Missing in action: Where is the mind?

Cyracuz & No One Phil;

Get a room!

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

'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!!

Concept is not like connect??? The con of connect is an argument against something??? Get out of dodge boy, before I come gunning...

1 Reply

@Fido,

You're the kind of person who wouldn't accept a new car as a gift because it was the wrong color! Foolish!

2 Replies

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

You're the kind of person who wouldn't accept a new car as a gift because it was the wrong color! Foolish!

Please do not judge me foolish based upon your own prejudices and misconceptions... For example, Concept is a relatively recent word, and form or idea are much older and to the point... Actually, a true concept may only point to a specific sort of form, like number having a rather exact relationship to the object... A form or morphem as I presume as its root is rather like idea in the sense that we draw a mental picture of what we see in reality... And this is not to disagree with anyone saying there is no such thing as the mind... The mind is not real, but the moral forms of the mind as with all spiritual/moral forms is certain meaning we give to it... I am reading about Freud at this time, and I think his division of the mind into various parts is bunk, but it fits with the compartmentalization of experience we all use to catagorize what we learn and know, what we recieve culturally and are conscious of...

What he did is not illogical... Once you have the quasi concept of mind as opposed to brain there is no reason that concept may not be broken down into further quasi concepts ad infinitum... With a true concept there must be knowledge... At the end of the day, where was the true knowledge in the conclusion of Freud??? It was all subjective, like his quasi concepts to begin with... So its value is only in the good it does, and judging from my experience, therapy does some good, some of the time...

0 Replies

@Dasein,

No need for a room. Noone phil hasn't been back since it dawned on him that he had some explaining to do and was ill equipped to do it.

But regarding the word concept, I am pretty sure "con" is not an adjective. I tried, but found nothing to back your explanation of the word.

But the OP was an attempt to consider the mind as a phenomenon that can't be described in terms of location in neither space nor time.

2 Replies

@Dasein,

If you're gonna start up with Fido maybe you should get a room? Wink

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

No need for a room. Noone phil hasn't been back since it dawned on him that he had some explaining to do and was ill equipped to do it.

But regarding the word concept, I am pretty sure "con" is not an adjective. I tried, but found nothing to back your explanation of the word.

But the OP was an attempt to consider the mind as a phenomenon that can't be described in terms of location in neither space nor time.

Sure: Conceive, concern, conclude, condition, concise, contrition... Show me how con in all of these words means against... Certainly people understand that their concepts are not the same as their objects conceived, that they are menatally comparable to the object and in that sense can be held against their object by way of Com parison... Trying to whittle the con in concept down to an adjective means you do not understand it as a morpheme.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I've seen 'con' in several dictionaries and even at dictionary.com Go to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/con?db=dictionary they have it as a noun. the argument against something. Can you use 'con' in a sentence? Why sure, teach, I can do that.

Again, 'mind' is a 'con'. It represents the 'idea' that there is a 'container' where thinking is stored and that you can go pull 'thoughts' out of that container when needed. It is a fictitious representation (a con) which nobody has been able to prove. The word 'thoughts' is a fictitious representation of what happens between the beginning and end of thinking. 'Mind' and 'thoughts' don't exist. Using the words 'mind' and 'thoughts' only produces agreement, disagreement, discussion, etc. There is no 'thinking'. When I say 'thinking' I don't mean processing. Processing demands nothing of you. Thinking demands that you peel away the layers of confusion regarding 'mind' and 'thoughts' and see that they have nothing to do with you, Be-ing. Thinking demands that you get past the presuppositions you have about what's been presented to you by the 'world' and the 'they' and put your 'self' at risk by uncovering who you really are and standing firm on Be-ing who you are.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Recently I was posting with another person who mentioned the concept "paradigm construction". Now, "paradigm construction" is a wonderful concept (its kind of like the 'afterlife'). We could compare our 'thoughts' (sic) about it. We would agree on some and disagree on others. We could gather a crowd of people and have a discussion on "paradigm construction" and if need be we could get bigger and bigger rooms as more people joined the discussion, we could even take a vote on the opinions and then use them to convince people to agree with us. You get the point. However, until an actual paradigm gets constructed its all empty chatter and meaningless. What do you need to know to produce an actual paradigm? Until you can make a 'paradigm' isn't it all bullshit?

