What is Mind?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
User avatar
Uriahharris
Posts: 147
Joined: July 18th, 2014, 12:24 am

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Uriahharris » July 20th, 2014, 6:11 pm

UniversalAlien wrote:Assuming you are reading this one might assume that you assume you have a mind to do the reading. But what is this thing called mind that you use, or uses you? Is it a thing, an entity, a brain, a soul, a self, etc.? Or is mind nothing more than a computer in a biological container? We know what we mean when we say someone 'lost their mind' - But what did they lose - the ability to effectively process and control their physical reality - Or is mind more than that? Must a mind be creative, individualistic, with a self and an ego? What do you think it means to have a mind? And what do you think this thing called mind is?
I believe your question questioned your question. In regards to that, can it be assumed that you want a full argument or dissertation?
-UriahHarris

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1121
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: What is Mind?

Post by UniversalAlien » July 20th, 2014, 7:30 pm

Once again. All that was, is, and will be is mind. In order to imagine an existent state without mind is impossible as this too requires mind - to claim a state of no mind would only be fantasy as you would have to be totally mindless to make such a claim or see such a state of non-existence and in that case you would not exist. Those claiming a pre-existent state where nothing exists are delusional - as a non-existent state of nothingness would not allow for existence to occur.

As to where does mind exist, is trumped by the more important question, where does mind not exist? It is not possible for the human mind {or any other mind} to show a place or state where there in no mind - If there is no mind then there is nothing - and even the state of nothingness must be based upon mind. Again all that ever was, is, and will be is mind.

If this concept sounds religious that is a matter of interpretation; deists and atheists alike base their illusions {or delusions]
on a belief where existence is compared to a non-existent state which is fantasy - there never was, nor will there ever be a state of non-existence. So fear not, even if one day you will not be here, mind will prevail.

SoylentGreen
Posts: 88
Joined: June 19th, 2013, 7:31 pm

Re: What is Mind?

Post by SoylentGreen » July 20th, 2014, 7:31 pm

Some questions exceed the finite capacity of our human comprehension--including this one. We can never come to any consensus here because we are fallible, miserable creatures. But notwithstanding, I tend to think my own shallow mind is something intangible, not corporeal, and it is the most fundamentally important universal concept in the universe--for it allows us to try and make sense of the universe, and all thinking/living beings possess mind (maybe some to a greater extent than others). I only wish I had more of it--whatever it is and whatever its source may be--so I could understand the universe better.

User avatar
Subatomic God
Posts: 1494
Joined: October 15th, 2013, 11:09 pm

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Subatomic God » July 20th, 2014, 7:36 pm

UniversalAlien wrote:Once again. All that was, is, and will be is mind. In order to imagine an existent state without mind is impossible as this too requires mind - to claim a state of no mind would only be fantasy as you would have to be totally mindless to make such a claim or see such a state of non-existence and in that case you would not exist. Those claiming a pre-existent state where nothing exists are delusional - as a non-existent state of nothingness would not allow for existence to occur.

As to where does mind exist, is trumped by the more important question, where does mind not exist? It is not possible for the human mind {or any other mind} to show a place or state where there in no mind - If there is no mind then there is nothing - and even the state of nothingness must be based upon mind. Again all that ever was, is, and will be is mind.

If this concept sounds religious that is a matter of interpretation; deists and atheists alike base their illusions {or delusions]
on a belief where existence is compared to a non-existent state which is fantasy - there never was, nor will there ever be a state of non-existence. So fear not, even if one day you will not be here, mind will prevail.
By this logic, I would be correct on stating that the mind is not inside, but outside. Which is connected by the brain via electromagnetic waves invisible to the human eye.
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.

SoylentGreen
Posts: 88
Joined: June 19th, 2013, 7:31 pm

Re: What is Mind?

Post by SoylentGreen » July 20th, 2014, 7:43 pm

Universal Alien is right about mind. There is no such thing as a nothing--when we image such a state we do so only by thinking it, and this introduces mind into the picture. Mind was at the beginning of all things--and it is what began all things. I've formulated an argument based on this premise and I'm in full agreement here with this idea.

