Thoughts are objects, mind and brain are identical
in [Physics]
|
From: Immortalist on 15 Jun 2010 21:57 On Jun 15, 6:45 pm, chibiabos <c...(a)nospam.com> wrote: > In article > <cb98da81-4358-45a7-a9c5-143f7ff38...(a)y18g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > One form of materialism is the view that mental states are identical > > with brain states. To have a certain kind of mental state is the same > > thing as having a certain type of brain state. To think a certain sort > > of thought is to have a certain sort of thing happen in the brain. To > > feel pain is to have another sort of thing happen in the brain. To > > wish for good weather is to have another sort of thing happen in the > > brain. This theory is called the mind-brain identity theory. > > > Persons And Their World: An Introduction to Philosophy - Jeffrey Olen > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0075543117/ > > > Mental states are objects, like tables or chairs. They are events, > > like the kicking of a football. Thinking is a mental state, an object. > > So are wishing and hoping and dreaming objects if objects are just > > events. These are all mental events, things that we do. Therefore > > there are such "objects" as thoughts, wishes, hopes,, or images. > > > What is the difference between an event and an object? No difference > > because all known objects are events based upon interactive processes. > > (Nominalism) An event is a happening, an occurrence. It is what > > objects do, what happens to objects. Take, for example, the event of > > kicking a football. If I kick a football, there are only two objects > > involved-me and the ball. There is also the event of my kicking the > > ball, but that event is not a third object True, we sometimes talk as > > though there were such objects as kicks. We say that someone made a > > good kick, or that a kick saved a game, or that a field-goal kicker > > made five kicks during a game. But that is just a manner of speaking. > > There are no such objects as kicks. > > > Similarly, there are such objects as handshakes. If I shake a friend's > > hand, the objects involved are my hand and my friend's hand. We can > > talk as though there were a third thing. We can say, for example, that > > I gave my friend a firm handshake, which is really like giving someone > > a firm container. To give a firm handshake is to shake hands firmly. > > That is, there is only the event of shaking hands, but no such object > > as a handshake. Shaking hands is something we do. > > Fritz Perls much? > No, but I pay a lot attention to Evolutionary Psychology and ways to philosophize about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology > -chib > > -- > Member of S.M.A.S.H. > Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
From: bigfletch8 on 15 Jun 2010 21:58 On Jun 16, 9:08 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article <LWURn.39210$YG4.34...(a)newsfe10.ams2>, > > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > "Immortalista" <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:cb98da81-4358-45a7-a9c5-143f7ff38cd5(a)y18g2000prn.googlegroups.com.... > > | One form of materialism is the view that mental states are identical > > | with brain states. To have a certain kind of mental state is the same > > | thing as having a certain type of brain state. > > > Couldn't you just say software differs from hardware, or haven't > > you learnt about computers yet? The television is not the image on > > the screen or the sound in the speaker, the body is not the soul. > > Only engineers are interested in televisions, only surgeons are > > interested in anatomy. The rest of the world wants to laugh at > > the comedian on the screen or be shocked by the news. > > The mind is software, the brain is hardware. They are not the same. > > Go away, you are trivially not funny and intellectually boring. > > Excellent thread. > > The brain is not a binary thing. > > Should we express what we call software and hardware analogies when > addressing the human mind/brain issue? When we know that each term is > simply taken from the discourse of current technology. I would look for > another explanation of the relationship. The brain is not air, fire and > water. By the same measure, it is not analog/digital. I hate to kill a million arguments, but I will anyway :-) Light is made of light, brain is made of brain, mind is made of mind, and you are made of you. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Is That All It Is... Is That All It Is... Then Lets Go Dancing Bring Out The Booze Let's Have A Ball. Thinking about thinking ,is similar to 'swimming about swimming'. BOfL
From: Immortalist on 15 Jun 2010 22:12 On Jun 15, 6:55 pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:28:02 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist > > > > <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Jun 15, 5:02 pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:24:34 -0700 (PDT), Immortalista > > >> <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >One form of materialism is the view that mental states are identical > >> >with brain states. To have a certain kind of mental state is the same > >> >thing as having a certain type of brain state. To think a certain sort > >> >of thought is to have a certain sort of thing happen in the brain. To > >> >feel pain is to have another sort of thing happen in the brain. To > >> >wish for good weather is to have another sort of thing happen in the > >> >brain. This theory is called the mind-brain identity theory. > > >> >Persons