Lol, where the hell does THC come into contact with the mind, in order to affect it? Yea, I'm pretty sure THC effects the brain-body complex upon consumption, i.e., upon contact and assimilation into the brain-body complex. Did you not know this? But yea, I expected such a response from you. No worries. LOL ! The irony.
You answered your own question there champ.. when it comes in contact with your brain, it comes in contact with your mind. And yes, you really should have expected my response.. cause we've done this stupid dance over n over. It is you trying to act like your philosophy is science and me telling you its not.. again and again and again. If you'd keep your idiotic self out of the science section, I'd have no problem with you.. but for some reason you keep trying to do shit that you're incapable of, and that's understanding scientific knowledge. Because of that, all you can do is troll and troll and get banned and make new accounts to troll some more. Sometimes I wonder what kind of life you have that you need to troll, get banned and make a new account to get banned again. What is this now, like your 7th account? Seriously, someone as pathetic as you should just take the easy way out of life.. Or, stay the fuck out of the science section and stick with what your brain is wired for.. delusional religious belief.
Asserting that the mind is already there but the medium becomes more developed is absurd. There is no evidence at all to back that up. If the mind was already there, it also would have been evolutionarily advantageous to us for it to already be developed as well. Once again, I'm a behaviorist and you are telling me things that I've never heard after years of neurological studies. I look forward to reading your peer reviewed Scientific paper and shaking your hand when you win your Nobel Prize. I feel as though you are asserting brain and mind are separate though because you are hoping that it's the case.
when it comes in contact with your brain, it comes in contact with your mind. So you're actually saying that mind exists within the brain? Wow. Or, stay the fuck out of the science section and stick with what your brain is wired for.. delusional religious belief. Woah, I seem to have touched a nerve. I mean, they do say that people don't respond nicely when their beliefs' are questioned. Once again, I'm a behaviorist and you are telling me things that I've never heard after years of neurological studies. Can one determine the mood of another person solely based upon their (empirically) observable behavior (meaning, you don't have to ask how one how is, you just know by observing their bodily behavior, right)? That is, can one observe another's mood, just by looking at the comports of that person's objectified body? I feel as though you are asserting brain and mind are separate though because you are hoping that it's the case. If you were to read, or re-read? Post #37. You would see that that not's the case. Let me ask you, WaveRider, as a behaviorist, can you determine another's thoughts, just by observing the behavior of their brain?
Maybe you guys should clearly define your terms BEFORE having a civil argument. That always seems to help both parties. And Piff, I am going to go on a stretch and assume that you believe the body formed first and the brain/mind second. Couldn't be more wrong. The brain is like a Mr. Potato head and the body and limbs are mere extensions to it that enable the brain to "sense" its environment. Check out this video, might clear up some confusion: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_eagleman_can_we_create_new_senses_for_humans Btw, your post also reads as though you are using the word mind as a synonym for conscious.
And Piff, I am going to go on a stretch and assume that you believe the body formed first and the brain/mind second. No. But, as a matter of fact, nonconscious entities did exist (in this universe) before the emergence of perceptually sentient organisms. Btw, your post also reads as though you are using the word mind as a synonym for conscious. Yes, 'mind', 'mental existence', 'mental substance', and 'consciousness', are synonyms for me.
Based on someone's behavior I can determine someones mood fairly easily. By observing the behavior of the brain, we can indeed determine someones thoughts. We can now hook someone up to a brain scanner and actually develop a picture of what they are thinking about. I can't wait to see this technology 20 years down the road. However, you point is irrelevant. You are still begging the question. Just as me saying I can determine mood based on observable behavior is not evidence mind is not separate from body, the opposite would be true as well. If I could do neither of the things you asked, that would still not be evidence that brain and mind are separate. I wonder as well why we didn't evolve to have a developed mind as overwhelmingly advantageous as it is? You skipped over that in my last response. Isn't it extremely inefficient and just plain nonsensical to have a developed mind that already exists, yet somehow it has to wait on us to develop our brains? Once again, I'm willing to believe absolutely anything that is backed up by evidence. Since you are sure that you are correct, test your hypothesis, write a peer reviewed scientific paper, and once you win the Nobel prize which would happen if you could prove mind and brain are separate, I will personally shake your hand at your acceptance speech and tell you that I was wrong.
Based on someone's behavior I can determine someones mood fairly easily. Yea, sure, AFTER reading and memorizing loads of information from BOOKS you've read over the years. Lol, how some people like to fool themselves. Never can one, per se, directly know what another feels just by empirically observing them and their bodily behavior - can you directly experience the pain of a tuberculosis patient just by empirically observing that patient? How ludicrous. By observing the behavior of the brain, we can indeed determine someones thoughts. No, YOU cannot. Nowhere have you, or will you, find actual thoughts, simply by physically looking at another's brain. That's like saying you experience the perceptual content of one's tongue, just by observing (or looking at) the behavior of one's gustatory system. Again, which is plain ludicrous. develop a picture of what they are thinking about It's funny how partial your viewpoint is. So the pictures are <span style="font-size:14px;">developed, right? Rather than being directly observed within the actual processes (and physical behaviors) of the brain, right? </span> So how, and with what kind of CREATED technology, are they developed, VA? However, you point is irrelevant. No, it's not; the qualities' of the brain, i.e., of an extended substance, are not the same as the qualities' of the mind, i.e., the perceptual observer. Just as me saying I can determine mood based on observable behavior Well, technically, you can't empirically.