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1121
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: What is Mind?

Post by UniversalAlien » July 20th, 2014, 7:50 pm

Subatomic God wrote:
UniversalAlien wrote:Once again. All that was, is, and will be is mind. In order to imagine an existent state without mind is impossible as this too requires mind - to claim a state of no mind would only be fantasy as you would have to be totally mindless to make such a claim or see such a state of non-existence and in that case you would not exist. Those claiming a pre-existent state where nothing exists are delusional - as a non-existent state of nothingness would not allow for existence to occur.

As to where does mind exist, is trumped by the more important question, where does mind not exist? It is not possible for the human mind {or any other mind} to show a place or state where there in no mind - If there is no mind then there is nothing - and even the state of nothingness must be based upon mind. Again all that ever was, is, and will be is mind.

If this concept sounds religious that is a matter of interpretation; deists and atheists alike base their illusions {or delusions]
on a belief where existence is compared to a non-existent state which is fantasy - there never was, nor will there ever be a state of non-existence. So fear not, even if one day you will not be here, mind will prevail.
By this logic, I would be correct on stating that the mind is not inside, but outside. Which is connected by the brain via electromagnetic waves invisible to the human eye.
Interesting; But that sounds more like science than philosophy; And you are talking about forms and manifestations of mind as it applies to human biology - Sure it does apply - but if you follow what I'm saying mind applies to everything else as well. Mind by my concept and definition is all that was, is and ever will be - And nothing ever was, is or will be without mind.

User avatar
Subatomic God
Posts: 1494
Joined: October 15th, 2013, 11:09 pm

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Subatomic God » July 20th, 2014, 7:59 pm

UniversalAlien wrote:
Interesting; But that sounds more like science than philosophy; And you are talking about forms and manifestations of mind as it applies to human biology - Sure it does apply - but if you follow what I'm saying mind applies to everything else as well. Mind by my concept and definition is all that was, is and ever will be - And nothing ever was, is or will be without mind.
That's what I'm saying, friend. The mind is already in everything - from rock, to plant, to animal, to object, to person, to idea, to the Universe. I call these points "experiential points", which are formed throughout the entire world in the same manner as the bumps on our skin, or the holes from which grass grow in many blades.

That's why we can connect with everything as long as our senses are connected with it - senses that are created by electromagnetic waves. It explains why we can think like a rock - as boring as it is - it's possible because we are not separate from all of this - we are all of this, just experiencing our own state, while being a part of it all. It's amazing how we can experience ourselves as separate, and as a part of the Universe - I feel, however, that all forms of separation is regression, while accepting the Universe and yourself as one is progression. Any form of settling or ownership, is a form that leads to animosity and psychopathy; war and hatred.
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.

User avatar
Uriahharris
Posts: 147
Joined: July 18th, 2014, 12:24 am

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Uriahharris » July 20th, 2014, 8:09 pm

Subatomic God wrote:
UniversalAlien wrote:
Interesting; But that sounds more like science than philosophy; And you are talking about forms and manifestations of mind as it applies to human biology - Sure it does apply - but if you follow what I'm saying mind applies to everything else as well. Mind by my concept and definition is all that was, is and ever will be - And nothing ever was, is or will be without mind.
That's what I'm saying, friend. The mind is already in everything - from rock, to plant, to animal, to object, to person, to idea, to the Universe. I call these points "experiential points", which are formed throughout the entire world in the same manner as the bumps on our skin, or the holes from which grass grow in many blades.

