr. Foolman: Here put this on. Now I just want you to look out at this Beautiful sunrise.

The Boone: Well that sounds easy enough.

The Doc turns on the monitor, a picture of a brain which high lights in colour changing brain activity.

Dr. Foolman: You see this is the patterns of brain activity being recorded as you look forward.

The Boone: Yeah I know what it is. Okay. Haven't you noticed my Einstein profile Pic.

Dr. Foolman: Now, according to your understanding they are both being experienced directly by physical sense information. So the question is simple. Is your experience of the sunset the very same as the experience of the video of your activated brain patterns.

The Boone: yes!

Dr. Foolman: Really! Can you point to the same objects in each?

The Boone: I don't understand.

Dr. Foolman:Can you point out what is the same in each empirical experience? I mean they are there right in front of you! Unless of course you are dreaming. You not dreaming are you? <(89)

The Boone: Dreams are abstract I don't experience dreaming?

Dr. Foolman: You have never experienced dreaming? <(80)

The Boone: No!

Dr. Foolman: Okay that's fine, but just point with your finger what is the same.

The Boone: They are happening with the at the same time.

Dr. Foolman: Yeah there is a correlation between the Brain and the mind. If they were the same we would not need to correlate them. One would be good enough right? So we should know everything about the mind by just looking at the brain chemicals and there is No need to ask anybody about their actualy experiences, Right?

The Boone: Of course they are the same.

Dr. Foolman: Boone, correlation is a concept/idea, your family doctor said you were denying that they exist, right? So then based of physical sense information what is the same?

Boone: I physically observe that they are happening at the same time.

Dr. Foolman: Are you sure Boone. Does that make it exactly the same or just a correlation?

Boone: They are the exact same the mind does not exist it's just abstract for the brain.

Dr. Foolman: Boone that is not even your brain on the screen, it is my brain you are looking at.

The doctor switches on the next monitor.

Dr. Foolman: This your brain Boone.

Boone: You See, they are the same, there is only the brain.

Dr. Foolman: Does that really mean that they are the same. Are you sure this time?

The Boone:--

Dr. Foolman:Here I will point out the differences:

1.They are not the same all of the equipment was bogus.

2.The experiences were each BLUNTLY and simply not the same. one was a sunset one was a brain.

3.Time is only a concept it's not actual change. It's only an arbitrary measurement of change . We have inadvertently have standardized it as the difference of the earth position vs its axis. (Big earth Clock)

4.The "theory" of the brain being the mind IS REFUTABLE. While the fact that you are having an experience of mind 100% True.

5.It's not physically Observable, NO BODY ELSE CAN EXPERIENCE BUT YOU but you do experience it whether you like it or not.

6.It doesn't matter how you define it. Because the experience itself is not a LANGUAGE. All purly Physical understandings can turn out to be wrong. AKA dream skepticm. But the fact that your mind exist CAN NEVER BE WRONG IT'S A PRIORI TRUE.

7.The Brain is a "Theory" of the correlation to the mind. The Brain=/=The Mind. The mind is self-evident. Your physical experience of the brain is not self-evident and can turn out to be wrong.

8. Your feeling of pain is not a "theory" of pain it is the actual true and existing Pain there is nothing abstract about it

9.And you were sleeping the whole time, you feel asleep with Foolish Hypnosis when you walked in.

BOOM!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 12:56:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Boones: Yes people as of late keep saying that I am out of my mind.
Out of my mind? But how can anyone be out of their mind? I thought the mind was an essential component of "me" so how can I be out of it?

Dr. Foolman: You see this is the patterns of brain activity being recorded as you look forward.
Dr. Foolman: Now, according to your understanding they are both being experienced directly by physical sense information. So the question is simple. Is your experience of the sunset the very same as the experience of the video of your activated brain patterns.

The Boone: yes!
I like this Boone guy!

Dr. Foolman: Really! Can you point to the same objects in each?

The Boone: I don't understand.

Dr. Foolman:Can you point out what is the same in each empirical experience? I mean they are there right in front of you! Unless of course you are dreaming. You not dreaming are you? <(89)
That really cleared up the question...not! Having trouble rephrasing it? Could it be that you're having trouble rephrasing it so that it doesn't sound like the absurdity that it is? I think so!

The Boone: Dreams are abstract I don't experience dreaming?
Shouldn't that be a statement and not a question?

Dr. Foolman: You have never experienced dreaming? <(80)

The Boone: No!

Dr. Foolman: Okay that's fine, but just point with your finger what is the same.
The same as what?

The Boone: They are happening with the at the same time.
I wish I knew what I said.

Dr. Foolman: Yeah there is a correlation between the Brain and the mind. If they were the same we would not need to correlate them. One would be good enough right? So we should know everything about the mind by just looking at the brain chemicals and there is No need to ask anybody about their actualy experiences, Right?
If we had a perfect understanding of how the body/brain works, sure why not.

The Boone: Of course they are the same.

