What Is The True Nature of The Mind

[Burning ghost]

R6-

I really wan tto unfoe you. Why do you not just use English? Why continue to talk to yourself and nobody else?

I so empathise with you, because you are obviously trying to communicate something. The problem is you are not actually doing much other than playfully presenting some squiggles and symbols which loom like they mean something.

I implore you to use words and sentences to present meaning instead of obscure equations unknown to the people you wish to converse with.

Please, please, PLEASE!!??

I can see a passion and it saddens me to think you're wasting your time and making no headway in expressing what ideas, questions and ponderings you have in your head.

[Sy Borg]

It is true that contemporary physics, especially quantum physics, is fraught with metaphysical/ontological problems concerning the fundamental nature and structure of the physical universe, the architecture of MEST. But whatever the correct or most credible solutions, they will be compatible with the realistic/naturalistic/materialistic worldview.

It depends what is meant by the "realistic/naturalistic/materialistic worldview". Certainly, discoveries in the quantum realm did anything but accord with the "realistic" worldview of the 20th century. Today quantum strangeness has been uneasily incorporated into our notions of what is real and realistic.

Any discoveries at the scale of strings or other Planck scale "entities" could quite conceivably again challenge the current notions of what is realistic or natural.

[Consul]

It is true that contemporary physics, especially quantum physics, is fraught with metaphysical/ontological problems concerning the fundamental nature and structure of the physical universe, the architecture of MEST. But whatever the correct or most credible solutions, they will be compatible with the realistic/naturalistic/materialistic worldview.

It depends what is meant by the "realistic/naturalistic/materialistic worldview". Certainly, discoveries in the quantum realm did anything but accord with the "realistic" worldview of the 20th century. Today quantum strangeness has been uneasily incorporated into our notions of what is real and realistic.
Any discoveries at the scale of strings or other Planck scale "entities" could quite conceivably again challenge the current notions of what is realistic or natural.

That quantum physics has shown that the physical world is mind-dependent/-determined is wishful thinking on the part of the spiritualists/idealists.

"Was the world wave function waiting for millions of years until a single-celled creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some more highly qualified measurer—with a Ph.D.?"

(Bell, J. S. "Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists." In Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed., 117-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. p. 117)

[Rr6]

BG-- Why continue to talk to yourself and nobody else?

False. A narrow mind. imho

I so empathise with you, because you are obviously trying to communicate something. The problem is you are not actually doing much other than playfully presenting some squiggles and symbols which loom like they mean something.

A narrow mind. imho

I implore you to use words and sentences to present meaning instead of obscure equations unknown to the people you wish to converse with.

When you have specific obscure equation your refering to please share. I think you have me confused with some others around here do post obscure equations and I think your confused as to what an equation actually is. That you've not seen me use words and words in sentences is more evidence of your narrow mind attitude toward me. imho

( * * ) = consciousness and that is in Fullers Synergetics 1 book. Some of my textions are just extrapolations from his meager beginings. Ive explained the meaning of this texticonic picto-gram many times in many threads.

Ive added text along side many of my texticonic picto-grams to explain what they mean. The nature of mind for early humans on Earth was to use picto-glyphs etc.....

A drawing of a bird probably meant a bird. We now days have perhaps 150 or more icons and or picto-gram synbolds used on automobile dashboard.

I admit, that over last 20 - 30 years I have rented a few differrent cars and have been confused by some of those dasbord icons.

Here below, I used on set of texticons in a new way, and I did not give much, but explanation for their meaning, however, sometimes people can figure out what is meant because of the context in which their place. Most the others I've used many times in many threads and with explanatory text.

So here is that new one again. To be clear I have used the red vertical line | in past as representation of 2D Slice-of- Time i.e. 2D Slice-of-Universe or any part or particle of Universe. So here below I used a slanted/skewed, red line left or right to be associated with positive or negative charge.

3} Consciousness { charge } + positive skew / or - negative skew \

As I typed them in, I new that they could be confused with my always slanted to the right lines / or /. For many years now, in my cosmic hierarchy and elsewhere, I use the italics function for mettphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept type ideas and it always slants text to the right.