That's why we can connect with everything as long as our senses are connected with it - senses that are created by electromagnetic waves. It explains why we can think like a rock - as boring as it is - it's possible because we are not separate from all of this - we are all of this, just experiencing our own state, while being a part of it all. It's amazing how we can experience ourselves as separate, and as a part of the Universe - I feel, however, that all forms of separation is regression, while accepting the Universe and yourself as one is progression. Any form of settling or ownership, is a form that leads to animosity and psychopathy; war and hatred.
To say that the universe and we are connected, would defeat the point of our contradictory universe, yes? If, for example, you say that you are connected to anothers "mind" (if at all possible) and experienced thoughts, you would defeat a contradiction (the senses). What would be the ramifications of defeating or getting rid of a contradiction? Also, in our contradictory universe, how would we as humans ever progress by conforming with contradiction? You say it as if scientists and physicists would not be able to understand until we accept that we are one with the universe, however most already accept that notion entirely. Would it not be a stronger sense of progress to progress towards non-contradiction and the impossibilities it holds, by not being connected to a contradictory universe (though we are connected at birth). I theorize it would be improbable to link minds with another for the sake of contradiction, for doing so would allow contradiction to take hold of us further, limiting our understanding.
-UriahHarris

User avatar
Subatomic God
Posts: 1494
Joined: October 15th, 2013, 11:09 pm

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Subatomic God » July 20th, 2014, 8:22 pm

Uriahharris wrote:
To say that the universe and we are connected, would defeat the point of our contradictory universe, yes? If, for example, you say that you are connected to anothers "mind" (if at all possible) and experienced thoughts, you would defeat a contradiction (the senses). What would be the ramifications of defeating or getting rid of a contradiction? Also, in our contradictory universe, how would we as humans ever progress by conforming with contradiction? You say it as if scientists and physicists would not be able to understand until we accept that we are one with the universe, however most already accept that notion entirely. Would it not be a stronger sense of progress to progress towards non-contradiction and the impossibilities it holds, by not being connected to a contradictory universe (though we are connected at birth). I theorize it would be improbable to link minds with another for the sake of contradiction, for doing so would allow contradiction to take hold of us further, limiting our understanding.
No, what I said was that our brain is a brain - other people's brains are the same brain, but they are formed slightly different and absorb slightly different information, yet possess the same biological laws and physics. Knowing that allows your brain to psycho-analyze another person's brain, without having to know the person's individual life and experiences, while at the same time, figure it out simply by knowing how the brain reacts and behaves altogether.

All things in the Universe are not contradictory, but complimenting and contrasting. We need opposites to distinguish elements and instruments. We need distinctions to communicate objects and subjects individually. Can you imagine a language that was simply like this? "Universe, Universe, Universe Universe! Universe? Universe... Universe Universe; Universe, Universe."?

I can come to far bigger conclusions over any scientist and physicist any day, because what I do is think for the Universe, not myself - I listen to it; it speaks to me (it spoke to Einstein, Tesla and many others that simply were on a different level of thinking, which is merely 90% hard world, and 10% self-humility). I can wake up from my everyday couch, and solve mysteries with my brain alone because my brain possesses the factors and faculties in the Universe to a degree that I understand basically everything at this point. I may not know anything, but I have access to a tool that does, and a system called the subconscious, the guilty consciousness and a world of consequences that always will be there to show me the right way, even though the right way is like a diamond - cold, but beautiful. I will hold this rose in my hands, thorns and all, because the truth was never about me - and I have never worried about it for a second.
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.

User avatar
Uriahharris
Posts: 147
Joined: July 18th, 2014, 12:24 am

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Uriahharris » July 21st, 2014, 12:08 am

Subatomic God wrote:
Uriahharris wrote:
To say that the universe and we are connected, would defeat the point of our contradictory universe, yes? If, for example, you say that you are connected to anothers "mind" (if at all possible) and experienced thoughts, you would defeat a contradiction (the senses). What would be the ramifications of defeating or getting rid of a contradiction? Also, in our contradictory universe, how would we as humans ever progress by conforming with contradiction? You say it as if scientists and physicists would not be able to understand until we accept that we are one with the universe, however most already accept that notion entirely. Would it not be a stronger sense of progress to progress towards non-contradiction and the impossibilities it holds, by not being connected to a contradictory universe (though we are connected at birth). I theorize it would be improbable to link minds with another for the sake of contradiction, for doing so would allow contradiction to take hold of us further, limiting our understanding.
No, what I said was that our brain is a brain - other people's brains are the same brain, but they are formed slightly different and absorb slightly different information, yet possess the same biological laws and physics. Knowing that allows your brain to psycho-analyze another person's brain, without having to know the person's individual life and experiences, while at the same time, figure it out simply by knowing how the brain reacts and behaves altogether.