Dr. Foolman: Boone, correlation is a concept/idea, your family doctor said you were denying that they exist, right? So then based of physical sense information what is the same?

Boone: I physically observe that they are happening at the same time.

Dr. Foolman: Are you sure Boone. Does that make it exactly the same or just a correlation?

Boone: They are the exact same the mind does not exist it's just abstract for the brain.
Smart guy this Boone!

Dr. Foolman: Boone that is not even your brain on the screen, it is my brain you are looking at.

The doctor switches on the next monitor.

Dr. Foolman: This your brain Boone.

Boone: You See, they are the same, there is only the brain.

Dr. Foolman: Does that really mean that they are the same. Are you sure this time?

The Boone:--
What does -- mean?

Dr. Foolman:Here I will point out the differences:

1.They are not the same all of the equipment was bogus.
Oh, so you proved that people can be fooled by a fool. That's so profound!

2.The experiences were each BLUNTLY and simply not the same. one was a sunset one was a brain.
Forest or trees?

3.Time is only a concept it's not actual change.
Lol!

It's only an arbitrary measurement of change . We have inadvertently have standardized it as the difference of the earth position vs its axis. (Big earth Clock)
Yes but no, but yes, but no... Make up your mind! Hint: time = change.

4.The "theory" of the brain being the mind IS REFUTABLE. While the fact that you are having an experience of mind 100% True.
Lol! It can't be that I am a simulation or part of someone else's dream. You're able to rule THAT out with 100% certainty...or maybe not.

5.It's not physically Observable, NO BODY ELSE CAN EXPERIENCE BUT YOU but you do experience it whether you like it or not.
Obviously, my brain isn't being shared. However, look at what happens when you cut someone's corpus callosum:

6.It doesn't matter how you define it. Because the experience itself is not a LANGUAGE.
Right, it's a magical mystical thing that defies all linguistic explanation...except when you explain it using language, of course.

All purly Physical understandings can turn out to be wrong. AKA dream skepticm. But the fact that your mind exist CAN NEVER BE WRONG IT'S A PRIORI TRUE.
No. See earlier refutation.

7.The Brain is a "Theory" of the correlation to the mind.
The brain is not a theory.

The Brain=/=The Mind.
Hardware <> software; but software requires hardware.

The mind is self-evident. Your physical experience of the brain is not self-evident and can turn out to be wrong.
As can your experiences of the mind.

8. Your feeling of pain is not a "theory" of pain it is the actual true and existing Pain there is nothing abstract about it.
As abstract or real as the brain and its sensors.

9.And you were sleeping the whole time, you feel asleep with Foolish Hypnosis when you walked in.
No all people can be hypnotized, actually. I am one of those.

BOOM!
However, it was actually you that was hypnotized the whole time! Why are you an apologist for Dualism?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 2:05:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 12:56:56 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Boones: Yes people as of late keep saying that I am out of my mind.

Out of my mind? But how can anyone be out of their mind? I thought the mind was an essential component of "me" so how can I be out of it?(way over your head)lol

Dr. Foolman: You see this is the patterns of brain activity being recorded as you look forward.
Dr. Foolman: Now, according to your understanding they are both being experienced directly by physical sense information. So the question is simple. Is your experience of the sunset the very same as the experience of the video of your activated brain patterns?

The Fool: So answer it? Tell us how they are the same, and how so?

With out using non-physical concepts?

The Boone: I don't understand.

Dr. Foolman:Can you point out what is the same in each empirical experience?

That really cleared up the question...not! Having trouble rephrasing it? Could it be that you're having trouble rephrasing it so that it doesn't sound like the absurdity that it is? I think so!

The Fool: The rephrasing is a sarcastic Joke because it was as simple as a question as can possibly be? AKA are the TWO difference pictures the same?(Specifcally because of you tendency to not get it. Notice the I don't understand remark earlier)

The Boone: Dreams are abstract I don't experience dreaming?
Shouldn't that be a statement and not a question?

The Fool: This how we know you are avoiding the questions. Because its not significant. We only point out such obvious things when there is nothing else to say.
(Its called a violation of the princple of Charity. Aka always take the best possible interpretation of your opponent to make sure that its not you that isn't getting it. IF you are not sure then you ask. IF you are honest.)

Dr. Foolman: You have never experienced dreaming? <(80)

The Boone: No!

The Fool: you skipped the ridulas of the fact that you don't experience dreaming. If you havent experienced it. You couldn't know what I was talking about to even answer. (way over your head.) Secondly you cant get out of the Dream skepticism withou Logic, but your dreams are not physical.

Dr. Foolman: Okay that's fine, but just point with your finger what is the same.

The same as what?

The Fool: the very riduculsly same simple question what is the same about the experience of looking at a brain activity and looking at the sun set. Aka the brain activity is the physical correlation of the sunset. But they are two different pictures all together. The the fact that the brain is correlated with the mine, doesn't mean the Brain is the mind.