And Their World: An Introduction to Philosophy - Jeffrey Olen > >> >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0075543117/ > > >> >Mental states are objects, like tables or chairs. They are events, > >> >like the kicking of a football. Thinking is a mental state, an object.. > >> >So are wishing and hoping and dreaming objects if objects are just > >> >events. These are all mental events, things that we do. Therefore > >> >there are such "objects" as thoughts, wishes, hopes,, or images. > > >> >What is the difference between an event and an object? No difference > >> >because all known objects are events based upon interactive processes.. > >> >(Nominalism) An event is a happening, an occurrence. It is what > >> >objects do, what happens to objects. Take, for example, the event of > >> >kicking a football. If I kick a football, there are only two objects > >> >involved-me and the ball. There is also the event of my kicking the > >> >ball, but that event is not a third object True, we sometimes talk as > >> >though there were such objects as kicks. We say that someone made a > >> >good kick, or that a kick saved a game, or that a field-goal kicker > >> >made five kicks during a game. But that is just a manner of speaking. > >> >There are no such objects as kicks. > > >> >Similarly, there are such objects as handshakes. If I shake a friend's > >> >hand, the objects involved are my hand and my friend's hand. We can > >> >talk as though there were a third thing. We can say, for example, that > >> >I gave my friend a firm handshake, which is really like giving someone > >> >a firm container. To give a firm handshake is to shake hands firmly. > >> >That is, there is only the event of shaking hands, but no such object > >> >as a handshake. Shaking hands is something we do. > > >> Congratulations. You appear to have discovered the difference between > >> verbs and nouns. Did you have a point? > > >Can you explain your theory about nouns and verbs and how it applies > >to what I typed? > > Sorry, what I wrote was incomplete. You also apparently understand > adjectives and adverbs. > > That said, I'm still at a loss as to what your point was in the first > place. Would you mind explaining just what exactly it is that you're > trying to say? I suppose that I was experimenting with the idea that "If all known objects are processes then it may be the case that all known processes are objects." That would be the fallacy of affirming the consequent in logic so I am trying to learn how to argue the position. All known objects are processes. Consciousness is as much an object as other processes that re-present a present moment through changing stuff, everything is constantly changing and opposite things are identical, so that everything is and is not at the same time. In other words, Universal Flux and the Identity of Opposites may entail a denial of the Law of Non-Contradiction, since all things go and nothing stays, and comparing existents to the flow of a river which you cannot step twice into. On those stepping into rivers staying the same other and other waters flow. There is an antithesis between 'same' and 'other,' different waters flow in rivers staying the same, though the waters are always changing, the rivers stay the same. Indeed, it must be precisely because the waters are always changing that there are rivers at all, rather than lakes or ponds. The message is that rivers can stay the same over time even though, or indeed because, the waters change. The point, then, is not that everything is changing, but that the fact that some things change makes possible the continued existence of other things. Perhaps more generally, the change in elements or constituents supports the constancy of higher- level structures. http://www.iep.utm.edu/heraclit/
From: raven1 on 15 Jun 2010 22:12 On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:58:49 -0700 (PDT), "bigfletch8(a)gmail.com" <bigfletch8(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 16, 9:08�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: >> In article <LWURn.39210$YG4.34...(a)newsfe10.ams2>, >> >> �"Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >> > "Immortalista" <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:cb98da81-4358-45a7-a9c5-143f7ff38cd5(a)y18g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >> > | One form of materialism is the view that mental states are identical >> > | with brain states. To have a certain kind of mental state is the same >> > | thing as having a certain type of brain state. >> >> > Couldn't you just say software differs from hardware, or haven't >> > you learnt about computers yet? The television is not the image on >> > the screen or the sound in the speaker, the body is not the soul. >> > Only engineers are interested in televisions, only surgeons are >> > interested in anatomy. The rest of the world wants to laugh at >> > the comedian on the screen or be shocked by the news. >> > The mind is software, the brain is hardware. They are not the same. >> > Go away, you are trivially not funny and intellectually boring. >> >> Excellent thread. >> >> The brain is not a binary thing. >> >> Should we express what we call software and hardware analogies when >> addressing the human mind/brain issue? �When we know that each term is >> simply taken from the discourse of current technology. I would look for � >> another explanation of the relationship. The brain is not air, fire and >> water. By the same measure, it is not analog/digital. > >I hate to kill a million arguments, but I will anyway :-) > >Light is made of light, brain is made of brain, mind is made of mind, >and you are made of you. > >The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. > >Is That All It Is... >Is That All It Is... >Then Lets Go Dancing >Bring Out The Booze >Let's Have A Ball. > >Thinking about thinking ,is similar to 'swimming about swimming'. 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe All mimsy were the borogoves And the mome raths ourgrabe