All things in the Universe are not contradictory, but complimenting and contrasting. We need opposites to distinguish elements and instruments. We need distinctions to communicate objects and subjects individually. Can you imagine a language that was simply like this? "Universe, Universe, Universe Universe! Universe? Universe... Universe Universe; Universe, Universe."?

I can come to far bigger conclusions over any scientist and physicist any day, because what I do is think for the Universe, not myself - I listen to it; it speaks to me (it spoke to Einstein, Tesla and many others that simply were on a different level of thinking, which is merely 90% hard world, and 10% self-humility). I can wake up from my everyday couch, and solve mysteries with my brain alone because my brain possesses the factors and faculties in the Universe to a degree that I understand basically everything at this point. I may not know anything, but I have access to a tool that does, and a system called the subconscious, the guilty consciousness and a world of consequences that always will be there to show me the right way, even though the right way is like a diamond - cold, but beautiful. I will hold this rose in my hands, thorns and all, because the truth was never about me - and I have never worried about it for a second.
Firstly, this is contradiction, for contradiction is opposing forces, or "assert the contrary, or opposite of" of which complimenting and contrasting is to long to say. And secondly, the point is that we know contradiction, or complimenting and contrasting as you would have me say, from birth. Therefore, if we took them away at birth, then it would not be "universe! universe! universe!" for existence and non-existence themselves would cease to exist (no way to say this without contradicting myself, im sorry). On the topic of "biological laws and physics", who is to say what is law? The point of logic is that it defies laws and can propose other theories to battle these "laws". One such is sophisism, of which how can one know that anything other than themselves exist? A fundamental principle in philosophy is not to give yourself over to this "universe" and become one with it (for this is not philosophy, but physics); but use logic and neutral stance thinking to not try and defend a point, but purposely have it broken so you can build anew. Also, if what you say is correct, about listening to the universe to discover truths in your living room that physicists must debate, then did you devise mathematics and physics and all of sciences branches without ever reading anything on the topic? You are right, that we are capable of understanding all these things without them, but to do so (for a person of normal intellect) would take thousands of years to think of the thoughts and ideas that our predecesors have. This sentence alone may help to show you a flaw "a system called subconcious, the guilty conciousness and a world of consequence that will point me in the right way". This sentence alone can show the shallowness of your logical steps. First, you abandoned logic at this point, and adapted a loose, unrefined style. No evidence was given to support your claim of subconciousness, guilty conciousness, consequence, and the term right (which i assume you meant was the opposite of wrong). So what does this sentence set out to prove, your own beliefs? Beliefs have no hold in anything other than religion, which in and of itself has no hold in physics or science. Philosophy, though, could be argued to have a belief system, although at the point where a philosophy starts turning into a religion it usually transitions over.
-UriahHarris

User avatar
Subatomic God
Posts: 1494
Joined: October 15th, 2013, 11:09 pm

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Subatomic God » July 21st, 2014, 12:23 am

Uriahharris wrote:
Firstly, this is contradiction, for contradiction is opposing forces, or "assert the contrary, or opposite of" of which complimenting and contrasting is to long to say. And secondly, the point is that we know contradiction, or complimenting and contrasting as you would have me say, from birth. Therefore, if we took them away at birth, then it would not be "universe! universe! universe!" for existence and non-existence themselves would cease to exist (no way to say this without contradicting myself, im sorry). On the topic of "biological laws and physics", who is to say what is law? The point of logic is that it defies laws and can propose other theories to battle these "laws". One such is sophisism, of which how can one know that anything other than themselves exist? A fundamental principle in philosophy is not to give yourself over to this "universe" and become one with it (for this is not philosophy, but physics); but use logic and neutral stance thinking to not try and defend a point, but purposely have it broken so you can build anew. Also, if what you say is correct, about listening to the universe to discover truths in your living room that physicists must debate, then did you devise mathematics and physics and all of sciences branches without ever reading anything on the topic? You are right, that we are capable of understanding all these things without them, but to do so (for a person of normal intellect) would take thousands of years to think of the thoughts and ideas that our predecesors have. This sentence alone may help to show you a flaw "a system called subconcious, the guilty conciousness and a world of consequence that will point me in the right way". This sentence alone can show the shallowness of your logical steps. First, you abandoned logic at this point, and adapted a loose, unrefined style. No evidence was given to support your claim of subconciousness, guilty conciousness, consequence, and the term right (which i assume you meant was the opposite of wrong). So what does this sentence set out to prove, your own beliefs? Beliefs have no hold in anything other than religion, which in and of itself has no hold in physics or science. Philosophy, though, could be argued to have a belief system, although at the point where a philosophy starts turning into a religion it usually transitions over.
If you think philosophy is not mounted upon a system of opposites in contrast - without being contradictory - then you do not know philosophy. It is not contradictory, because it works as a process of creating dimension. If we did not have element A to make element B known, both elements would be without knowing.