The Mind<-->The Brain

We is called this in logic biconditional relationship, which means that when there is a change In the mind there is a change in the brain. But they are not the same. One is an actual experience(of mind) while the other is and experience of a theortical correlation to your experience. The actual experience is anaytically true, but the 'Theory' that the brain is CORRALATION is only inductive. If you don't understand its okay to ask. I know for a fact that you don't know alot of the material I am talking about.

What you are argueing is a popular understanding? Many people will agree with you. You are giving a logical Positivist understanding. But the reason why this philosophy of science fell out of favour, is because the standard of knowledge was raised so high by calling that which is true merly that which can be physically verified they cut out the ability to proof that it was true. Back then All psychology was behaviorism. RIght? Where you mind was measure by how you behaved. If you said I am feeling pain, they would say that is a NON-sense statement. Why? because it can't be physically verified, That is how Hardcore they were. But eventually the ideas that mind was no-existent fell out of favour why because it does exist.
Cognitive psychology started to gain popularity. But neuroscience can't make gains by itself. So they formed a knew science Called Cognitive Science. Its probably only 6 years old. Canada is the first place to have it as its own specialized doclarate.. I don't even know if you guys have that yet. You have the parts, But not as a whole. Aka Your education system is Behind. (that was't a joke. I wasnt even sandering when I said that ITS A REAL PROBLEM, )
By the way abstract doesn't mean not existing or not real. I will continue on this.

But now we have a new which is cognitive Science. I dont' even think you have that kind education in USA yet. You

Not in any elitist way but I have three years of university neuroscience over you. It id most likely I know alot more then you about how the brain work. B.

You don't even know why. I Know how it works. But you think is JUST WORKS.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 2:08:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The End after "continue" was already incorperated into the paragraph. I forget to erase it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 3:49:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I can't help but feel that we have been past the Cognitive science thing already.

The Fool: The idea of being tricked by it not being the same screen was to exemply that one the brain is inductive thus there is a possibity that you could turn out to be wrong. But you can't be wrong about the FACt that you are having an exper

Lets clarify this one.
The mind is self-evident. Your physical experience of the brain is not self-evident and can turn out to be wrong.
As can your experiences of the mind.

No you expererience can't never turn out to be wrong. YOu may be wrong about whether you are dreaming or awake, But you can't be wrong about having the experince its self. Nore could you be wrong if you are feeling pain. You can express it with the wrong word. but you the feeling is the feeling. Even if some doctor say look on these screen you are not feeling pain. You are the one feeling it. YOu can't be wrong be he can mistake the correlation. (its called assymetricy. )

1.They are not the same all of the equipment was bogus.

Oh, so you proved that people can be fooled by a fool. That's so profound!

The Fool: NO again. Over your head. I was showing your undertstanding of the brain Is fallable, But the fact that you were experincing a Sun set was not. Sure you may wake up to think you are dreaming. But the fact that in the time that you were dreaming you at that moment were experiencing a sunset. Whether it was real of not. THe Experience was real.

2.The experiences were each BLUNTLY and simply not the same. one was a sunset one was a brain.(still didnt' acount for this)

3It's only an arbitrary measurement of change . We have inadvertently have standardized it as the difference of the earth position vs its axis. (Big earth Clock)

Yes but no, but yes, but no... Make up your mind! Hint: time = change.

The Fool: it is you that are confused change it self is eternal but time depends on our mind. what we choose to call the beginning of time, aka its arbitrary.

Time is a selected standerd of the Rate of change, its one type of change/another time of change. While change itself is Just change singular. You couldnt measure speed if they were the same. Remember when you thought you had it figured out, and I said you seemed to have some leaks. (and be said oh 'I must have been Fooled') It was over your head. You were fooled. <(XD) You can't even tell when I am making fun of you.

Lets check out this one:

The "theory" of the brain being the mind IS REFUTABLE. While the fact that you are having an experience of mind 100% True.

The Fool: you see I through you a Boone here. and obvoiusly you need it. I meant to say falsifiable, What is 100% percent true can't be falsified.
aka you may categories it wrongly but that fact that you are having the experience

The Boone: : Lol! It can't be that I am a simulation or part of someone else's dream. Yeah you are That is why the Cogito is famous. I can doube everything but I cannot doubt what I Exist. Because doubting it, is and example of it. 100% If you are experiencing something you exist. ITs pre-semantics.

5.It's not physically Observable, NO BODY ELSE CAN EXPERIENCE BUT YOU but you do experience it whether you like it or not.
Obviously, my brain isn't being shared. However, look at what happens when you cut someone's corpus callosum:

The Fool: dude you are soo innocent. I told you cognitive science. I know if the brain is split he can draw to different pictures with each hand because of the lack of inferrence fo the commnication. I knew that and much more like 6 years ago. I could name every all important part of the brain and tell you how the neurotransmitter interact to form action potential., We use that system with computer programs IN artificial intellient. we use Mathmatica. Trust me light years ahead on the Cognitive Science. Stick with the faith in physics. I know what I am saying not because of a lack of knowlegdge but because I know way more about the subject. And I am talking about the Contemporary understanding of the mind and you are talking 1930's understanding of the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science is a about why it works, what are good methods and false methods.
YOu are confusing my philosophy which is analytica with the Opinion style post-modern, and such. Those are subjective and not rational. THey are not the same. But that is where all the confusion comes from because people who don't know better confuse them.

