Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

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

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Uriahharris » July 24th, 2014, 12:30 am

Subatomic God wrote:
Uriahharris wrote:
I end it for I find you and your argument (excuse my rudeness, but it must be told) unworthy of philosophical and logical discussion. Much as one would find a religious spokesperson in the streets pitiable. This is my last post on here, I will find a much more challenging argument elsewhere.
That's because you already lost. You're just rationalizing your loss. No great mind, scientist, or someone who is very much correct and accurate, would ever end a discussion on any matter, because anybody that has that level of knowledge can say "I can learn from even this." I learned a lot of very frivolous notions just by arguing with your stubborn attempt to "look for a challenge", when you didn't do anything except rant and beg a question. If you call that a challenge, then you really haven't broken the surface.

That's what happens to solipsists, when they get ruined by someone who knows how to escape useless questions like "how do you know that everything isn't just sensory?" - maybe it's because I was born from a fetus, I wouldn't want to be the father of all of this stupidity or ignorance, and I can tell that this entire Universe is external - independent, yet complimenting of my own experience.
Why do you find it so impossible to look on your own statement with scrutiny, and fail so much more in that of scrutinizing others. If I have learned anything it is a few abstract beliefs and how to properly put forth beliefs in an illogical sense. For I wonder highly of your mental state in regards to your comments and the failure to comment on my comment with logic instead of a religious like idiocy. I am not a solopsist I merely used it to define a point. I have no philosophic beliefs, I merely argue points using logic, and place my on arguments so that I may have them rebuked. I have no quarel in losing in argument, though I have by no means lost to you. I merely find it impossible to argue philisophically with you for your arguments borderline religion and fanaticism. There is no sense, reasoning, logic, and vaguely a topic in your posts. I am sorry if I have battered you down into such a state of monomania, but I must confess this will not happen again, much for the same reason scientists and philosophers do not preach to the church.
-UriahHarris

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

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Subatomic God » July 24th, 2014, 12:38 am

Uriahharris wrote:
Why do you find it so impossible to look on your own statement with scrutiny, and fail so much more in that of scrutinizing others. If I have learned anything it is a few abstract beliefs and how to properly put forth beliefs in an illogical sense. For I wonder highly of your mental state in regards to your comments and the failure to comment on my comment with logic instead of a religious like idiocy. I am not a solopsist I merely used it to define a point. I have no philosophic beliefs, I merely argue points using logic, and place my on arguments so that I may have them rebuked. I have no quarel in losing in argument, though I have by no means lost to you. I merely find it impossible to argue philisophically with you for your arguments borderline religion and fanaticism. There is no sense, reasoning, logic, and vaguely a topic in your posts. I am sorry if I have battered you down into such a state of monomania, but I must confess this will not happen again, much for the same reason scientists and philosophers do not preach to the church.
It's simply because I don't like people that make their own ideas, instead of respecting ideas as they are coming from the Universe. You do not come to ideas - ideas come to you. To say otherwise would further prove my point of how ignorant it is to declare anything, when you know nothing; yet have access to what knows everything.

You don't even make your own ideas, actually. You just beg the question, deny anything too big for you and move onto to the next small thing. You never grow or open or expand anything for your brain - you just choose and nitpick, which is poison for any brain. The Universe does not hide its secrets - all you have to do is look at its patterns and cycles, relate them to everything, understand how things may seem different in appearance, that aren't, then cross-reference its behavioral to the human behavior - you'll see that there's deep truth behind the reason why the human washes its hands like a fly, and the electrons behave like bees, or why our human heart is developed by going through the hearts of a fish, frog and turtle and that our brain's neurons are shaped like the Universe' energy and matter.

You make it about you - you don't make it about the Universe.

You make it about your "I" - you don't make it about what "Is".
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1137
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: What is Mind?