Logic does not defy laws - at least laws not made by Man.

Not necessarily. When you think greatly and honestly, what seems like a thousand of years, is merely a few years. It took me eight years to break down the Universe and the human mind at the level I have to this point. I started at a very young age. That's not even 10 years!

There's no shallow in the subconscious - the conscious is truly shallow. As demonstrated by your response having no flow or care put into it. You just ranted because you don't understand how the Universe works. Just ask questions, and I'll answer - but ask them poorly; I will answer them poorly.
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.

User avatar
Uriahharris
Posts: 147
Joined: July 18th, 2014, 12:24 am

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Uriahharris » July 21st, 2014, 1:51 pm

Subatomic God wrote:
Uriahharris wrote:
Firstly, this is contradiction, for contradiction is opposing forces, or "assert the contrary, or opposite of" of which complimenting and contrasting is to long to say. And secondly, the point is that we know contradiction, or complimenting and contrasting as you would have me say, from birth. Therefore, if we took them away at birth, then it would not be "universe! universe! universe!" for existence and non-existence themselves would cease to exist (no way to say this without contradicting myself, im sorry). On the topic of "biological laws and physics", who is to say what is law? The point of logic is that it defies laws and can propose other theories to battle these "laws". One such is sophisism, of which how can one know that anything other than themselves exist? A fundamental principle in philosophy is not to give yourself over to this "universe" and become one with it (for this is not philosophy, but physics); but use logic and neutral stance thinking to not try and defend a point, but purposely have it broken so you can build anew. Also, if what you say is correct, about listening to the universe to discover truths in your living room that physicists must debate, then did you devise mathematics and physics and all of sciences branches without ever reading anything on the topic? You are right, that we are capable of understanding all these things without them, but to do so (for a person of normal intellect) would take thousands of years to think of the thoughts and ideas that our predecesors have. This sentence alone may help to show you a flaw "a system called subconcious, the guilty conciousness and a world of consequence that will point me in the right way". This sentence alone can show the shallowness of your logical steps. First, you abandoned logic at this point, and adapted a loose, unrefined style. No evidence was given to support your claim of subconciousness, guilty conciousness, consequence, and the term right (which i assume you meant was the opposite of wrong). So what does this sentence set out to prove, your own beliefs? Beliefs have no hold in anything other than religion, which in and of itself has no hold in physics or science. Philosophy, though, could be argued to have a belief system, although at the point where a philosophy starts turning into a religion it usually transitions over.
If you think philosophy is not mounted upon a system of opposites in contrast - without being contradictory - then you do not know philosophy. It is not contradictory, because it works as a process of creating dimension. If we did not have element A to make element B known, both elements would be without knowing.

Logic does not defy laws - at least laws not made by Man.

Not necessarily. When you think greatly and honestly, what seems like a thousand of years, is merely a few years. It took me eight years to break down the Universe and the human mind at the level I have to this point. I started at a very young age. That's not even 10 years!