What if somebody, let's say, from another planet, came along and told you that you are the paradigm and that by uncovering who you are you create a shift in that paradigm and that you can shift that paradigm any time you want. All you have to do is stop representing your 'self' as a thing. When you change your conversation, you 'shift' the paradigm that you are and you 'transform' your view of the 'world', the 'they', and who you are.

As you de-construct the 'world' and disentangle your 'self' from the measurabilty and definability of it, you come to a point where you can no longer prove the existence of your 'self' by using the standards of the 'world'. When you come face-to-face with the "possibility of the impossibility of your existence" who you've been Be-ing dies so that you can be your 'self'. You uncover/discover that anything is possible and that you are no longer a slave to proving your existence. In Be-ing you 'anticipate resolving' 'death' so that you can be your 'self'. This is the essence of human freedom. In Be-ing you answer the question "Who am I?"

This is what is called 'transformation'.

3 Replies

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

I've seen 'con' in several dictionaries and even at dictionary.com Go to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/con?db=dictionary they have it as a noun. the argument against something. Can you use 'con' in a sentence? Why sure, teach, I can do that.

Again, 'mind' is a 'con'. It represents the 'idea' that there is a 'container' where thinking is stored and that you can go pull 'thoughts' out of that container when needed. It is a fictitious representation (a con) which nobody has been able to prove. The word 'thoughts' is a fictitious representation of what happens between the beginning and end of thinking. 'Mind' and 'thoughts' don't exist. Using the words 'mind' and 'thoughts' only produces agreement, disagreement, discussion, etc. There is no 'thinking'. When I say 'thinking' I don't mean processing. Processing demands nothing of you. Thinking demands that you peel away the layers of confusion regarding 'mind' and 'thoughts' and see that they have nothing to do with you, Be-ing. Thinking demands that you get past the presuppositions you have about what's been presented to you by the 'world' and the 'they' and put your 'self' at risk by uncovering who you really are and standing firm on Be-ing who you are.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Recently I was posting with another person who mentioned the concept "paradigm construction". Now, "paradigm construction" is a wonderful concept (its kind of like the 'afterlife'). We could compare our 'thoughts' (sic) about it. We would agree on some and disagree on others. We could gather a crowd of people and have a discussion on "paradigm construction" and if need be we could get bigger and bigger rooms as more people joined the discussion, we could even take a vote on the opinions and then use them to convince people to agree with us. You get the point. However, until an actual paradigm gets constructed its all empty chatter and meaningless. What do you need to know to produce an actual paradigm? Until you can make a 'paradigm' isn't it all bullshit?

What if somebody, let's say, from another planet, came along and told you that you are the paradigm and that by uncovering who you are you create a shift in that paradigm and that you can shift that paradigm any time you want. All you have to do is stop representing your 'self' as a thing. When you change your conversation, you 'shift' the paradigm that you are and you 'transform' your view of the 'world', the 'they', and who you are.

As you de-construct the 'world' and disentangle your 'self' from the measurabilty and definability of it, you come to a point where you can no longer prove the existence of your 'self' by using the standards of the 'world'. When you come face-to-face with the "possibility of the impossibility of your existence" who you've been Be-ing dies so that you can be your 'self'. You uncover/discover that anything is possible and that you are no longer a slave to proving your existence. In Be-ing you 'anticipate resolving' 'death' so that you can be your 'self'. This is the essence of human freedom. In Be-ing you answer the question "Who am I?"

This is what is called 'transformation'.

Great... Used the word- form -in another word, and there it perhaps means the same thing as form...