Post by UniversalAlien » July 24th, 2014, 1:39 am

Subatomic God wrote:
.......when the Universe gave birth to the human mind.
How do you know this, were you there? You are giving the universe human qualities without any evidence that the universe has any human qualities except that humans can comprehend it. You're using your mind to describe abstract descriptions; and there is no way you will prove that the universe told you so because the way you describe the universe is based on a particular human abstraction of what the universe might be, not what it is. To say the universe gave birth is pure fantasy lacking evidence - This is like atheists accusing religious philosophers of creating a fantasy about a creator and then creating their own fantasy of a universe that comes from nothing. Mind is all we know - but exactly what mind is I do not know and that is why I started this post by asking 'What is Mind?' But if you want to say the universe is mind - I will not disagree even though I'm still not sure of what mind is and why, how, and for what purpose it exists. But maybe the Existentialists are right? Maybe existence nor mind need any purpose? But living among humans has spoiled me and an inherent human trait asks me to keep searching for philosophical meaning and that of course includes mind and the universe.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Atreyu » July 24th, 2014, 2:19 am

I'm not going to try and comment on this thread in too much detail, but I'd like to at least throw out one idea which is a good starting point for this subject.

The first thing one must understand about 'mind' is that it is a psychological term, not a physiological one. This means that the 'mind' is not the brain. 'Mind' refers to psychology, 'brain' refers to physiology. So one must understand the crucial difference between psychology and physiology in order to properly define 'mind', otherwise one might try to claim that it is the brain. This is usually what happens in modern science since they only practice physiology. They are forced to take psychological terms and try to find their physiological 'counterpart', and then they inevitable try to say that the one is really just the other.

But this is not so. There is a crucial difference between physiology and psychology, and once understood one can differentiate between the 'mind' and the brain. The crucial difference is in the general nature of the phenomena each studies. In physiology, one studies things perceived/cognized to be outside of oneself, namely, another person's physical body or an animal's body. And there one finds the brain, which one often reasons is the 'physical counterpoint' to one's thoughts. Often one says that one's thoughts can all be reduced to particular neurons firing.

In psychology, however, the phenomenon under consideration is quite different, so different than modern science normally labels it 'not scientific' at all. The phenomenon studied here are internally perceived/cognized phenomenon, meaning phenomena perceived/cognized to be the 'self'. This would ordinarily be called 'subjective' phenomena, meaning that one can only perceive it for oneself. You can observe and study your own thoughts, but no one else can. Naturally, the physiologist will claim that he can by studying your neurons, but this is quite false because one should not assume that one is the other, not to mention that the phenomenon are inherently different.

And this is how the 'mind' is defined. It's your thoughts as your perceive them. Observe and make a journal of your thoughts each day and you are observing and studying your mind. Cut a person open and see what is inside his skull, and you are studying another's brain. See the difference? It is quite clear for one's own observation. The two terms only become confounded when we think about it, when the mind projects itself onto something outside of itself. But for direct observation is it very easy to differentiate between the two. One is outside of oneself and not considered a part of the self, whereas the other is inside of oneself and considered a part of the self. It's 'you'. And you know it's you directly. The brain can only be called 'you' after making a reasonable conclusion about it, i.e. assuming that it is the external manifestation of internally perceived phenomena.

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

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Subatomic God » July 24th, 2014, 2:30 am

Atreyu wrote:I'm not going to try and comment on this thread in too much detail, but I'd like to at least throw out one idea which is a good starting point for this subject.

The first thing one must understand about 'mind' is that it is a psychological term, not a physiological one. This means that the 'mind' is not the brain. 'Mind' refers to psychology, 'brain' refers to physiology. So one must understand the crucial difference between psychology and physiology in order to properly define 'mind', otherwise one might try to claim that it is the brain. This is usually what happens in modern science since they only practice physiology. They are forced to take psychological terms and try to find their physiological 'counterpart', and then they inevitable try to say that the one is really just the other.

But this is not so. There is a crucial difference between physiology and psychology, and once understood one can differentiate between the 'mind' and the brain. The crucial difference is in the general nature of the phenomena each studies. In physiology, one studies things perceived/cognized to be outside of oneself, namely, another person's physical body or an animal's body. And there one finds the brain, which one often reasons is the 'physical counterpoint' to one's thoughts. Often one says that one's thoughts can all be reduced to particular neurons firing.

In psychology, however, the phenomenon under consideration is quite different, so different than modern science normally labels it 'not scientific' at all. The phenomenon studied here are internally perceived/cognized phenomenon, meaning phenomena perceived/cognized to be the 'self'. This would ordinarily be called 'subjective' phenomena, meaning that one can only perceive it for oneself. You can observe and study your own thoughts, but no one else can. Naturally, the physiologist will claim that he can by studying your neurons, but this is quite false because one should not assume that one is the other, not to mention that the phenomenon are inherently different.