So in the text below and may other places, Ive used a always slanted to the right / or as / to emphasize a direct correlation to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts. Ive been consistent on this for many years, and have added explanatory text in cosmic hierarchy and many other places in many threads.

My best recommendation for those with a narrow mind set, is to broaden their mind set. To be more comprehensive requires a wider opening of mind. imho

r6

Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts are not physical. See dictionary definition for metaphysical.
Consciousness is basis for accessing metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.
No consciousness then no access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.
< < Past Out < ( * / * ) < In Future <<
1a} Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept{ Spirit-1}
.....1a1} absolute truths,
.....1a2} relative truths,
.....1a3} spirit-of-intent
3} Consciousness { charge } + positive skew / or - negative skew \
.....3a} electric,
......3b} magnetic.
4} Consciousness { shape }: spherical and toroidal
......4a) positive,
......4b} negative.
5} Consciousness { pattern }: web of relationships
.......5a} in ergo convergent
........5b} out ergo divergent
6} Complex consciousness ( * / * )
....6a} bi-lateral ( * * ) symmetry
.....6b} radial symmetry
......6c} non-symmetrical
Atom has two basic shapes. It varies based on energy applied to it.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -of-atoms/
The barbell shape and convex spherical shape are both found wit Fuller Operating System of Universe, the Vector Equilibrium aka the jitterbug, that transforms into 7 exotic shapes of space.
Euclidean topology of a double sine-wave ^v set that we also see with EMRadiation if not most particles, including the atom under some circumstances, If I recall correctly.
Negative space shape as found with inner side of a torus,

[Burning ghost]

I think you miss the point. This is not a Fuller appreciation site it is a philosophy forum where people are expected (as stated in the forum guidelines) to use philosophical discourse.

If you explained this on this forum and have not once bothered to refer me to it then that is your fault not mine. This is certainly not the first time I have asked and I have even sent you PM's.

If you think it is appropriate more fool you. It is nothing to do with mindset. You are clearly using an obscure way to communicate that neglects to use actual WORDS. I could except this if you were using notion used for logic.

Outbof curiosity point me to the thread where you explain this please. If that snippet above is meant to be an explanation I'd like to know who the hell it is you are actually getting responses from so they can help me understand it in plain English.

And yes I am narrow minded, everyone is. Get over it and try, or not, to explain yourself to idiots like me.

[Rr6]

BG, you miss all of my points I ever made here at Philo and I have made plenty of them clearly in well laid out hierarchy/outline/lists.

When you have a specific "obscure equation" your refering to please share. I think you have me confused with some others around here do post "obscure equations" and I think your confused as to what an equation actually is.

That you've not seen me use words and words in sentences is more evidence of your narrow mind attitude toward me. imho

Please share when you can even begin to address my above specifics.

We now days have perhaps 150 or more icons and or picto-gram symbols used on automobile dashboard.

I can help you out there because I now have 20 years experience in seeing these various icons/picto-graphs in autos.

To be clear, in the below original post I introduced 3, 4 and 5 into my outline/list. These were new additions ego still in development i.e. just trying them out to see what feels correct and proper. I know none of this matters to you because you have no sincerity in understanding anything presented much less any comprehension.