6.It doesn't matter how you define it. Because the experience itself is not a LANGUAGE.
Right, it's a magical mystical thing that defies all linguistic explanation...except when you explain it using language, of course.

The Fool: its called knowledge of philosophy of language. Aka a baby mind still existist even though they can' speak yet. secondly The meaning is not in the physical symbols but the idea, (whcih I think I have mentioned) that they refer to.

The Proof is easy. right? if the meaning was in the physical sound or image then a chinese person who has never spoke english before would know what you meant.
But they don't you have to translate. No if they now if translation is possible which it is. THen what holds constant between Physical symbol adn our. Answer they have the same IDEAS. its just not yet been mapped on to our symbolic system.
The ONly brain thing is DEAD SCIENCE. ITs Passe

Here is another Proof. Just look at the a picture of a brain, What does it tell by its self just image of brain. Aka neurosceince alone.

Or to understand the brain do you need someone To tell you what they Experience. when you affect something FIRST before you understand the Brain. Come on, you should have conceded along time ago. You are in zombie theologin mode now.
YOu are no longer being reasonable.

7.The Brain is a "Theory" of the correlation to the mind.
The brain is not a theory.

The Fool: yes it is. you mind construct images based on the most likely interpretation from the information given.

Did you ever think you seen something but you figured you didn' t

YOU DID! your mine kicked up a false theory based on its limited information.

Here even easier. IF you are watching a game of pool and the ball are banging around the table as you see cause and effect of there interaction. You are sure its cause and effect

But lets then say you spot a Fool under the tabe and he has been moving the ball all along with huge magnets. WHat HAPPENS TO YOU PERCEPTION OF CAUSE AN EFFECT. IT VANSHISHED because you mind KICKed UP A FALSE THEORY. your mind projected the cause and effect(its really a logical conditional) on to the objects, but one it found a contradiction. IT took back the cause and effect.
All you seen was one ball move and the the next one move, the interaction was theorical. You can thank Hume for that one.
IF we see one thing move and then another one and there is not cause and effect what justfified that if we see it many times, now suddenly its cause and effect. ??
You Physical reality is the best case Theory is deliver to you experience. IT can be wrong. Is it getting clearer now! or do you still not understand.

YOu don't even notice that I am argueing for espistimelogical dualism. NOt SUBSTANCE DUELISM. I dont' think you know the difference. I am a substance monest. aka I believe everything is of one substance or it couldnt interact. But to build a sufficient foundational system of knowledge its organization must stem from the a priori princeples down. It must stem from mind then physical .
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 4:41:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 2:05:29 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Out of my mind? But how can anyone be out of their mind? I thought the mind was an essential component of "me" so how can I be out of it?(way over your head)lol
How is it over my head if I'm the one making the joke? The joke is that I was equivocating "out" to mean "outside" instead of what it really means here: "out of the norm." Not much unlike what you are doing with the rest of the post.

Dr. Foolman: Now, according to your understanding they are both being experienced directly by physical sense information. So the question is simple. Is your experience of the sunset the very same as the experience of the video of your activated brain patterns?
The Fool: So answer it? Tell us how they are the same, and how so?
I don't even understand the question? If you are asking me "are the 'brain patterns' that correspond to the experience of the sunset the same as the experience of the sunset," then the answer is yes. This is just a matter of abstraction.

With out using non-physical concepts?
Well, I have no idea as to what your opinion is of what constitutes a non-physical concept, so I'll use whatever I wish to use to answer your question and then you can point out to me which concept you feel are the non-physical ones.

The Fool: The rephrasing is a sarcastic Joke because it was as simple as a question as can possibly be? AKA are the TWO difference pictures the same?(Specifcally because of you tendency to not get it. Notice the I don't understand remark earlier)
If they are different pictures, why would they be the same? How is this not an absurdity? Again, what is the point of this?

The Fool: This how we know you are avoiding the questions. Because its not significant. We only point out such obvious things when there is nothing else to say.
Lol! I have answered ALL questions that I understood. Don't accuse me of evasion because I am not evading a thing. I am not the one that is asking the absurd and then feels slighted when I point out that I don't understand the absurd question.

(Its called a violation of the princple of Charity. Aka always take the best possible interpretation of your opponent to make sure that its not you that isn't getting it. IF you are not sure then you ask. IF you are honest.)
I did ask.

