... "But if there are those who deny that they have distanct ideas of mind and body, all I can ask of them is to be cognizant of the fact that the opinion they entertain, namely, that the parts of the brain make a combined effort to form thoughts, arose not from any positive argument but merely from the fact that they have never had the experience of lacking a body, and that not infrequentley they have been impeded by the body in their operations. It is just as if a person were to have been shackled in leg irons from infancy; he would think the leg irons were part of his body and that he needs them in order to walk."
It's not worth it... this man believes that humans have access to reality only by way of the five senses...
Says the man who promotes his agenda throughout in Philo, says the man who makes assumptions about how the brain works even though he has no classical understanding, says the man who seems to imply that the mind exists in the metaphysical realm even though the way he disproves otherwise is fallacious. Before you go about condemning others, take a look at yourself. Go post your thoughts on how you think the brain works and why in the science forum. You use poorly driven analogies to make a point that doesn't even suggest what you're saying is correct. I'm just gonna go ahead and throw you on my ignore list, at first I thought you might just be ignorant, but instead you're like a propaganda machine. You've made up your mind on your positions and do nothing but try to spread it. It doesn't matter to you if your analogies are fallacious or if you have to use semantics to twist words to your convoluted interpretation of life. People with an agenda are annoying, hence the ignore list.
I seriously would be nowhere near as frustrated if I thought you were just saying how you think about a situation/topic, but everything always relates back to your original idea. In that way you have an agenda that you push............... also I can't figure out how to add people to my ignore list on the new GC =(
So, neurons don't exist? Certain processes don't occur when a brain interacts with stimulus...? Humans, with color in their vision, don't seen orange as orange? Keep on judging and spewing hollow critqiues like the rest of ur buddys... it's okay.
I don't really think there is a way you can articulate the answer to that question to actually put it into context. The mind encompasses everything we have ever known and the brain specifically is the only route to sensory perception and thought. You could go on all day about the processes of the brain. It is one of the most interesting subjects of study I've ever encountered
I think you're getting a little too excited about this. He is obviously going to try to facilitate a greater understanding of his own idea, such that everyone has a greater ability to discuss the matter at hand. Instead of stubbornly accusing someone of their own faults in regards to them pursuing their own ends, you should attempt to add something constructive to the thread. I understand we each have our faults, and I myself have fallen prey to the primitive and primal instincts that encompass the desires of the ego, yet I endeavor to focus on my own faults, rather than the faults of others. One could apply their own constructive expressions on a subject, and in doing so, shift the very perspective and ideology of those addressed, without addressing them directly.
See it's that kind of intellectual dishonesty that makes me resent you. I never said any of that, but you're more than happy to reframe my argument to a strawman to suit your own purposes. Take post 40 I think it was and post it in the science forum. You will do anything you can to further propagate your idea and that kind of thinking is not only disingenuous, it's asinine and dangerous. No I'm not, that would be the case if his understanding of his own idea didn't permeate every single thing he posts. It would be the case if the way he posted wasn't designed to draw you to his conclusion(e.g. he asks questions he thinks he has the answers to, to lead you to IMO a faulty premise). That's not the case though. As for the enlarged portion, we tried that once. He went out of his way to "misunderstand" what I would say so that he could redefine it using his own terms in an attempt to lead me to his thinking.
What are u talking about?!!? I'm begging u, and all of ur buddies, to critique my posts with actual arguments... and not just hollow accusations alongside wikipedia links. And post 40 was an over-simplification and generlization, it was not meant to meticulously break down the processes of the brain, but instead of saying that, u just say it's wrong with no actual refutation. But, nonetheless, the brain is a machine, as I showed in my over-simplification, and u cannot deny that... and, also, if the brain, within the construct of 3 dimensional space and time, is the only conduit for experience, by way of the five senses, please tell me where are one's eyes in a dream...? Within 3 dimensional space and time? But u wont try to answer that, either u'll ignore it, or u'll just emit more hollow accusations.
