Missing in action: Where is the mind?

@Cyracuz,

My work is posted on the internet archieve, written up in both Sketchpad, and MathCad, where is yours? So, if there is an error in both of those programs, you can bitch at them.
And, you can take you toys and go where ever you like.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

Just because you can write doesn't mean you can think. You have demonstrated that clearly enough.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I have a confession to make, I have two dozen monkeys at keyboards, I just pick out what looks good. Need a job?

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

Ye, that makes sense. But sorry, I have better things to do than to babysit you.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Well, you could have fooled me. I mean, it is easy enough isn't it? I mean, there has been a lot of crying going on in this room, or is this a transcen. . . trans. . trans something. WHAT EVER event right in front of us all????

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

There is no need for me to fool you. You are doing it to yourself. Have a good night.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Don't get me wrong. I really do feel sorry for you. You have my deepest sympathies.
But I have never known a dead man to imagine anything, nor a broken tv let me watch reruns of I love Lucy.

NoOne phil doesn't seem to know the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Perhaps he would care to comment on the eleven dimensions required to "explain" observations in modern physics ?

2 Replies

@fresco,

I doubt it. His comments tend to be about what he think about you for knowing something he does not.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
Don't get me wrong. I really do feel sorry for you. You have my deepest sympathies.
But I have never known a dead man to imagine anything, nor a broken tv let me watch reruns of I love Lucy.

NoOne phil doesn't seem to know the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Perhaps he would care to comment on the eleven dimensions required to "explain" observations in modern physics ?

I will grace you with a comment, since you keep missing the obvious, I will dumb it down for you,
Before I demonstrated it, mathematicians could not even do the four basic moves in arithmetic in two geometric dimensions, what in the hell do you think you are looking at with so called 11?
Show me a kid that has not even learned to stand that sprints at the Olympics.

Your missing action and missing mind is right in front of the mirror.

2 Replies

@NoOne phil,

Quote:

Before I demonstrated it, mathematicians could not even do the four basic moves in arithmetic in two geometric dimensions, what in the hell do you think you are looking at with so called 11?

You really do think that you are smarter and more intelligent than everyone else... Good luck with that. Do you act like this in your life outside the internet as well? If you do I can't imagine you have many people that can stand to be around you for very long at a time...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Before I demonstrated it, mathematicians could not even do the four basic moves in arithmetic in two geometric dimensions, what in the hell do you think you are looking at with so called 11?

You really do think that you are smarter and more intelligent than everyone else... Good luck with that. Do you act like this in your life outside the internet as well? If you do I can't imagine you have many people that can stand to be around you for very long at a time...

Have too hard a time with the obvious again? Do you think character assasination is going to change the sad facts?

I will tell you the truth, I would rather be correct in 2 dimensions, competent in 2, than spend a life scribbling non-sense about 11.

2 Replies

@NoOne phil,

What if I did?
What if I asked you to explain?
Would you?
Or would you just take the oportunity to feel superior?

So far you have offered alot of opinions on the various threads where we have communicated. But you have yet to offer sound, logical arguments for your opinions. Until you do, I cannot take you seriously.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

What if I did?
What if I asked you to explain?
Would you?
Or would you just take the oportunity to feel superior?

So far you have offered alot of opinions on the various threads where we have communicated. But you have yet to offer sound, logical arguments for your opinions. Until you do, I cannot take you seriously.

Your also a damn liar. I told you where I posted.

0 Replies

@NoOne phil,

Quote:

I will tell you the truth, I would rather be correct in 2 dimensions, competent in 2, than spend a life scribbling non-sense about 11.

This is priceless. Elswhere you are ridiculing me for suggesting that truth, in some situations, is decided by choice, and then you proceed to make this statement...

0 Replies

@NoOne phil,

The OP suggests that what we call "the mind" cannot be confined to the four conventional dimensions of physicality. This concept is common to all writers who have explored concepts of "holistic consciousness". This is not imply that "physicality" is not a necessary substrate for consciousness, but that it may be insufficient. If you don't understand that, read Gilbert Ryle on "category mistakes" regarding the "location of the mind".( Ah.. but you don't do modern philosophers do you ?).

1 Reply

@fresco,

You are absolutely correct. I do not. I start with first principles, who, like a child, must know what "1" is before I start scribbling numbers. Sorry,
I cannot build on a foundation of sand.

I do not say, "which geometry is correct' and then say I can do a whole buch of mystical stuff with drawing on a tennis ball..

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

Quote:

I start with first principles, who, like a child, must know what "1" is before I start scribbling numbers.

Then I suggest you get started, because this is getting old fast.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

I start with first principles, who, like a child, must know what "1" is before I start scribbling numbers.

It's Descartes back from the grave !

He's not worked out that that "I" and "counting 1" could be socially acquired epiphenomena of language...which in turns suggests the "field" aspects of mind/consciousness rather than its locality.

http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/nat-cog.htm

1 Reply

@fresco,

Strange... my reply seems to have vanished...

Anyway, I was saying thanks for the interesting link.

And that since noone phil only does ancient philosophers I think we have to wait a few thousand years for him to come around to contemporary ideas..

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

'Mind' and 'human mind' are conceptual re-presentations of be-ing. They stipulate that there has to be a storage container where thoughts are stored and demand that you agree. Look up the adjective 'con' in the dictionary. 'Con' is "the argument against something". 'Cept' comes from the word perception, therefore 'concept' is the argument against the peception you have of be-ing. 'Mind' and 'human mind' are the arguments against you be-ing. There is no living in 'mind' and 'human mind'. All of the combinations of characteristics (proof) that you can accumulate to define 'mind' and 'human mind' won't come close to re-presenting Be-ing. Since 'mind' and 'human mind' don't exist, we're all out of our minds. Stop looking for the proof that you exist. Stop explaining your existence and get on with living. Let the good times roll!!

1 Reply

Missing in action: Where is the mind?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know