There's no shallow in the subconscious - the conscious is truly shallow. As demonstrated by your response having no flow or care put into it. You just ranted because you don't understand how the Universe works. Just ask questions, and I'll answer - but ask them poorly; I will answer them poorly.
My friend, I described contradiction as being the same as contrast, in that you misunderstood.and no I did not "rant" I was commenting on your statement and questioning its validity as far as logic is concerned. For you failed to offer steps and a logical basis to support them and instead blatantly said this was truth and right. If you offer not an argument it is not a truth or a theory, merely a belief which you cannot prove. I believe you do not understand my statements as well, for your comments state the opposite of my written intentions, of which shoes that maybe you lack the pacify to understand them? Or if it is my fault for not making them more clear for others to understand I apologize. It just strikes me as odd that you know not the definition of contradiction, and it's importance to philosophy. For what you said on if one ceases to exist they both do not exist I have known since I was young. It is a simple contradiction logical test, for if you have light and dark and take away dark, there can be neither light nor dark anymore as they are contrasting and contradictory definitions.
-UriahHarris

User avatar
Subatomic God
Posts: 1494
Joined: October 15th, 2013, 11:09 pm

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Subatomic God » July 21st, 2014, 4:51 pm

Uriahharris wrote:
My friend, I described contradiction as being the same as contrast, in that you misunderstood.and no I did not "rant" I was commenting on your statement and questioning its validity as far as logic is concerned. For you failed to offer steps and a logical basis to support them and instead blatantly said this was truth and right. If you offer not an argument it is not a truth or a theory, merely a belief which you cannot prove. I believe you do not understand my statements as well, for your comments state the opposite of my written intentions, of which shoes that maybe you lack the pacify to understand them? Or if it is my fault for not making them more clear for others to understand I apologize. It just strikes me as odd that you know not the definition of contradiction, and it's importance to philosophy. For what you said on if one ceases to exist they both do not exist I have known since I was young. It is a simple contradiction logical test, for if you have light and dark and take away dark, there can be neither light nor dark anymore as they are contrasting and contradictory definitions.
You were ranting, but I'll let it slide since it's not worth arguing; you changed your tone quite well since last time. You're also capitalizing and being more grammatically conscious, so you clearly got the message.

Contradiction is not a contrast. Colors contrast, they do not contradict. Contrasts have many variations - a contradiction involves one thing; and that one thing does not make sense no matter how much logic you try to ascribe to it. Contrasts make perfect sense - the idea of contradictory would be merely misguidance towards how the Universe operates.

The Universe speaks via several ways; when you understand how it speaks or when it speaks, it will speak when you have nothing to say. I simply listen and observe how it works via itself and human mind, where in it experiences itself through us. To say that I do not know what I am talking about, after I can solve, define and cross-reference this entire system through the system itself, would be the most naive thing to do. I already went through the whole "Am I wrong?" dance - I'm simply far in tune with the system to be as wrong as you expect me to be. It is you that simply does not understand how everything works; especially when you insist that I do not know you because I do not walk in your shoes - let's be honest, not even you know who you are or why you exist in those shoes; nobody does. However, I do have a very strong connection with the origin of the Universe, as when you travel deep enough as I have, you'll notice that the human experience is experiencing the beginning energy and the old energy of the Universe (this is why we are born with ignorance, but have a chance to break free into intelligence).

Taking away light from darkness would be taking away contrast, not contradiction. Nothing in this Universe is contradictory - neither is what people say and think. When it's contradictory to you, it's another way of saying "I am personally confused" - the result of you failing to understand that all contradictions in life are man-made through confusion. There is a more accurate and realistic message behind everything, when you get through the very elusive surface, which is prone to distortion.
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.

