Missing in action: Where is the mind?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Is that what you think?
That "bullet" is miles off. You just shot yourself in the leg, kid.

The problem here is that you seem to take it for granted that your idea is the right one and that everything I'm saying is crazy. Arrogance, is what that is. Do you think that I am oblivious to the concept of the cosmos? Either try to consider how that idea fits into what I am saying or go masturbate somewhere else.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

...show some composure and go back to read what you have been writing...
...this kid here is miles beyond your wildest dreams...and that is a fact regardless you acknowledge it or not Cyr...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Yes, arrogance.
Let me see... You have an idea that you share with the vast majority of people on earth, an idea that is taught to us since grade school. You think that when I am making my posts, it is with no knowledge of the cosmos whatsoever. Maybe that's why you continue to miss the point...

The cosmos is this tangled hierarchy of relationships I am talking about. It is not a fixed entity or absolute. It is not the foundation on which that happens.
I thought we were having a discussion about philosophy here, but it turns out you were just after confirmation for your severely inflated sense of accomplishment. Why should I waste my time jerking off some naive-realist half wit?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...in fact true arrogance is to challenge an opinion without so much trying to put an argument together with heads or tails in place...

...I don´t have an ultimate truth but I certainly don´t sit my ass around and give up thinking like you do just for the sake of comfort while repeating some nonsensical sound bytes out of vogue by now...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

...in fact true arrogance is to challenge an opinion without so much trying to put an argument together with heads or tails in place...

Yep, what, did you suddenly have a moment of self awareness?

Quote:

...I don´t have an ultimate truth but I certainly don´t sit my ass around and give up thinking like you do just for the sake of comfort while repeating some nonsensical sound bytes out of vogue by now...

The moment must have passed, because that is precisely what you are doing.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

...I think you don´t even have an idea on what absolute means regarding your last post but I can give my account of absolute in a philosophical sense:
Absolute ultimately means with FORM, (not necessarily physical) accomplished, complete, done...without it you don´t have nor much nor few...everything falls apart...that is my point all the way... you speak of truth in a light manner... the sense of the word evades you in depth...I have no grudge against you I even think you are a nice fellow but irony of irony´s I am the one feeling an outstanding arrogance on your part...you don´t make an effort to listen but yourself...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I am the one feeling an outstanding arrogance on your part

That is because I don't believe in your absolutes.
I see them as redundant. You see them as something fundamental. If you want to get a sense of where I am coming from you need to get over the notion that the cosmos is the "backdrop of perception", so to speak. It seems to me you have the idea that reality or the cosmos would appear just as it appears to humans even if there weren't a single human being around to observe it. Am I wrong?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

...indeed you are wrong...I don´t think the Cosmos is like we perceive it...I think our perception still is a valid function of relation with a true Cosmos ! I am a moderate !

1 Reply

then I disagree with both of you

the cosmos is absolute

2 Replies

@north,

...who said the Cosmos is not ??? I did n´t...
...the issue at hand is to know it in an absolute manner which is impossible...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...who said the Cosmos is not ???
...the issue at hand is to know it in an absolute manner which is impossible...

to your last statement

I disagree

there is a macro and micro aspect to the Universe

both can be absolutely known

0 Replies

...there is an old debate regarding what absolute and contingent means...
...to me absolute does not mean actual in all possible universes...
Universe by definition means one...even if a multiverse you still end up with a Uni-verse ...
...in that sense absolute to me means a necessary function in reality...something that exists, no matter if I can describe it or not...in turn (time passing is irrelevant once stuff is NECESSARY in a Uni-verse) what is contingent is not the thing itself but the algorithm which attempts an explanation on the thing once it imply´s a specific point of view towards it which is not must not be unique although it can be sound...say, my left wing description of a cube is no less true then my right wing description of a cube or a top down approach...although of course if my vision is impaired I can make a mistake in any of these approaches...each of them is complete in the sense of valid...complete also, because they are not trying to be the thing, but to describe a relation with the thing...such relation is True, and truly complete !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...there is an old debate regarding what absolute and contingent means...
...to me absolute does not mean actual in all possible universes...
Universe by definition means one...even if a multiverse you still end up with a Uni -verse ...
...in that sense absolute to me means a necessary function in reality...something that exists, no matter if I can describe it or not...in turn what is contingent is not the thing itself but the algorithm which attempts an explanation on the thing once it imply´s a specific point of view towards it which is not must not be unique although it can be sound...

Fil

this is the difference between you and me then

you look at mathematics as the " be end all " explaination of things , algorithm, I don't

relise that in order for mathematics to be a part of any understanding of anything means that FIRST there had to be a physical object in the first place

2 Replies

@north,

...there you go with "physical"... what the hell does it mean physical beyond the fact that you experience a physical function in the mathematical relation of things ? physical is a function of relations also and that´s what you don´t get North...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...You think that´s air you breathing now ? "PHYSICAL" EH ?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I don´t think the Cosmos is like we perceive it...I think our perception still is a valid function of relation with a true Cosmos !

But you think our perception relates with a "true cosmos"?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

...I think there is something rather then nothing yes ! and that there is no middle term in between !
...that alone seems to be enough to make my point given properly understood where I am coming from...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
To know the meaning of any object we must inquire of some subject... Life is the essential element to meaning for nothing means anything to the dead....

...here I partially don´t agree Fido...the thing is meaning is just, to use your favourite expression, another FORM of expressing real value, just as value itself a way of expressing the importance of a function for a system...what I mean is even if the relation is purely in between objects without subjects, although you don´t have the presence of meaning as a form, you can still have its most direct "cousin" in place, which is systemic value importance based on functionality relevancy, working as a less "evolved" more abstract version of meaning...complexity and not necessarily awareness or consciousness gets that all around us in nature !
(Example: ...algorithms that establish what shuts down first and last in an adapting system, what is more and less relevant...)

Again, and as Schopenhaur said: The world dies with me... What is the world except a meaning??? If there were no people would the world have any meaning???It makes little difference what is with regard to meaning, but it makes a great deal of difference who is alive to recognize meaning... I will not say things are not only because they have no meaning, but meaning is the essential recognition of being, and in fact, of all or moral forms, all we have is meaning without being, and on the basis of meaning alone say there is God, Or life, or Truth, or Justice, or Virtue when considered from the point of science or physical reality are only spiritual qualities... We give these moral forms meaning which is their reality because we find them necessary to our survival... Their meaning is their being, but in a real sense, their meaning is our being as well, and that fact gives them all the reality they will ever have...

1 Reply

@north,

north wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...where´s the mind ?
...in the gap right between the train and the platform !

the mind is in awareness

since when this happens to me , I can neither , control the body reaction and nor do I have the ability to make sense of it , I can't think

I would say instead the mind is the term we most use for the brain being conscious of being conscious...

0 Replies

@Fido,

...but you think I don´t recognize the central importance of meaning ???
...I just want to frame what it serves for in a more abstract way...I for instance can be described as a human or as a set or as a system even as a world...none of it is wrong...in how many forms can you in turn describe meaning...I have present you some alternatives for the very meaning (purpose) of meaning itself !

0 Replies

Missing in action: Where is the mind?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know