I'm talking about the fact that you have an agenda and you promote it everywhere you go. Your questioning is designed to lead people to a false premise(your own) and you spread it in every thread you post in. The enlarged part is exactly what I'm talking about. You over-simplify things, use bad word play, and anything else you can to lead people to YOUR conclusions. Instead of presenting people with two sides of an argument and seeing where they stand, you lead them along with questioning and poor English to your side of the argument. You also seem to be incapable of understanding the idea that brain can function reflexively and constructively. IMO you have a misunderstanding of how the brain functions and you've turned that into this idea that somehow the observer/mind/whatever you want to call it exists outside of the physical realm.
MORE HOLLOW ACCUSTAIONS AND JUDGEMENTS... Just as I expected. 1.) So, a brain can reflect and, by its own volition, desire to take a hat off of my head? IMO u have misunderstanding of the brain and the "I". A brain is not one thing (it's made up of parts), as I was led to believe u believe this by reading ur sentence which posits that, "(a) brain can function reflexively and constructively" -- O, really? The brain itself, as one thing, consciously reflects? Or is it just a part of the brain that reflects (and if it is just a part of the brain that reflects, it's not wise for u to say "the brain", as if it's one thing, reflects)? U will probably assert that the frontal cortex reflects, right? Okay, now, can the frontal cortex reflect about whatever by its own volition? Or does the frontal cortex have to be triggered by stimuli for it to reflect? And, imo, this is where u misunderstand brain functions... brains functions are purely determined and mechanical, but my brain functions and neural processes (which allows reflection) about a unicorn in the sky isn't determined by any specific stimuli... this reflective thought about a unicorn in the sky is precepitated solely by the self, i.e., the conscious thinker, and not by the mechanically determined brain which can't contemplate. Sure, free and autonomous contemplation about a unicorn in the sky is enabled by certain brain functions, but, these brain functions about a unicorn in the sky are not activated and precipitated by the brain itself!
It's not hollow, take this specific post and put it in science forum. The fact is the way you understand the brain is that it's purely reflexive, I say the brain can be constructive. You think this constructiveness lies in the "I" outside of the physical realm. I disagree, and I say it exists in the physical and the observer is nothing more than a development of reactionary measures overtime based on stimuli. Am I wrong about how you understand the brain? By the by, the accusations aren't hollow, you intentionally deceive, leave out information, or simplify things in an attempt to get people to agree with you, and therein lies my problem with you.
Okay, let us start over from here... I'm really not just debating u to the tune of my own narrative; it's really presumptious and arrogant for u to keep saying this. It may seem that way to u, since I ask a lot of questions, but I ask questions so that I can follow ur argument step by step with u; u say something is "physical" yet u cant even describe or define something physical (which is ridiculous), so stop getting over exicted and hostile, and instead let's try to understand each other views, but before that, each others words. I say, the brain allows reflection, but the "I" reflects in the moment, subjectively, as a transcendent and intangible observer, i.e., the mind observes, in the moment, over the mechanical experience of qualia. U say, "I say it exists in the physical and the observer is nothing more than a development of reactionary measures overtime based on stimuli." -- Now, my first and most important question would be... is all knowledge of reality that one can know, which is acquired gradually by our brain (u assert), strictly something experienced by the five senses, and limited only to the stimuli the obeserver experiences first-hand, i.e., empirically by way of the five senses?
Subjective experience is not "inside" of the brain, but it is enabled by processes that occur within the brain. Yet, ur dogmatic brain refuses to see why... There is a difference between an objectified neural/atomic process and the actual phenomenal experience of lets say red... this is a fact. You can know about all of the physical and structural aspects of color, like about light waves, rods and cones, the retina, etc.., but the actual subjective experience of this allows for a different knowledge of the properties of color, other than the structural and physical process... which are posited by modern science. Scientist cannot refute this, for this subjective knowledge, i.e, the conscious aspect of the color red, its phenomenal nature, is a property that is distinct from the physical and structural properties. U may be know all about the physical and structural properties of a bat's brain, but u will never discover or understand the subjective experience of a bat... there is a reason for this, for there is a difference between the properties of subjective experience, i.e., the mind, and the properties of the brain! And I use "phenomenon" in the Kantian sense of the word. "Phenomenon: an appearance or immediate object of awareness in experience."