Here is what you seem to be dealing with, and correct me if I am wrong: When you talks as though thought and mind are nothing; well, that is correct... They are meanings without being, and that would make them moral forms, like justice, or mercy, or truth... It is good enough that you recognize the insubstantiality of being... I would not read too much into the late word Concept... There is not much meat there, really...

And even pradigms are chatter... Just more meaning without being... All the being in moral forms comes out of our own lives....Life, (being to you), if meaning, and meaning is value, and we grade all forms physical or moral according to their value to our lives... We value justice highly because we cannot live without it, and etc...

0 Replies

@Dasein,

You speak as though "paradigms" are arbitrary....that the "self" (Dasein if you like) ultimately has no limits and can "free itself". But even the later Heidegger suggested that socially acquired language was the substrate for "self". (circa 1947 "Language speaks the Man"). And other philosophers like Dennett and Maturana, deflate "self" as an epiphenomenon of "language", and a sub process of of cognition.

Your view is consequently heavily anthropocentric, but since you appear to be fixated on Sein und Zeit (judging by your announcement of your multiple readings), you are unlikely to recognize the significance of such a limitation.

You speak/preach of "transformation of self" (escape from "fallenness" by a Heideggerian "recognition of death"), but meditators will argue that it is dissipation of "self" NOW...ineffable transcendence of self... which is "the key".

0 Replies

@Dasein,

...there is no "I" except in relationship to "not I" and that bifurcation is not controllable...there is no "freedom of being".

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

...there is no "I" except in relationship to "not I" and that bifurcation is not controllable...there is no "freedom of being".

There is no "I" except in relationship; only because there is nothing without relationship... Being is all meaning, and meaning is what we share with others, eventually, all other human beings... What sort of meaning would life, or existence, or love, or gold, or politics to a hypothetical last person on earth??? With no one to share with, we have lost all we share...

Look at it closer to home... As the rich get control of government, and own the government, and all the money, and all the people own is debt, and have no control over country all those things like money, and government, and country lose their meaning, and people just don't care... By taking all and leaving nothing they take meaning as well... No relationship equals no meaning...

1 Reply

@Fido,

I agree.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

We know where the brain is. It has physical form and a location.
But where is the mind? Is mind merely a process, a result of the "brainengine" converting organic matter into conscious thought? If so, where does it take place? Heat from a fire has location. A speeding car has direction. Mind, as far as i know, has neither. It is not limited by physical conditions because it is not within the four dimensional space of physical existence. It is somewhere else. Where or what is this place?

mind is the focus of life energy , eminating from the brain

3 Replies

@north,

If that is true then everything living has a mind. But we know that not all living things have brains. So unless you are willing to say that brain is not a requirement for mind, that is not a very good description.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

If that is true then everything living has a mind.

not a mind so much , as it is a life energy state

Quote:

But we know that not all living things have brains. So unless you are willing to say that brain is not a requirement for mind, that is not a very good description.

your right

let me put it this way

brain is a requirement for mind

but what is required for the brain to be a brain , to become a brain ....

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

mind is the focus of life energy , eminating from the brain

What is this "life energy" you're talking about? You mean heat, electricity, what?

0 Replies

@north,

North;

north wrote:

mind is the focus of life energy , eminating from the brain

Your presentation of the definition of mind was done extremely well. The choice of words and the overall tone of the presentation depicts you as an authority and that nobody would dare question your conclusion.

However, you don't know that the mind exists. If you did, you would have been written up in medical journals, philosophical journals, and psychological journals because in over 2500 years you would have been the only person to prove the existence of mind! (That racket in your head (seemingly) is not measurable, definable, proof.)

You don't know that the mind emanates from the brain and yet you have the audacity to present us with an authoritative definition of something you know nothing about. This is a great example of 'bluff and bluster', and that is all it is. It's kind of like a monkey puffing up his chest, flailing his arms about, and screaming loudly to defend his territory.

Mind is an ethereal concept with no basis in fact. It is assumed that since we think, that thinking has to come from somewhere and so mind is a representation of a container that stores 'thoughts'.