The Fool: you skipped the ridulas of the fact that you don't experience dreaming.
That's because I do experience dreaming. Why wouldn't I skip over the ridiculous.

If you havent experienced it. You couldn't know what I was talking about to even answer.
I think that you think that some things that you say carry more weight than they actually do. If one were to talk to someone that never dreamed, one could still relate to it: it is like imagining. It is a terrible example of what you are probably trying to show. A better example would be trying to explain colors to a person that is blind from birth.

(way over your head.)
Modest, aren't you? I think it's the other way around.

Secondly you cant get out of the Dream skepticism without Logic, but your dreams are not physical.
Wrong. Logic CANNOT get you out of dream skepticism. Your dreams originate in your brain and like all else are predicated on the physical.

The Fool: the very riduculsly same simple question what is the same about the experience of looking at a brain activity and looking at the sun set. Aka the brain activity is the physical correlation of the sunset. But they are two different pictures all together. The the fact that the brain is correlated with the mine, doesn't mean the Brain is the mind.
Again, if you are asking me "are the 'brain patterns' that correspond to the experience of the sunset the same as the experience of the sunset," then the answer is yes. . This is just a matter of abstraction: were do the trees end and forest begin?

The Mind<-->The Brain:
We is called this in logic biconditional relationship, which means that when there is a change In the mind there is a change in the brain.
When you get down to it, there's nothing logical about it.

But they are not the same. One is an actual experience(of mind) while the other is and experience of a theortical correlation to your experience. The actual experience is anaytically true, but the 'Theory' that the brain is CORRALATION is only inductive.
A simple case of putting the cart before the horse.

If you don't understand its okay to ask.
I understand your position: I used to have it. However, you do not understand mine.

I know for a fact that you don't know alot of the material I am talking about.
You probably know less than what I have forgotten.

What you are argueing is a popular understanding? Many people will agree with you. You are giving a logical Positivist understanding. But the reason why this philosophy of science fell out of favour, is because the standard of knowledge was raised so high by calling that which is true merly that which can be physically verified they cut out the ability to proof that it was true. Back then All psychology was behaviorism. RIght?
Hopefully you will get to a point...

Where you mind was measure by how you behaved. If you said I am feeling pain, they would say that is a NON-sense statement. Why? because it can't be physically verified, That is how Hardcore they were. But eventually the ideas that mind was no-existent fell out of favour why because it does exist.
It exists the same way that software exists; however, you still need the hardware.

Cognitive psychology started to gain popularity. But neuroscience can't make gains by itself. So they formed a knew science Called Cognitive Science. Its probably only 6 years old. Canada is the first place to have it as its own specialized doclarate.. I don't even know if you guys have that yet. You have the parts, But not as a whole. Aka Your education system is Behind. (that was't a joke. I wasnt even sandering when I said that ITS A REAL PROBLEM, )
I agree with you, partially. I agree that the primary education system in the US sucks. It has sucked for quite some time. However, the system of higher learning (aka college/university) in the US is BAR NONE.

By the way abstract doesn't mean not existing or not real. I will continue on this.
Semantics.

But now we have a new which is cognitive Science. I dont' even think you have that kind education in USA yet. You
Lol! http://www.google.com...

Not in any elitist way but I have three years of university neuroscience over you. It id most likely I know alot more then you about how the brain work. B.
I am sure you do. As I am sure you know that there is a direct correspondence between decreased brain function and decreased mental function. etc.

You don't even know why. I Know how it works. But you think is JUST WORKS.
I don't need to know or am interested in the why, only the how.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 4:49:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 2:08:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The End after "continue" was already incorperated into the paragraph. I forget to erase it.
OK.

Curious...if I ask you to look at the sky to examine the clouds, and I point out to you a cloud that looks like an elephant: does that elephant exist?

If you were to look at the circuits in your computer, and I asked you to point to where the image of a sunset is, does that image really exist in the computer circuit or is just a bunch of electrons?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 5:19:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 4:49:03 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/8/2012 2:08:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The End after "continue" was already incorperated into the paragraph. I forget to erase it.
OK.

Curious...if I ask you to look at the sky to examine the clouds, and I point out to you a cloud that looks like an elephant: does that elephant exist?

IT does't exist exist as an pattern what your mind recognized and extrapulated the fromation on the clouds.

But here is another easy proof. There is no such thing as perfect squares in the physical universe. NO where. There is no-phyiscal evidence for it. All square or rectangles. Your moniter, your house, your walls. All come come from are idea of a square. . I all ready told you Decartes invented calculculs and Liebnez took it to anothr level. He beat newton to all the conceptions. and Decarts created the Cartisian Plan without physical experience. Just by thinking of the shape and then drawing them. That is the mind can put together formulas, we dont' physical experience and extrapulate in our physical atmospher. (to you universe) I wasn't just claiming that that is how they did it. Its a Fact..

If you were to look at the circuits in your computer, and I asked you to point to where the image of a sunset is, does that image really exist in the computer circuit or is just a bunch of electrons?