And this is how the 'mind' is defined. It's your thoughts as your perceive them. Observe and make a journal of your thoughts each day and you are observing and studying your mind. Cut a person open and see what is inside his skull, and you are studying another's brain. See the difference? It is quite clear for one's own observation. The two terms only become confounded when we think about it, when the mind projects itself onto something outside of itself. But for direct observation is it very easy to differentiate between the two. One is outside of oneself and not considered a part of the self, whereas the other is inside of oneself and considered a part of the self. It's 'you'. And you know it's you directly. The brain can only be called 'you' after making a reasonable conclusion about it, i.e. assuming that it is the external manifestation of internally perceived phenomena.
Nope. It seems that way at first, but... when you realize how the mind is shaped by the Universe... You'd realize that everything - EVERYTHING - is one. Our energy is not "our "energy" - it's the energy of a rupturing volcano; a raging sea; a raging storm, or the energy of growth, strive, expansion, or the energy of rain, tension and healing.
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1137
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: What is Mind?

Post by UniversalAlien » July 24th, 2014, 3:16 am

From: "Dictionary of Philosophy, (Ancient - Medieval - Modern), edited by Dagobert D. Runes (and 72 Authorities), 1942
Mind: (Lat. mens) Mind is used in two principal senses: (a) The individual mind is the self or subject which perceives, remembers, imagines,feels, conceives, reasons, wills, etc. and which is functionally related to an individual bodily organism. (b) Mind, generically considered, is a metaphysical substance which pervades all individual minds and which is contrasted with matter or material substance. -- L.W.
The problem I have with this definition is the concept that there is a separate 'metaphysical substance' existing independently of matter - On this I might agree with Subatomic that all is one. And as I say all is mind.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Atreyu » July 24th, 2014, 3:32 am

I was answering the question from the point of view of definition 'a' listed by UniversalAlien, not definition 'b' nor that which SubAtomic is referring to. I was taking it from the subjective point of view, not the 'objective' one, which I feel is infinitely more practical. We can't know what 'mind' is in the cosmic sense of the word, but we can certainly know and define it very exactly in relation to ourselves.

What is ordinarily called 'your mind' is your thoughts. And they can be observed in oneself and differentiated from other functions in oneself such as feeling, movements, and instinct. What is 'mind' in the 'general' sense of the word is certainly an interesting philosophical question, but the topic is very abstract and no 'hard data' whatsoever can be had about it. This question is definitely a philosophical one and moving it to the realm of science (theory) may be impossible. But 'mind' in the individual sense of the word can become very practical and 'scientific' (psychology not physiology) because it can be directly observed and studied in oneself. Again, this is psychology and it is within its parameters that I answered the question, because that seemed to be the frame of mind of the original poster.

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1137
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: What is Mind?

Post by UniversalAlien » July 24th, 2014, 3:50 am

Atreyu wrote:
We can't know what 'mind' is in the cosmic sense of the word.....
Maybe not; But that is what my mind reaches for - I want to know what it means in the 'cosmic sense of the word'. Philosophy by its very nature reaches to understand limits of knowledge, if there are limits to knowledge, and then to surpass those limits. Can't know is not acceptable; rather one might say there is insufficient data to answer this question at this time. One should avoid using the psychology and/or the physiology of the brain to set limits - Mind is related to both of these but mind is also much more - In my opinion it is the metaphysical everything that does not understand limits to comprehension.

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

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Subatomic God » July 24th, 2014, 5:59 am

UniversalAlien wrote:
Maybe not; But that is what my mind reaches for - I want to know what it means in the 'cosmic sense of the word'.
I already explained to you the design and the pattern, now I will explain the next part: there is no knowing in a Universe that is already connected to itself, provided that everything truly is one (you'd be very behind to argue otherwise). Knowing is a human construct built on not knowing that we already know - well, not we, but what we possess and experience through as a medium; we as the concept of "I", do not know "all", because the entire concept of "existing" is so the Universe can re-experience itself via birth to death. We should not know all - because we should not know, we must know nothing. Knowing is not life - becoming is life. Information, ideas and experiences are merely the result of our interaction. What is "I", is solely based on what "Is". Everything you want to "know", or more accurately "experience" to better connect with the Universe, is right here in our cosmic arsenal as we are chameleons of the stars - forever changing within the same cosmic chain of internal energies dancing and surging to the same ephemeral song that is on replay throughout different forms and on different scales.