r6

( * * ) = consciousness and that is in Fullers Synergetics 1 book. Some of my textions are just extrapolations from his meager beginings.
So here is that new one again. To be clear I have used the red vertical line | in past as representation of 2D Slice-of- Time i.e. 2D Slice-of-Universe or any part or particle of Universe. So here below I used a slanted/skewed, red line left or right to be associated with positive or negative charge.
3} Consciousness { charge } + positive skew / or - negative skew \
As I typed them in, I new that they could be confused with my always slanted to the right lines / or /. For many years now, in my cosmic hierarchy and elsewhere, I use the italics function for mettphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept type ideas and it always slants text to the right.
So in the text below and may other places, Ive used a always slanted to the right / or as / to emphasize a direct correlation to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts. Ive been consistent on this for many years, and have added explanatory text in cosmic hierarchy and many other places in many threads.
Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts are not physical. See dictionary definition for metaphysical.
Consciousness is basis for accessing metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.
No consciousness then no access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.
< < Past Out < ( * / * ) < In Future <<
1a} Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept{ Spirit-1}
.....1a1} absolute truths,
.....1a2} relative truths,
.....1a3} spirit-of-intent
3} Consciousness { charge } + positive skew / or - negative skew \
.....3a} electric,
......3b} magnetic.
4} Consciousness { shape }: spherical and toroidal
......4a) positive,
......4b} negative.
5} Consciousness { pattern }: web of relationships
.......5a} in ergo convergent
........5b} out ergo divergent
6} Complex consciousness ( * / * )
....6a} bi-lateral ( * * ) symmetry
.....6b} radial symmetry
......6c} non-symmetrical
Atom has two basic shapes. It varies based on energy applied to it.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -of-atoms/
The barbell shape and convex spherical shape are both found wit Fuller Operating System of Universe, the Vector Equilibrium aka the jitterbug, that transforms into 7 exotic shapes of space.
Euclidean topology of a double sine-wave ^v set that we also see with EMRadiation if not most particles, including the atom under some circumstances, If I recall correctly.
Negative space shape as found with inner side of a torus,

[Sy Borg]

It depends what is meant by the "realistic/naturalistic/materialistic worldview". Certainly, discoveries in the quantum realm did anything but accord with the "realistic" worldview of the 20th century. Today quantum strangeness has been uneasily incorporated into our notions of what is real and realistic.
Any discoveries at the scale of strings or other Planck scale "entities" could quite conceivably again challenge the current notions of what is realistic or natural.

That quantum physics has shown that the physical world is mind-dependent/-determined is wishful thinking on the part of the spiritualists/idealists.

"Was the world wave function waiting for millions of years until a single-celled creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some more highly qualified measurer—with a Ph.D.?"

(Bell, J. S. "Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists." In Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed., 117-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. p. 117)

Discoveries at the quantum scale rewrote the materialist narrative. It makes sense that if one believes that all existent things must have a physical basis, then discoveries of previously unknown attributes of little-known "building blocks" of matter must surely change one's worldview to some extent.

I have often echoed Einstein's objection on this forum that the Moon exists and needs no observer to do so, having existed long before any (known) observers. "Observation" in QM refers to measurement by nonliving instruments anyway; there is no big human eye looking down, godlike, upon a subatomic subject.

It's just that very small things are sensitive and affected by almost everything. So, for example, electrons are buffeted about by Brownian motion while large entities and completely unaffected. This relative intangibility results in quantum weirdness - the measurement problem, entanglement, non locality, time anomalies - and these dynamics have changed the way many "materialists" thought about the nature of reality.

Inquiries into the very small will continue and I would expect ever more experimental results to challenge the current theoretical framework. The hints are there - known issues with the Standard Model; various constants, fudges and assumptions required to make equations work; dark matter (which may just be gravity operating differently at different scales); non alignment between theory and reality (eg. arrow of time v relativity's flexible time), and so on.

[Rr6]

True nature of metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts is that they are accessed resultant of chemical processes of brain.

I think about a something, via a something, ergo, I exist as a something, that, accesses metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

The rest is history or our anticipation of future events, in mind.

r6

[Mlw]

Philosopher/physicist Peter Russell ("From Science to God") holds that mind (consciousness) is light and light is All. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE&t

But it seems to me that this is just plain old Idealist philosophy. There is nothing essentially new. Perhaps he has presented a new slant toward subjectivistic philosophy--that's all. The very same subjectivistic ideas have been preached during centuries but been refuted by science. Russell says that the outer world is totally unknown, like a black box that we cannot know anything about--the Kantian noumenon. Allegedly, the only thing we know is our conscious experiences. But this is false. Science knows very much about the "black box" that is matter. It can explain our sensory experiences as generated by atomic and molecular factors. So, for instance, our sense of heat is generated by molecular movements. Today we understand it very well, unlike in Kant's days. A blind physicist can determine the colour of an object by investigating its chemical and structural properties. Today we comprehend the causal factors in material objects that generate our sensory experiences. Contrary to what Immanuel Kant believed, they are not subjectively constructed from something totally unknown. Subjectivistic transcendental Idealism has long since been refuted.

