I don't think you understand at all what it is I'm saying. I'm not saying anything that isn't already known. Interaction itelf serves the grounds. Mind is that interaction, regardless of concepts of mindless or not. Each property interacts in only the way each property can interact. Mind is that basis of interaction. Mind is not our thoughts only, it is the nature of the universe which allows us to have thoughts. There's nothing magical or supernatural about it. You are misjudging what it is I'm saying...
Yeah, basically. Mind isn't consciousness or anything. It's just the basis of everything. It doesn't have any quality. It is the platform for qualities to arise and interact. Our brain is both mind and brain. Mind is everything. The brain is just a complex system of interactions. The parts having those interaction will always exist, even if the brain as a complete structure ceases to exist.
When you play speakers the noise that comes from those speakers are not the same thing as the speakers. We give the sound a different name, music, than the speakers so we can properly communicate. Even though the music is not the same thing as the speakers, the music results from the existence of he speaker. The music is therefore dependent on the speakers. The mind and thoughts are a very similar way in my opinion. I think a lot of what boats has been saying is how can you define the brain and a thought to be the same thing when they are clearly different. Well I would agree, that the same way music and speakers are different thoughts and the brain are different. However, the brain is responsible for the existence of those thoughts and therefore thought is dependent on the brain. Now I suppose it's possible that somehow there is a deeper physical/non physical connection between the brain and mind. It just seems unlikely when you consider the fact that we've never experienced a non physical entity in our universe.
How does one experience a nonphysical entity? The very idea of an entity exists in the context of our experience which is defined by concepts of physical or nonphysical. Mind is directly related to our experience and using words like nonphysical and physical don't do anything but make distinctions between one absolute reality. Reality is singular and self-contained. Everything within the universe is connected.
Well what is something that is nonphysical. My basic point was that the same way a sound or music is a physical thing, it is very possible that thought it is just a physical entity. If you think about music from a purely subjective philosophical manner it would seem that is it a non physical object. Meaning that people who were not as scientifically advanced most likely did not believe that sound was a physical thing. You keep saying that a thought is not tangible in 3d space and thus is not physical. I would argue that sound is not tangible in 3d space yet is very clearly a physical entity. So who's not to say that thought isn't of a similar nature?
I'm not saying anything as to the nature of thought except that it is an experience that is brought on by the physical. It has it's roots in our experience and there's no point in creating a duality between physical or non physical. These ideas of physical and non physical are pointless to use. I don't believe in mind-matter duality.
That's odd of you to say seeing as you said an atom interacting with another atom is mind.. unless you think matter IS mind, thus eliminating the duality part.
I believe he thinks that matter and mind are a false dichotomy imposed by the individual...where matter and mind are both manifestations of the same 'thing,' which is neither matter nor mind, yet is both what we would call matter and mind.
Something else about the primary topic of conversation, which has been mentioned by a few people... in terms of what is offered as proof that mind IS the physical brain. First of all, that damage to the brain causes damage to the mind. Secondly, that the ingestion of drugs, physical compounds, causes predictable changes to the mind of the individual who ingests them. I would not say that this proves that mind is equivalent to brain. It does prove that the mind can be affected by physical alterations to the brain. But that is the same argument as saying, I hit my TV screen with a hammer, I can no longer watch TV, therefore the programming is dependent on the TV. When in reality the programming is intangible signals mediated by a physical object, which may very well be the same with mind. Damage the physical apparatus, you damage the ability to tune in to the signal, but that doesn't mean the physical object is the signal. Also, isn't the reverse just as easily provable? For instance, willfully think thoughts that would provoke anger, jealousy, or some such thing in yourself. And then, through that effort of mind, an emotional change will follow. And that emotional change can be quantitatively demonstrated in the brain. Yet it was intangible will/effort/mind which brought about this physical change.
I think thought itself is physical, but consciousness that the thought is in is not. In the same way that a rock is physical but space, where the rock 'is', is not. Thoughts themselves are physical, but thought =/= mind. Visual aid.. The room is our head. The balls are our thoughts. The space the balls bounce around in is us, consciousness or w/e.
Well, seeing as, in your analogy, the balls (or the thoughts) do in fact travel through the center of the room's empty space, whilst not directly touching any part of the room, and you say that our consciousness is the empty space in which the balls travel, I would like to ask and know, according to you, how a mere presence in a space can produce live content, or awareness, for that space itself? Meaning, a mere presence of bodies in an empty space (such as the presence of extended bodies in the empty space of my room) has never been a set of conditions sufficient enough to produced live content, or awareness, for that empty space itself (for my room itself); so, what kind of connection, or condition, is it that our thoughts (or the balls) have in relation to our consciousness -other than a mere presence in an empty space- which allows them to be perceptually present to us (the perceiver)? Imho, I don't think that the relationship between our thoughts and consciousness, can intelligibly be understood by means of an analogy involving bodies and space; seeing as neither thoughts, nor our consciousness, subsist with spatial form (or subsist in space).
I like to think of it another way The energy that makes up our mind is a physical thing. The result is not. Its like a computer screen. Its flat. And is just a Bunch if lights creates by energy interactions. But these interactions have relative meaning creating identity. Our brain is the same. In fact when we interact with the computer, what is happening is two groups of energy are exchanging information Consciousness itself is a perceptual representation of the sum energy interactions. "Self" is a perception or organization of said groups of energy. -yuri
Though I didn't entirely get what you're asking. Is it how are the thoughts in the space and the empty space connected to make one sense the other? I was just giving my interpretation without getting too mystically. I just know that we are the space that the thoughts manifest in, where that space comes from and how far it extends I can guess, but not be sure of. Scientifically at least. When it comes to materialism, I think 'strict materialism' is false if you don't count space itself as material. If you can't grasp it, look at it with some sort of microscope or really interact with it in any way, is it really material?
Thought don't exist in a 3d framework. This much I think should be said. The experience of them is infinite. But I turn to Mahamudra to explain this. The entire universe is contained within each and everything.
Materialism, like any ideology is dangerous if there is too much emphasis on it, or if it's taken to extremes. Here in the West, materialism, capitalism, consumerisim runs rampant and has influenced and negatively impacted every institution: education, religion, politics, sales, communities, everything. We have a lot of people with insecurities and self-esteem issues in this society. Perhaps it is because many people think of their self worth in terms of their career/salary, their possessions, social status, number of friends or clothing. Life is worth very much more than gold, and ironically we sacrifice our health, sanity, energy, time and balance in order to obtain wealth. Wealth is temporary, when you leave this world it does not come with you.. I grew up in a wealthy neighbourhood & the majority of people tended to be shallow, lazy, vain, and ignorant, who judged others based on appearances. I have traveled in third-world countries and most of the people were humble, honest, open-minded friendly & generous. This does not apply to all people and to every country, but the poorer people were visibly much happier because their self-worth did not revolve around what they owned- be it houses/boats/toys/clothes whatever. I noticed they were more socially active, forged stronger relationships, and lied a great deal less (how can one can afford to lie when one is poor? Word gets around quick you are of ill character and then nobody trusts you.) On the other hand, there are generous, loving wealthy people and horrible, lying poor people, but most stereotypes are not accurate portrayals. I think one major problem today is that people are using materialism to try and fill the void in aspects of their life that go unfulfilled- such as spirituality, sense of belonging and community, truly loving partnerships and lack of hapiness and lasting satisfaction.