User avatar
Uriahharris
Posts: 147
Joined: July 18th, 2014, 12:24 am

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Uriahharris » July 21st, 2014, 5:21 pm

Subatomic God wrote:
Uriahharris wrote:
My friend, I described contradiction as being the same as contrast, in that you misunderstood.and no I did not "rant" I was commenting on your statement and questioning its validity as far as logic is concerned. For you failed to offer steps and a logical basis to support them and instead blatantly said this was truth and right. If you offer not an argument it is not a truth or a theory, merely a belief which you cannot prove. I believe you do not understand my statements as well, for your comments state the opposite of my written intentions, of which shoes that maybe you lack the pacify to understand them? Or if it is my fault for not making them more clear for others to understand I apologize. It just strikes me as odd that you know not the definition of contradiction, and it's importance to philosophy. For what you said on if one ceases to exist they both do not exist I have known since I was young. It is a simple contradiction logical test, for if you have light and dark and take away dark, there can be neither light nor dark anymore as they are contrasting and contradictory definitions.
You were ranting, but I'll let it slide since it's not worth arguing; you changed your tone quite well since last time. You're also capitalizing and being more grammatically conscious, so you clearly got the message.

Contradiction is not a contrast. Colors contrast, they do not contradict. Contrasts have many variations - a contradiction involves one thing; and that one thing does not make sense no matter how much logic you try to ascribe to it. Contrasts make perfect sense - the idea of contradictory would be merely misguidance towards how the Universe operates.

The Universe speaks via several ways; when you understand how it speaks or when it speaks, it will speak when you have nothing to say. I simply listen and observe how it works via itself and human mind, where in it experiences itself through us. To say that I do not know what I am talking about, after I can solve, define and cross-reference this entire system through the system itself, would be the most naive thing to do. I already went through the whole "Am I wrong?" dance - I'm simply far in tune with the system to be as wrong as you expect me to be. It is you that simply does not understand how everything works; especially when you insist that I do not know you because I do not walk in your shoes - let's be honest, not even you know who you are or why you exist in those shoes; nobody does. However, I do have a very strong connection with the origin of the Universe, as when you travel deep enough as I have, you'll notice that the human experience is experiencing the beginning energy and the old energy of the Universe (this is why we are born with ignorance, but have a chance to break free into intelligence).

Taking away light from darkness would be taking away contrast, not contradiction. Nothing in this Universe is contradictory - neither is what people say and think. When it's contradictory to you, it's another way of saying "I am personally confused" - the result of you failing to understand that all contradictions in life are man-made through confusion. There is a more accurate and realistic message behind everything, when you get through the very elusive surface, which is prone to distortion.
Let me put straight out the definition of contradict so that you may understand.

con·tra·dict [kon-truh-dikt]
verb (used with object) 1. to assert the contrary or opposite of; deny directly and categorically. 2. to speak contrary to the assertions of: to contradict oneself. 3. (of an action or event) to imply a denial of: His way of life contradicts his stated principles. 4. Obsolete . to speak or declare against; oppose.

In this, i have correctly used the definition of contradict. A contradiction then is just that, light and dark are contradictions, because they speak contrary to the assertions of "light" for light in definition is the absence of darkness, one cannot exist without the other. They contradict one another in there existence, yet rely on each other, for they oppose each other which fits in the definition of contradiction. As for being ignorant, of course, I cannot prove any theory to be law, nor can anyone else prove it to be so either. To claim truth above another truth is of a higher ignorance however. One cannot claim to be of superior intellect, especially with your theory of everyone possessing the same mind, for if that is so, everyone is on the same level yes? If we all have the same potential, then everyone is equal, and the universe is of equal and balanced properties yes? I have yet to figure out your esteem as far as knowledge of the universe goes, however. What is it you hold high in the universe? Physics, philosophy, religion? What is it you hold to be the "right" ideal (if you can honestly claim to be right). For as long as doubt exists, nothing can be true, and as doubt has to exist for truth to exist, there can be no true truth. Logic in itself is the one and only principal by which we hold as a solid foundation, as the basis of everything in science and philosophy. But what can you argue to be logic, in its majesty? You seem to praise extroverted thoughts and ideals over introverted ones, which is where we difer. For all extroverted thoughts and ideals, come from an introverted process. How can you claim to talk to the universe when you cannot be certain of your own reality, and what you see and hear to be true? What claim can you lay before first without a doubt proving your own logic and self to be true. For science can progress infinitely, but what will it amount to if we never progress inwards in philosophy and psychology? In what way can we progress if we do not challenge the impossibilities that paradoxes, contradictions, and the limit of human reason propose? I am by no means a mathematical genius, a physics mastermind. I lay claim to only myself and my inner thoughts, of which is all anyone has isn't it?
-UriahHarris