It is surprising that philosophers can continue peddling dead ideas, and yet people are buying into it. So there must be something to it--there seems to be a longing for a spiritual conception of the world. We cannot rule out that a subjective comprehension of life, i.e. a religious worldview, is essential to human beings--for our well-being and for social cohesion, etc. So it probably has to do with our instinctual foundation. We are drawn to such conceptions like moths to the flame. Yet, philosophical subjectivism has had deleterious consequences in Western culture. I discuss it here: http://mlwi.magix.net/beastrev.htm

M. Winther

[TigerNinja]

Right. Well, many people think that, there is even a name for it, or various names, like 'evolutionary reductionism', 'eliminative materialism', and the like. According to that view, 'mind' is simply an adaptive capacity, like teeth or claws, which is suited to the purposes of survival - as you say, the by-product of natural selection.

The problem with all those arguments is that they're self-defeating. If you sign up to a philosophy forum, and put an argument, then what are you trying to do? You're trying to persuade others that your view is right, that the mind, after all, is just instinctive, or whatever. The problem for you is that if you succeed in doing that, you've undermined your own argument, because you have shown there is 'a mind that can be changed', and, furthermore, that it can be changed by rational argument. But if you can't win the argument - in my case, you certainly haven't - then you're not making your case. So basically I see it as an unwinnable argument. By all means, believe that there is no such thing as mind, but if you really do believe that, then you ought to not waste your time arguing about it.

The mind has been formed by conditioning from outside experiences, be them subliminal or obvious. One thing most of these complex biological machines have been conditioned to lean towards is common sense so I am conditioned to be conditioned to use my conditioning to argue in a certain way to overpower your conditioning and bring out another conditioned side of common sense to bring me to my victory. If that makes sense.

[Eodnhoj]

I found that in a lot of philosophical books I read and all the places I go that there is at least reference to the nature of the mind. This philosophical question has always confused me but I have reached my own personal conclusion and I would like to hear other people's opinions and beliefs upon my idea.

As an over simplistic answer: Consciousness is the manifestation and observation of actual and potential curvature, with curvature being equivalent in definition to the flow and flux of reality.

[Woodart]

The mind has been formed by conditioning from outside experiences, be them subliminal or obvious. One thing most of these complex biological machines have been conditioned to lean towards is common sense so I am conditioned to be conditioned to use my conditioning to argue in a certain way to overpower your conditioning and bring out another conditioned side of common sense to bring me to my victory. If that makes sense.

So much of what I see in this thread is a dog chasing its tail with a blindfold on. The language you use is very confusing. It seems that you want to “bring me to my victory” – to use your words, but don’t know where victory is located. I do not clearly understand your thesis and I can not follow your train of thought. The dog is not sure it is chasing its tail because he cannot see it. To answer your last question – no it does not make sense.

[Woodart]

The mind has been formed by conditioning from outside experiences, be them subliminal or obvious. One thing most of these complex biological machines have been conditioned to lean towards is common sense so I am conditioned to be conditioned to use my conditioning to argue in a certain way to overpower your conditioning and bring out another conditioned side of common sense to bring me to my victory. If that makes sense.

I want to clarify my last post because I think it might have been a bit harsh. I don’t want to hurt your feelings and I think you are an intelligent person. It seems to me you are asking if we see your point(s) because you are not quite sure if you see it yourself. I have noticed in myself (and others) that my language gets overly complicated when I am not sure what I think. I believe this is very common in philosophy. Just a suggestion – slow down, pause and then ask very clear questions – one at a time. I hope this helps – best regards.