Yes.. are you this fucking stupid that you can't even pick that up after all the countless times you've tried to troll with your immaterial mind? How is that even confusing you? It is simple, there is no evidence that the mind is anything more than the brain, none. If you form a belief around lack of evidence, it is an assumption. When you don't assume metaphysical bullshit, all your left with is the physical observation.. that your mind is your brain. Being that it is your brain, it exists within your brain. My 6 year old nephew has enough intelligence to know that. Piff is a previous troll.. and this is probably his 7th account now. If not 7th, then more. You won't get a reasonable scientific discussion from him as all he does is parrots dead philosophers. When Boats (one of his many previous troll accounts) tries to science, all you can really do is ridicule him for being an idiot.. cause reason doesn't work with someone who's life is so pathetic that they have to keep coming back to a weed forum to troll. Didn't watch the video, but from the link I have an idea of what it is about.. creating new senses. We are making some progress, not sure if it was mentioned, but we are making strides with helping the blind to see again. One way they've been doing it is having a camera that sends signals and they've found that you don't need to replace the eyes with it. They have a lil device that sits in the mouth and sends the information to the tongue, which then travels the nervous system into the brain. It takes a bit for the brain to make sense of it, but once it learns that it is visual signals, it produces an image that a blind person can see within their mind. It's very basic, but a good step in the right direction. I can see us in the future implanting devices that can detect things like UV light and and x-rays that send neural signals to our brain for us to better perceive everything.
How is that even confusing you? It is simple, there is no evidence that the mind is anything more than the brain Being that it is your brain, it exists within your brain. Uh, are you saying that mind is in the brain (as a in x is located within y); or that the mind is the brain (as in x is tantamount with y)? There's a difference; a 5 year old can understand that, guy. We are making some progress, not sure if it was mentioned, but we are making strides with helping the blind to see again. One way they've been doing it is having a camera that sends signals and they've found that you don't need to replace the eyes with it. They have a lil device that sits in the mouth and sends the information to the tongue, which then travels the nervous system into the brain. It takes a bit for the brain to make sense of it, but once it learns that it is visual signals, it produces an image that a blind person can see within their mind. Lol, are you that dense? First of all, the blind man, prior to (time) coming into possession of a created device which helps to transmit electrical signals to specific regions' of a brain, i.e., the visual cortex, never had to empirically observe the objectified behaviors of his brain in order to perceive objects (maybe not visual objects, but other perceptual objects, such as pain, pleasure, thirst, etc.,); and neither does the blind man, after (time) coming into possession of the created device, have to empirically observe the tessellations of his brain in order perceptually see. Thus, the more important question would be, Mantikore, can YOU (or anyone who is not the blind man himself) know if the blind man himself can perceptually see, prior to (time) and after (time) the created device has been implemented, just by observing the region of the brain that's active, i.e., the visual cortex, when his brain supposedly produces such perceptual content within its tangible structure? That is, IF the mind IS one and the same with the brain (as you serioisly seem to suggest). No, but I already knew that a dogmatist, like yourself, would try and sum up the generality of my point as such, in order to quite naively trivialize and dismiss it. Nice try. I mean, if you were even a little philosophically inclined, you would know that the law of identity goes a long way in determining the nuances within phenomenal reality. Monism and dualism are not, despite what may "appear" (wink, wink) to be the case at face value, inimically opposed; for example, there may be ONE 'substance', but TWO ways of witnessing it, sort of like a coin (i.e., the bifurcation of Yin and Yang is contained within ONE Tao); in other words, you or I, as a cognizant percipient, can intuit and represent the world subjectively AND objectively (immanently AND transcendentally). Transcendental Idealist.
That's the difference between you and I. I'm not philosophically inclined. I'm scientifically inclined.
Science is founded on an epistemological paradigm that's both unverifiable and unfalsifiable - PHYSICAL-EMPIRICISM; that is, on an axiom presupposed. The latter part of the sentence is too deep (and philosophical) for you to comprehend, I mean, as dogmatic empiricist and all. So science is actually fallacious; meaning, their axioms' are both UNPROVABLE AND UNFALSIFIABLE (for "scientific" logic is circular, i.e., the logic of science is inherently fallacious [inherently circular]). Think of it like this: one cannot prove or actually demonstrate that the scientific method is the only valid method for procuring truth about reality, by using the scientific method itself; for you see, that would be circular logic, i.e., you'd be already assuming and presupposing what you've supposedly set out to prove! Yes, but as you and I have noticed, throughout various discussions', Norse; it's a tough nut to crack.
Let's just cut to the chase instead of you setting up straw men to defend your point. You believe the mind and the body are separate. What is your evidence? Why have you not written a scientific paper that refers to the hypothesis that you proved? Don't worry. I'll wait.