From: raven1 on 15 Jun 2010 22:41
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:12:02 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanimater_2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Jun 15, 6:55�pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:28:02 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist >> >> >> >> <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On Jun 15, 5:02 pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:24:34 -0700 (PDT), Immortalista >> >> >> <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >One form of materialism is the view that mental states are identical >> >> >with brain states. To have a certain kind of mental state is the same >> >> >thing as having a certain type of brain state. To think a certain sort >> >> >of thought is to have a certain sort of thing happen in the brain. To >> >> >feel pain is to have another sort of thing happen in the brain. To >> >> >wish for good weather is to have another sort of thing happen in the >> >> >brain. This theory is called the mind-brain identity theory. >> >> >> >Persons And Their World: An Introduction to Philosophy - Jeffrey Olen >> >> >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0075543117/ >> >> >> >Mental states are objects, like tables or chairs. They are events, >> >> >like the kicking of a football. Thinking is a mental state, an object. >> >> >So are wishing and hoping and dreaming objects if objects are just >> >> >events. These are all mental events, things that we do. Therefore >> >> >there are such "objects" as thoughts, wishes, hopes,, or images. >> >> >> >What is the difference between an event and an object? No difference >> >> >because all known objects are events based upon interactive processes. >> >> >(Nominalism) An event is a happening, an occurrence. It is what >> >> >objects do, what happens to objects. Take, for example, the event of >> >> >kicking a football. If I kick a football, there are only two objects >> >> >involved-me and the ball. There is also the event of my kicking the >> >> >ball, but that event is not a third object True, we sometimes talk as >> >> >though there were such objects as kicks. We say that someone made a >> >> >good kick, or that a kick saved a game, or that a field-goal kicker >> >> >made five kicks during a game. But that is just a manner of speaking. >> >> >There are no such objects as kicks. >> >> >> >Similarly, there are such objects as handshakes. If I shake a friend's >> >> >hand, the objects involved are my hand and my friend's hand. We can >> >> >talk as though there were a third thing. We can say, for example, that >> >> >I gave my friend a firm handshake, which is really like giving someone >> >> >a firm container. To give a firm handshake is to shake hands firmly. >> >> >That is, there is only the event of shaking hands, but no such object >> >> >as a handshake. Shaking hands is something we do. >> >> >> Congratulations. You appear to have discovered the difference between >> >> verbs and nouns. Did you have a point? >> >> >Can you explain your theory about nouns and verbs and how it applies >> >to what I typed? >> >> Sorry, what I wrote was incomplete. You also apparently understand >> adjectives and adverbs. >> >> That said, I'm still at a loss as to what your point was in the first >> place. Would you mind explaining just what exactly it is that you're >> trying to say? > >I suppose that I was experimenting with the idea that "If all known >objects are processes then it may be the case that all known processes >are objects." Stop right there. That sentence makes no sense unless you're using your own personal definition of "objects", "processes", or both. >That would be the fallacy of affirming the consequent in >logic so I am trying to learn how to argue the position. It would help if you were to define your terms coherently. >All known objects are processes. Consciousness is as much an object as >other processes that re-present a present moment through changing >stuff, everything is constantly changing and opposite things are >identical, so that everything is and is not at the same time. In other >words, Universal Flux and the Identity of Opposites may entail a >denial of the Law of Non-Contradiction, since all things go and >nothing stays, and comparing existents to the flow of a river which >you cannot step twice into. On those stepping into rivers staying the >same other and other waters flow. There is an antithesis between >'same' and 'other,' different waters flow in rivers staying the same, >though the waters are always changing, the rivers stay the same. >Indeed, it must be precisely because the waters are always changing >that there are rivers at all, rather than lakes or ponds. The message >is that rivers can stay the same over time even though, or indeed >because, the waters change. The point, then, is not that everything is >changing, but that the fact that some things change makes possible the >continued existence of other things. Perhaps more generally, the >change in elements or constituents supports the constancy of higher- >level structures. Word salad. Try again. |