User avatar
Subatomic God
Posts: 1494
Joined: October 15th, 2013, 11:09 pm

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Subatomic God » July 21st, 2014, 5:50 pm

Uriahharris wrote:
Let me put straight out the definition of contradict so that you may understand.

con·tra·dict [kon-truh-dikt]
verb (used with object) 1. to assert the contrary or opposite of; deny directly and categorically. 2. to speak contrary to the assertions of: to contradict oneself. 3. (of an action or event) to imply a denial of: His way of life contradicts his stated principles. 4. Obsolete . to speak or declare against; oppose.

In this, i have correctly used the definition of contradict. A contradiction then is just that, light and dark are contradictions, because they speak contrary to the assertions of "light" for light in definition is the absence of darkness, one cannot exist without the other. They contradict one another in there existence, yet rely on each other, for they oppose each other which fits in the definition of contradiction. As for being ignorant, of course, I cannot prove any theory to be law, nor can anyone else prove it to be so either. To claim truth above another truth is of a higher ignorance however. One cannot claim to be of superior intellect, especially with your theory of everyone possessing the same mind, for if that is so, everyone is on the same level yes? If we all have the same potential, then everyone is equal, and the universe is of equal and balanced properties yes? I have yet to figure out your esteem as far as knowledge of the universe goes, however. What is it you hold high in the universe? Physics, philosophy, religion? What is it you hold to be the "right" ideal (if you can honestly claim to be right). For as long as doubt exists, nothing can be true, and as doubt has to exist for truth to exist, there can be no true truth. Logic in itself is the one and only principal by which we hold as a solid foundation, as the basis of everything in science and philosophy. But what can you argue to be logic, in its majesty? You seem to praise extroverted thoughts and ideals over introverted ones, which is where we difer. For all extroverted thoughts and ideals, come from an introverted process. How can you claim to talk to the universe when you cannot be certain of your own reality, and what you see and hear to be true? What claim can you lay before first without a doubt proving your own logic and self to be true. For science can progress infinitely, but what will it amount to if we never progress inwards in philosophy and psychology? In what way can we progress if we do not challenge the impossibilities that paradoxes, contradictions, and the limit of human reason propose? I am by no means a mathematical genius, a physics mastermind. I lay claim to only myself and my inner thoughts, of which is all anyone has isn't it?
The definition does not fit how the Universe works. Nothing is contradictory - you'd be insulting the Universe by calling it that, when everything works in union as it does with or without your naivety. So no, you have incorrectly used it by even slightly thinking the Universe is contradicting itself because you think it is through ignorance of how it truly behaves. Light and dark are not contradictions because everything is one, in the end. Our split personalities do not contradict one or the other, because they are individual states created within one system. Again, you do not understand this Universe.

Everyone possesses the same tool, the brain. I did not say the mind. You're taking things out of context like a person takes apart a computer - to learn from it. You don't understand, so you're trying to understand by making it more difficult.

All introverted processes are from outside, then managed from inside, which are then projected back outwards. You'd have to be truly naive to think that there's a one-way ticket for information in a world that is clearly perpetual! Think of a black hole. There are three stages: The already projected > swallowed > then spat out as another projection.

There are no paradoxes and infinities in life. The only reason why that seems so, is because of how the Universe creates possibilities. Human experience can even have a taste of this notion. All you have to do is let go, and go back to point o - where you can choose anything in the world, but whence a choice is made, you become limited. When a choice hasn't been made, you are infinite. That's the secret to the Universe. A blank canvas can hold anything - a canvas with a picture on top of it can only do so much without distorting and crowding itself. This is why children are infinite, and adults are finite. We live in a world that forces adults to make choices, while children are free to make their own choices until a certain age - then there are the few that escape this vicious cycle to truly understand freedom and the Universe.

Science is not infinite, in a good way. It goes down a basic formula to more complicated formulas, which sooner or later lead us astray.
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.

Post Reply