As above, so below; from form, to faculty; to, and fro.
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.

User avatar
Neznac
Posts: 1652
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 2:31 pm

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Neznac » July 24th, 2014, 12:20 pm

Subatomic God wrote:Most importantly, don't take anything literal - that's how you end up being forever stupid.
Incredible thought there, but indeed just a thought! This whole topic is a literalist interpretation of an imaginary problem in my opinion. No one literally has "a mind" but neither is there something we can refer to as "Mind" in a cosmic sense, all of this is literalism gone berzerk!

Of course there is the action of minding, that's the activity which is producing these written words on a screen. We are all minding creatures and that is the literal and existential truth. Minding is basically the act of paying attention to or being aware of certain events that happen both externally and internally with reference to these living bodies that we are! With the emergence of language, minding takes on a strange self-reflective or reversible context, therefore enabling those certain minding beings with a language to talk about their own minding events . . . thus we literally invent the concept of "mind" - but if you take it literally then you will indeed "end up being forever stupid" - as the wise man said!

User avatar
Whitedragon
Posts: 933
Joined: November 14th, 2012, 12:12 pm

Re: What is Mind?

Post by Whitedragon » July 24th, 2014, 1:54 pm

Universal Alien:

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
Scientifically the brain consists of various parts; even if it’s just an organ to “receive” (if that concept even exists), it seems whatever it is “receiving” needs something to run it through. That is as far as pseudo-science goes in anyway. As far as real science is concerned, I think there is still room for the spiritual. Science has explained time and time again where all thought and neural process occur. Let’s remember that science is a system invented by man to investigate things he doesn’t understand. People speak of science as if it is something physical like energy or matter, but in all dictionaries you will find the opposite to be true. Science is not a thing; it is as much a manmade device as religion. It is a system of reasoning, which can have theories, and, which theories can be disproved under certain conditions.

Having said that, I think we must remember science has always more to discover, but saying science has a lot more to discover, we must acknowledge we’re actually saying “we” have a lot to discover. Science cannot discover anything by itself, because it is not a person, it is a manmade system. The question is: how much can man discover. Are there limitations to his evolution? Will there come a time that man reaches a plateau from which he cannot develop further and from where, using science, will fail to understand the remaining mysteries of the universe? The species of man might go extinct in time too, how much will remain undiscovered and die with the rest of the universe. Now. Are there parts of US that are too far beyond us to study, using science? Are we an enigma to ourselves? A spirit might be scientifically analyzed, its essence may be based on plain energy patterns. Do we have the ability to crack the mystery of the spirit world with a device, science, which is limited to our own minds? What I’m saying is that afterlife might have a scientific explanation … but it’s just not our science, and we must accept that there may be no man that will ever invent a device through science to gage or control it. What is mind? We know in part. Maybe. In time. We will discover what “soul” and “spirit” and “afterlife” is. But then we stand before a question: do we call it science or religion … or do we invent a new term to accommodate both ideas.
We are a frozen spirit; our thoughts a cloud of droplets; different oceans and ages brood inside – where spirit sublimates. To some our words, an acid rain, to some it is too pure, to some infectious, to some a cure.

User avatar
ReasonMadeFlesh
Posts: 744
Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 11:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jesus Christ
Location: Here & Now

Re: What is Mind?

Post by ReasonMadeFlesh » May 26th, 2018, 1:01 am

Dual aspect theory is the same as neutral monism
"A philosopher who does not take part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1137
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: What is Mind?

Post by UniversalAlien » June 13th, 2018, 7:13 am

Finally I asked my yet to be hypothetical future super computer:

"What is Mind?"

And the machine said:

"Insufficient data to answer that question at this time - the word Mind must be defined as to context
- Mind by itself is a meaningless word - By itself Mind does not exist, It would be like a Matrix without a world.

Please define your contextual meaning and ask question again."



Now do you see how super computers will come in hand to answer questions of philosophy?
- Neither do I !

User avatar
manisthajain
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: July 13th, 2018, 6:42 am

Re: What is Mind?

Post by manisthajain » July 13th, 2018, 6:58 am

Human Mind is a really unique and powerful source of activity. human thought to depend on thinking and behaviour when the mind gets stress behaviour automatic change. The mind power thinks a lot in one time.

Post Reply