| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| The prequel to what I concluded: The mind can choose to imagine anything, and it can choose to do anything with the body. |
That's some mind you've got.
| The mind is not natural, it is a-natural. The mind can choose to enjoy a natural fresh breeze, or it can choose to enjoy a breath of cigarette smoke. |
Sounds natural to me. If you mention a couple of natural ones, I could better appreciate why these two are a-natural.
| In the latter, the mind first needs to train the body and once it has learned how to do that, it becomes natural to the body - it has no choice. |
That's not how I remembered it.
| The mind may know that that choice will harm the body, but it’s not that the body doesn’t care - it can’t know of the danger. It cannot complain. However mind does become aware from the symptoms from body. The millions of the unconscious jobs done every second of the body works to keep you as healthy as possible; the most primitive force in nature. Despite that, in an extreme contrast case of an unhealthy idea versus body, mind may decide to ride a bike, or jump off a bridge. I don’t know if this bollocks is orthodox, unorthodox, or nutjobbodox. But it’s my bollocks. |
It's none of these things, it's off-topic. We're dealing with mind and brain not mind and body.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
We're going to need a bigger boat.
| Our default intuition when it comes to consciousness is that humans and some other animals have it, whereas plants and trees don’t. But how sure can we be that plants aren’t conscious? And what if what we take to be behavior indicating consciousness can be replicated with no conscious agent involved? |
Why?
1) In a system that we know has conscious experiences — the human brain — what evidence of consciousness can we detect from the outside?
2) Is consciousness essential to our behavior? | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| It's none of these things, it's off-topic. We're dealing with mind and brain not mind and body. |
I’m only saying body because if I say brain you’ll get all huffy. And anyway, when it comes to going off-topic, you’re probably not the right person to complain.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | And anyway, when it comes to going off-topic, you’re probably not the right person to complain. |
It just can't be helped, it's the way the Harpo Argument ChatBot was programmed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, that’s funny 🤣
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | It seems all human beings have this to some degree or other |
Interesting if true. But if true, then wouldn't it mean that autism itself can't be what they claim it is, namely a "neurodevelopmental disorder." If every human has a touch of it, then the thing itself is the standard neurological order. Perhaps only the two cases you mention are the "disorder." The two cases where it's noticeable would need to be the disorders, and they would need names, because "autism" would just be too broad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Boreades wrote: | | what evidence of consciousness can we detect from the outside? |
Put it another way:
We know that most animals have a brain.
How do we know they have a mind as well?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | We're dealing with mind and brain not mind and body. |
Has nobody (sic) told you that neurons are distributed around the body? The "brain" is not only inside the skull.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
A light bulb moment.
It's been discovered that the brain gives off tiny flashes of light. Hinting at a possible new way to "read" the brain using light instead of electricity.
| Brains are highly metabolic organs that emit ultraweak photon emissions (UPEs), which predict oxidative stress, aging, and neurodegeneration. UPEs are triggered by neurotransmitters and biophysical stimuli, but they are also generated by cells at rest and can be passively recorded using modern photodetectors in dark environments. |
https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(25)00279-2
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| Boreades wrote: | | Boreades wrote: | | what evidence of consciousness can we detect from the outside? |
Put it another way:
We know that most animals have a brain.
How do we know they have a mind as well? |
I thought we’d agreed animals have a mind, it is just how sophisticated it. We assume (reasonably) that humans are at the pinnacle because we are fully ‘aware’, but some animals get very close to it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Borry wrote: | We're going to need a bigger boat.
Our default intuition when it comes to consciousness is that humans and some other animals have it, whereas plants and trees don’t. But how sure can we be that plants aren’t conscious? And what if what we take to be behavior indicating consciousness can be replicated with no conscious agent involved? |
OK, that's orthodoxy. Not of interest to me, personally, in this context.
| Why? 1) In a system that we know has conscious experiences — the human brain — what evidence of consciousness can we detect from the outside? 2) Is consciousness essential to our behavior? |
Clearly.
| what evidence of consciousness can we detect from the outside? Put it another way: We know that most animals have a brain. How do we know they have a mind as well? |
To control those parts of the brain that do not act autonomically. The orthodox definition of 'mind'.
We're dealing with mind and brain not mind and body.
Has nobody (sic) told you that neurons are distributed around the body? The "brain" is not only inside the skull. |
I didn't know this in the sense I hadn't thought about it very much. I knew the brain must have communication nets with the body to carry out its function. I don't accept this means the brain is not only in the skull.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
It's none of these things, it's off-topic. We're dealing with mind and brain not mind and body.
I’m only saying body because if I say brain you’ll get all huffy. |
With some reason given the title of this thread.
| And anyway, when it comes to going off-topic, you’re probably not the right person to complain. |
In this case I wanted to shift away from the brain/mind nexus that orthodoxy has adopted and onto something new i.e.
* assume the orthodox definition of mind is part of the ordinary brain function
* allowing space for a new definition of mind
* to see if we can't find something of interest when doing so
* which as far as I am concerned has been very fruitful
* but not, it seems, to others.
what evidence of consciousness can we detect from the outside? Put it another way: We know that most animals have a brain. How do we know they have a mind as well?
I thought we’d agreed animals have a mind, it is just how sophisticated it. We assume (reasonably) that humans are at the pinnacle because we are fully ‘aware’, but some animals get very close to it. |
That is the orthodox position and not of personal interest to me in this context.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Pete wrote: | It seems all human beings have this to some degree or other
Interesting if true. |
I thought it was pretty well accepted by now that autism has such a wide spectrum that it would encompass pretty much everyone. A few years ago we had a discussion about autistic aspects of ourselves here at the AEL and it turned out, for example, that 'difficulties with left and right and east and west' was fairly common.
| But if true, then wouldn't it mean that autism itself can't be what they claim it is, namely a "neurodevelopmental disorder." |
This is always a difficulty because it is a matter of societal definition coming up against a medical one. For example, 'psychopathy' may well be a universal trait but only a few get labelled psychopaths.
| If every human has a touch of it, then the thing itself is the standard neurological order. Perhaps only the two cases you mention are the "disorder." The two cases where it's noticeable would need to be the disorders, and they would need names, because "autism" would just be too broad. |
There is no doubt that 'autism' is opening a lot of boxes right now. Quite a few of them Pandoric. My application certainly would be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | it is a matter of societal definition coming up against a medical one. For example, 'psychopathy' may well be a universal trait but only a few get labelled psychopaths. |
I think this is precisely the case.
I'm listening to a book that in the last 12 hours has provided one and a half relevant thoughts to this discussion. (But I'm not suggesting that his use of the terms under debate is how I would use them. Still interesting though):
| "The human mind might be an organ for rationalizing, not for thinking." |
And the author also quoted an aphorist, with the following aphorism, which I particularly liked:
| "An aphorism is either a half-truth or a truth-and-a-half." | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Now you mention it, yes, aphorism is exactly right. It sounds appropriate, even a little bit wise. But is totally unoriginal and does not expand the universe of knowledge.
Unless it is original. If you are constantly searching for just the right one you will at least begin the process towards the real thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
