Missing in action: Where is the mind?

...pay special attention to the final part of the next video...

Perhaps a bit more to the point of the thread...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuuKBInwQRU

..here is why I cannot but be amazed on how people can miss the entire point even while in the presence of information in front of their eyes...ain´t stupidity so consistent ?
...the question of free will is absolutely central to the approach on the problem of consciousness, (every expert agrees on that) either as an effect, an illusion, resulting from an over all sum of tricks explained in a systemic process of functions or alternatively, as the top down volitional willing full entity which is almost magically claimed by others...I don´t know about you but this mind thesis sounds allot like in favour of a supernatural entity which evades causal functional relations, which is intelligent because is intelligent, having nothing to do with a mechanistic systemic effect of well explained operating functions...I don´t buy magic, and no less then magic my friends is what truly is in debate on this thread !

I am amazed at how a quasi, hobby philosopher like yourself can presume to know more about it that some of the most educated and informed members of the scientific community. Have I ever said you are arrogant? That would be a gross understatement.



The question of free will is, like I have said before, an irrelevant relic of theistic thinking. But then again, your entire belief system seems to be nothing but theism where you have replaced deities with your absolutes.

I suppose you are one of that kind of deep down stupid persons who don´t even realises that the question is not irrelevant because it makes sense to ask it...what has been said is precisely against your position in this thread, thus what is not justified is the belief on free will and not the question itself, or has William Lane Craig defends the "liberum arbitrium" central to the question of good and evil, which is what believing in a mind stands for...my position being against free will is against an willing living being a designer and in favour of a more mathematical inanimate approach on describing reality, and the apparent effect of minds at large...you have often prove to not understand the basics not even the questions to be in any position of debating the matter !

...you would be amazed on how many of those guys actually don´t have a clue on what they are talking about...would be very interesting to ask some half a dozen mathematicians in the world what they think about those experts in your charts of reference...in fact my previous video shows that quite well to a properly trained eye...

Logically, it makes sense to ask what is beyond the edge of the universe. It is logical because of our understanding of distance and location. But the question, even though it sounds sensible to ask it, isn't relevant. What makes it sound sensible is a flaw in the logic, the flaw being that we are transferring familiar concepts to something that is so abstract that the concepts no longer provide a clear description of the issue.
People who do not realize this think it's logical to assume that "if there is a border, and something within that border, then there has to be something beyond that border", and then they are awestruck by the paradox.

In general, if a question makes sense to ask, but the answer to that question doesn't clarify the issue, indeed, if it just makes a bigger jumble of it, any intelligent person would probably start examining his justifications for asking that question.
It is an accepted fact that none of the cosmologies and theologies produced in the past can account for consciousness. They all create paradoxes we have to reconcile.

It's not the first time either. Copernicus resolved some issues by reversing the view that was predominant in his time; that the sun revolved around the earth. That led to new insights.
Then Kant reversed the predominant view of his time; that the "forms" as he called them, were part of nature. He said they were part of our perception, thereby leading us to new insights.

A huge, glaring problem in modern cosmology is the phenomenon of consciousness. Recently, some interesting attempts at solving it has led to a new reversal. Instead of saying that consciousness grew out of the physical universe by some inexplicable event, the idea that the physical universe, what we perceive as reality, grew out of consciousness. It's a veritable copernican twist.
And it is not rooted in ancient myths and outdated science. It is rooted in some of the most ground breaking discoveries being made right now.

You can, of course, turn a blind eye to this and keep stroking your ego, or you can investigate it for yourself. Your choice.

...you still and probably won´t be able to provide me an example on some credible name that thinks this particular question is irrelevant...
...regarding the frontier thing I fully agree with you...so what ?
...since I was 15 always said that the question of what is beyond our universe does not make sense and that there is no nothingness beyond our space time frame...it was precisely from there I started thinking upon the concept of nothingness as an illusion, I understood the concept is self contradictory...

...one of the things I deeply dislike in your attitude goes when you for any reason get pissed off with something and immediately drop out of a civilised conversation deliberately trying to impinge a point of view on someone's mouth that you know not to be true...if you want to play ball play a clean game !
Everybody that has spent sometime reading my posts should be sufficiently informed on my atheistic positions regarding these and other matters...for several times now you have been told so directly by me, and nevertheless, usually on this type of situation, you have shown no constrains on accusing me of being a theist to divert attention from you...now that been said, if you care to make a search on youtube you will learn that theists are big supports of the pro mind lobby, and it does not take a genius to figure out why...in fact it takes more then just distraction to make the opposite association and go spreading to the four winds that someone who is against the idea of minds at large must be a theist with an hidden agenda...

I could say the same to you. Perhaps it is your rather crude use of English that makes you not realize when you are being arrogant or condescending, or just plain insulting.
I am not saying it to insult you, but your views do remind me of theism. You would not be the first to attempt to validate his beliefs by swapping the names of deities and religious concepts with more modern words.

I am aware of the fact that theist will seize upon any scientific or philosophical theory that they can twist to resemble their religious beliefs. That is nothing new.

...again you are deliberately avoiding an explanation on how someone who is against minds at large can be in favour of Theism, that is, a Universal mind, a designer who volitionally is responsible for the creation of the Universe...it just does n´t follow...by now you should already had understood this and still you chose to not say a thing about it and be rather vague...now how does that compute in your moral campus ? what does that say upon your intentions on this conversation ? Finally you charge with the bad English thing in hope of once again diverting the matter, but I bet you a beer that anybody reading this post right now can actually quite well get my meaning, and thus dismiss what you deliberately have been trying to imply on my position and which is not only false but logically unsound...

Oh, so you mean all your condescending insults and arrogant statements were intentional? Forgive me for trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, despite my earlier retaliations...

What I mean about your ideas resembling theism is that you keep advocating absolutes in one form or another. You seem to think that the dynamic nature of the universe requires some anchor.

By the way, what do you you mean by "against minds at large"?

I agree that theists and absolutists are in the same stew.

Against minds at large intends to mean not only against a greater intelligence a greater mind as a God but against any idea of mind like you or me having a willing mind...

...from where does it follow logically such argument regarding foundations ? ...most scientist which are mainly atheists believe there is a foundation for reality, are you distracted ? In turn the opposite can be shown regarding your pro mind lobby which naturally does not oppose the idea of a greater Intelligence, on the contrary, invites the belief in...
Are you all talk or do you have anything relevant and logical to state ?

Dude... I don't know what drugs you are on, but they definitely don't mix well with internet forums...

...you are so ignoramus that can´t distinguish between a brain and a willing mind...I would advise you to the latest readings in neuroscience in order to learn the difference between processing information in the brain and willingly process information accordingly to conscious mind...mind is an "effect" and not an intelligent agent on itself...

...finally to say that this will be my last post to you since you have proven the kind of cheap character you are, not being worth any particular attention...keep on talking with your few dumb pals able to take your undigested nonsense seriously...best of luck !

*happyface*

For a start, there is only one number, the number one, having with an object a one to one relationship, and that is the concept, and a pure concept at that... All the other numbers are simply signs having a relationship of ratio with the number one...

How would free will be different from will in general, and how would you individuate free will when Schopenhaur warned against doing so???

...the issue raised is not upon the problem of will all alone but upon the authority of the "I" in willing consciously...