The Fool: it doesn't have a mind. Even if its on the screen ITs YOUR MIND THAT PERCIEVES THE picture on the monitor. (I already gave you the same argument in my favour along time ago)

I told you that the the experience was like the moniter. But the computer doesn't experience or feel anything. Notice how we use logic-mathatical(they over lap) to program. That is we use a priory logic from OUR minds. Logical formulas.
Notice how a computer like an extention of the mind. I would argue somewhere else that its not accident. We find windows easier because ITs categorical and we think categorically.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 6:47:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh yeah some post I forgot to answer:

The Fool: Firstly, empirical means experienced. Do you not experience sadness or happyness or affection. IF so they are empirical.

The Boone:
Have I said otherwise? Answer: no

The Fool: Then how do you know what I am talking about?
Secondly, empirical means experienced. Do you not experience sadness or happyness or affection. IF so they are empirical.

The Boone:Have I said otherwise? Answer: no.

The Fool:
But then you couldnt' know what I mean by them, if you havent experiences them.

As YOU said, all of my experiences are empirical and I am a physical being; ergo, it is ONLY the physical to base it on.

The Fool: Know it doesn't w follow. lol. There are differernces in categories are mind organize th Just saying your physical doesn't mean you physical.

The Fool:In fact look how little phyiscal words we use in everyday language.(I have only used 3 so far and you understand all I have said)

The Boone:Your opinion as to what is a "physical word" is irrelevant.

The Fool: Oh its called basic linguistics. Its really not the complicated. I am saying there is no logical connection of words like "Explain" or "understanding", "emotion, in your physical experience. If you disagree Just give some examples. Its as easy a that. <(XD)

The Boone: Things that exist as ideas ALWAYS have preconditions who's roots ALWAYS are predicated on PHYSICAL experiences.

The Fool: Firstly, What are you basing this on. Its not possible to make this assertion by physical infromation alone, because you have never experienced and infinite set of causes. You need a priori logical principles like the Principle of suffient condition. Its a logical intuition.
Right? Yes of no?

Secondly the mind organizes information in categories. Like gets grouped with like. Most of the information is not physically experienced like you think. If I see a car. I see a whole car. But later in my mind I can break down the car into parts, tires, colours excetra. How is this mental process possible? Where do you see this process in you physical experience. You dont and can't because this was the Theorotical information extrapolated on to the physical atmophere to explain something detected. (I know you are not used to talking like that.)

Therefore your mind can break it down, Analyse/divide. Such process are not experienced you must have them all ready to even procress sense in formation in the first place.
Rememember physics gives us logic-mathatic formulas. Its the formulas that are the knowedge.

The only way you can KNOW things is through the physical.

The Fool: you must be able to process the information already these are the a priori. Pre-experienced, logical-mathatical rules. THen necessitate the possibility to processing.

And they are not physical. You it follows by necessity that you.

Let's talk facts and not your opinions.

THe Fool: try and make sure they are opinions. Logic is as factual as you can get.

Demonstation of the difference.

Sensation of Pain is not the same as the neuron firing in you leg.

Obviously, a neuron can fire for a VARIETY of reasons. Try not to equivocate these reasons. The rest of your argument falls apart.

The Fool: nothing make sense(literally) with out sensations. Even your physical experiences are sets of sensations. The sensation is a difference form of knowledge the the formulized theoitical infromation about the firing being related to the pain. But they are two difference sensations. one it visual or is the feeling of pain. THe are correlated but two difference typs of information. You can break the feeling of pain down into small bits(its only magnitudal( but you can break down the theory into chemicals ect. On is is at the end of regress. the other can keep being broken down.

The Fool: And you could never assert that the mind is dependent on brain in the sense that ever you sense information about the brain, is Post processing.

You don't need to learn anything about the brain to know about the mind. People in year 0 knew about feelings and sensation and the pleasure of sex. While thinking the mind in in there heart. again ONe is immediatly epistemologically available the other take time to learn. notn the same information. It Corralation not an equivilance.

Not only did I assert it, I also showed empirical evidence for it.

The Fool: THey are emprical but only one is physical you need to know what the person is feeling in order learn about that functions in the brain.

Remember it was my arguement that the more you damage the brain the more you lose cognitive facualties. But, because the epistemological order s things must be organized the other way. not subsence order?

E.g/
Universals(math-logic)->mind(feelings-experience-ideas)->physical(this can be further reduced)

But you can't go the other way. <- You can go this way. You could only break down physical to smaller bits but you can reduce mind.

That is there a direction knowledge goes and its that way. --->

Physical experience is only one type of you experience.

Do you know the difference or not? if you don't have the knowledge to even learn it. ? so what do you know about that difference?

The only thing "asymmetrical" as the whopping contradiction you've stated above. A mind requires a brain and a brain is a physical thing.