'Proof of existence' is determined by 2 criteria, measurability and definability. Mind has plenty of definability and absolutely no measurability. Both have to exist before 'proof of existence' can be established. Why is it that humanity demands that we use measurability and definability as the criteria for 'proof of existence' only to give a pass to the concept of mind when it comes to measurability? Curious, huh!

Try this on for size. Just look at it as a possibility. You can go back and hide in your 'mind' anytime you want to.

'Mind' is an ethereal concept which represents Be-ing as a thing, period, end of story.

Some time ago, in what we call the 'past', somebody was (probably) reflecting on Be-ing, and when they came face-to-face with the fact that they couldn't use measurability and definability to prove the existence of Be-ing they 'gathered up' a 'combination of characteristics' to prove the existence of their definition and then they proclaimed the existence of the concept 'mind'.

This 'thing' we have about the mind is kinda like when Galileo told the world that the earth circles the sun and when Columbus informed the world that the earth wasn't flat. (BTW – the earth being flat and the concept of the mind have something in common, they both stop you from venturing out - Be-ing).

The only way you can have a mind is because you exist before the 'having'. Be-ing is apriori to all of your concepts, including 'mind'. Baba Ram Dass said “Be, do, have”. “Be, do, have” is who you are, it's not a goal.

If you are thinking along with me, the next question you might have would be, “But, hey, you say you can't prove the existence of the 'mind', well, you haven't proven the existence of Be-ing either”. If you did ask that question I would smile (because you're thinking) and I would respond with “Good question”.

'Mind' can't be proven because it is an ethereal concept used to represent Be-ing. It has definability (hence all the presuppositions) but it doesn't have 'measurability' (length, width, depth, locality, mass), which is why nobody has proven it's existence.

Be-ing can't be proven by using the criteria of the world, measurability and definability. The 'mess' we're in is the result of trying to 'prove' Be-ing with measurability and definability. You are not a 'thing' of this world. You are Be-ing in and 'along side of' the world.

Be-ing is kinda like knowing how to tie your shoe. You can exquisitely explain how to tie your shoe, but that explanation does not provide any 'proof of knowing' how to tie your shoe. You could go one step further and 'show' somebody that you know how to tie your shoe by tying it, but, again, it wouldn't provide any 'proof of knowing'.

Yes, you could extrapolate that I 'know' from my 'tying the shoe' or my 'explanation', but showing and extrapolating (explaining) are not the same as 'knowing'.

Be-ing doesn't 'show up' in the realm of 'proof', it only 'shows up' in the realm of 'knowing'.

Gathering evidence and extrapolating (proof) comes from 'covering up' what you know.

You 'know' who you are. You don't need to gather evidence and extrapolate.

You could be so deeply entangled in the labyrinth of confusion and doubt and you could temporarily 'convince' your 'self' that you don't know, but 'knowing' always 'shows up' when you least expect it, doesn't it?

No matter how deeply you are entangled you still have an 'inkling' that you know, don't you? It's just that the measurability and definability of the world that doesn't give you any room to 'Be'.

“You're fooling yourself if you don't believe it
You're killing your self if you don't believe it.
Get up, get back on your feet
You're the one that can't beat and you know it
Come on, let's see what you've got
Take your best shot and don't blow it”

From “You're Fooling Yourself (The Angry Young Man)”, on the album “The Grand Illusion” by Styx in 1977.

0 Replies

You are probably going to tear your hair out if I suggest that it may be more acurate to say that the brain is a construct of the mind.

According to quantum physics, observation makes physical reality happen. Without observation, matter doesn't exist.

This suggests that consciousness precedes the physical. I do not mean god, simply that it may be that the universe in fundamentally made of consciousness, not physical matter, as is the broadly accepted, traditional view.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

You are correct that both "brain" and "mind" are ultimately (only) communicative constructs. The only difference between them involves their contextual functional utility with respect to other constructs. The view about a "conscious substrate" has been expounded by David Bohm the physicist.

0 Replies

Missing in action: Where is the mind?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know