NO you, see you think this because you are you are looking <---- that way. Consiousness is only abtract when you are reasoning backwords again knowledge aquisition(lol its not my opinion lol....). If you flip it around its the most basic thing possible. ITs is consences in science that mind cannot be reducible to physical entities.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 7:23:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
thats a mess I will re-edit soon
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 5:27:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 5:19:49 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 5/8/2012 4:49:03 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Curious...if I ask you to look at the sky to examine the clouds, and I point out to you a cloud that looks like an elephant: does that elephant exist?
IT does't exist exist as an pattern what your mind recognized and extrapulated the fromation on the clouds.
I have NO idea what you are trying to say here. Try answering YES or NO and then follow it with an explanation ONLY IF necessary.

But here is another easy proof. There is no such thing as perfect squares in the physical universe. NO where. There is no-phyiscal evidence for it. All square or rectangles.
The bolded is a contradiction. Moving goal posts, anyone? BTW, I have one right here.

Your moniter, your house, your walls. All come come from are idea of a square.
Which comes from experiencing a square in the physical world.

I all ready told you Decartes invented calculculs and Liebnez took it to anothr level.
You did? When was that? I don't remember? As far as I know, Leibniz and Newton "invented" Calculus simultaneously.

He beat newton to all the conceptions.
Lol!

and Decarts created the Cartisian Plan without physical experience.
ROFL! So you are saying that Descartes was blind, deaf, anosmic, had no sense of taste or touch or kinesthetic perception and had total paralysis. I don't think we're talking about the same Descartes.

Just by thinking of the shape and then drawing them.
Shapes that he had once SEEN or at the very least PHYSICALLY experienced.

That is the mind can put together formulas, we dont' physical experience and extrapulate in our physical atmospher. (to you universe) I wasn't just claiming that that is how they did it. Its a Fact..
I have no idea what you mean by physical atmosphere, Suffice it to say that ALL of his conceived formulae were firmly predicated by his physical experiences.

If you were to look at the circuits in your computer, and I asked you to point to where the image of a sunset is, does that image really exist in the computer circuit or is just a bunch of electrons?
The Fool: it doesn't have a mind. Even if its on the screen ITs YOUR MIND THAT PERCIEVES THE picture on the monitor. (I already gave you the same argument in my favour along time ago)
You missed the point: it is a matter of perception or a levels of abstraction.

I told you that the the experience was like the moniter. But the computer doesn't experience or feel anything.
It hasn't been made to do so, ergo it is no wonder that it doesn't.

Notice how we use logic-mathatical(they over lap) to program. That is we use a priory logic from OUR minds. Logical formulas.
LOL! Logic is what we have observed our universe to be! Notice how our logic is not so logical when it comes to our observations regarding QM.

Notice how a computer like an extention of the mind.
Don't know what you mean by this.

I would argue somewhere else that its not accident. We find windows easier because ITs categorical and we think categorically.
Also no idea what you mean by this.

The Fool: Then how do you know what I am talking about?
I don't. Sometimes I have no idea what you're talking about! Like this question for instance.

The Fool: But then you couldnt' know what I mean by them, if you havent experiences them.
Yes. If I haven't physically experienced what "them" is, then I could not know what you are talking about.

As YOU said, all of my experiences are empirical and I am a physical being; ergo, it is ONLY the physical to base it on.

The Fool: Know it doesn't w follow. lol.
It follows perfectly. If all empirical experiences are physical and I am a physical being, how can it not follow?

There are differernces in categories are mind organize th Just saying your physical doesn't mean you physical.
But just saying that you're non-physical does make you non-physical? Do you smell something? I sure do! It's called the smell of BS!
1) I am not only saying it, I am also showing it via physical empirical evidence.
2) You are ONLY saying it.

The Fool:In fact look how little phyiscal words we use in everyday language.(I have only used 3 so far and you understand all I have said)
Hmmmm. If you are able to read you might have noticed that I have NOT understood everything you have said. Case in point: now. I still don't know what you mean by physical words. I have asked you to explain but you still haven't. Maybe you will do that now.

The Fool: Oh its called basic linguistics.
Clearly not so basic.

Its really not the complicated. I am saying there is no logical connection of words like "Explain" or "understanding", "emotion, in your physical experience. If you disagree Just give some examples. Its as easy a that. <(XD)
Are you serious? How are these NOT part of my physical experience? I learned the concepts of explain, understand, emotion through physical interaction. Try again.

The Boone: Things that exist as ideas ALWAYS have preconditions who's roots ALWAYS are predicated on PHYSICAL experiences.
That's right Boone! See above, Fool.

The Fool: Firstly, What are you basing this on.
Reality.

Its not possible to make this assertion by physical infromation alone, because you have never experienced and infinite set of causes.
1) An infinite set of causes are unexperienceable.
2) This is a non sequitur.
3) The price of tea in China is up $3.00 a bushel. (Also a non sequitur; I didn't want you to feel alone!)

You need a priori logical principles like the Principle of suffient condition. Its a logical intuition.
Right? Yes of no?
And how do you get to know/learn the Principle of sufficient reason if not by EXPERIENCE? You need to have had experienced things before you can even begin to have logical intuition.

Secondly the mind organizes information in categories.
Yes, they are called abstractions. The mind categorizes the physical experiences into abstract categories. We divide the whole into subdivisions.

Like gets grouped with like.
Or whatever your aim of grouping is.

Most of the information is not physically experienced like you think.
Not most of it, ALL of it.

If I see a car. I see a whole car. But later in my mind I can break down the car into parts, tires, colours excetra.
And you can make unicorns fly out of the exhaust and lightning bolts out your arse! So what? The point is that you needed to have seen parts, tires, colors, arses, and lightning bolts in order to do that break down.

How is this mental process possible?
See above.

Where do you see this process in you physical experience.
See above.

You dont and can't because this was the Theorotical information extrapolated on to the physical atmophere to explain something detected. (I know you are not used to talking like that.)
You did and you can because you have seen and physically experienced those things before.

Therefore your mind can break it down, Analyse/divide.
Because you have experienced analyzing/dividing before.

Such process are not experienced you must have them all ready to even procress sense in formation in the first place.
Wrong. See above.

Rememember physics gives us logic-mathatic formulas. Its the formulas that are the knowedge.
Logic-mathematical formulae are our abstraction of the physical.

The Fool: you must be able to process the information already these are the a priori.
The only thing a priori is physical experience.

Pre-experienced, logical-mathatical rules. THen necessitate the possibility to processing.
Pre-experienced? WTF? Square-circles anyone? Again, these are our interpretations of the physical world.

And they are not physical. You it follows by necessity that you.
No idea what you are trying to say here.

THe Fool: try and make sure they are opinions.
I am
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 5:29:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 5:19:49 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: nothing make sense(literally) with out sensations. Even your physical experiences are sets of sensations.
Sensations ARE physical experience.

The sensation is a difference form of knowledge the the formulized theoitical infromation about the firing being related to the pain.
It is not just knowledge but ability. You cannot give knowledge of red to a person that is blind from birth. They must have the ABILITY to physically experience red.

But they are two difference sensations. one it visual or is the feeling of pain. THe are correlated but two difference typs of information. You can break the feeling of pain down into small bits(its only magnitudal( but you can break down the theory into chemicals ect. On is is at the end of regress. the other can keep being broken down.
I don't know what you are saying here. It seems like a stream of consciousness. Suffice it to say that yes that all physical pain is physical in nature.

The Fool: And you could never assert that the mind is dependent on brain in the sense that ever you sense information about the brain, is Post processing.
I have no idea what you are talking about, AGAIN. I am going to be snotty here and let you know that your English is terrible. A little tit for tat for some of your previous snobbery.

You don't need to learn anything about the brain to know about the mind.
So what? You don't need to learn anything about reading to come up with a great story. You love non sequiturs, don't you?

People in year 0 knew about feelings and sensation and the pleasure of sex. While thinking the mind in in there heart. again ONe is immediatly epistemologically available the other take time to learn. notn the same information. It Corralation not an equivilance.
Again, the mind is an artifact of the brain. It's been shown time and again that decreased brain function is accompanied by decreased mental function, etc.

The Fool: THey are emprical but only one is physical you need to know what the person is feeling in order learn about that functions in the brain.
OBVIOUSLY, as we do not have a direct connection to their brains. We are only starting to learn about how the brain works so of course we don't know how it all works down to the most minute of details. But we've made significant progress. What progress has dualism made? Answer: NONE! It's actually lost ground!

Remember it was my arguement that the more you damage the brain the more you lose cognitive facualties. But, because the epistemological order s things must be organized the other way. not subsence order?
So we force reality to fit philosophy IN SPITE OF the evidence to the contrary? Brilliant!

E.g/
Universals(math-logic)->mind(feelings-experience-ideas)->physical(this can be further reduced)
Actually, this is totally backwards!

But you can't go the other way. <- You can go this way.
Actually, you can ONLY go Physical--->mind--->math-logic.

You could only break down physical to smaller bits but you can reduce mind.
You cannot reduce physical either: Planck scale's the limit! So that kinda puts a dent in your point. Not to mention that a "mind" with out any physical inputs is no different to a rock!

That is there a direction knowledge goes and its that way. --->
Nope. See above.

Physical experience is only one type of you experience.
One and only.

Do you know the difference or not? if you don't have the knowledge to even learn it. ? so what do you know about that difference?
There is no difference.

NO you, see you think this because you are you are looking <---- that way.
It's the only way to look...and be correct of course.

Consiousness is only abtract when you are reasoning backwords again knowledge aquisition(lol its not my opinion lol....). If you flip it around its the most basic thing possible. ITs is consences in science that mind cannot be reducible to physical entities.
LOL! Science isn't about consensus and last I checked there is no "mind" in physics.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.