29
   

Missing in action: Where is the mind?

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2012 10:28 pm
@bulldogcoma,
Well that is the most amazing claim I heard in the past few days...even I who actually believe it would n´t there to make such a statement...must be a very advanced scale you heard about...
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2012 12:58 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Laughing
Why are you amazed ?
If "thoughts" involve energy then by definition they will have mass. (E=MCsqd)). I suggest your "informational paradigm" would be dependent on that! (ref: Information exchange involves particle exchange)
voiceindarkness
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2012 02:30 pm
You nerd turds trying to impress each other, with your big words and fancy phrases?

What do you know that wasn't taught you, or influenced by something outside of you?

What have you actually witnessed, first hand experience, of life and reality?

What have you seen that makes you a credible witness, or a judge of anything?

All that you know, is only what you think you know.

bulldogcoma
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2012 04:17 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Stating that thoughts don't have mass would entail them being independent of time and space, and therefore non-existence in a physical sense. Take the experiment which involved random event generators at the time of a crisis situation and you can see that a majority of people experiencing the same passionate level of emotion causes the events not to be so random anymore.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 11:57 am
@voiceindarkness,
voiceindarkness wrote:

You nerd turds trying to impress each other, with your big words and fancy phrases?

What do you know that wasn't taught you, or influenced by something outside of you?

What have you actually witnessed, first hand experience, of life and reality?

What have you seen that makes you a credible witness, or a judge of anything?

All that you know, is only what you think you know.


First; Thank you for lumping me with the nerds instead of the Jocks... I get complements on looking like Rodins's thinker, especially when I am caught on the pot... In any event, it is by force of will that knowledge is gained, and for those who discover anything new, there is no doubt to them that they have learned something because the effort born of necessity always bears the sweetest fruit when it bear fruit at all...

The proof of our knowledge is our survival... If you removed the knowledge gained in the last hundred years it would be obvious in a drop of population to one that could be supported by a less advanced technology...
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 12:17 pm
@bulldogcoma,
bulldogcoma wrote:

Stating that thoughts don't have mass would entail them being independent of time and space, and therefore non-existence in a physical sense. Take the experiment which involved random event generators at the time of a crisis situation and you can see that a majority of people experiencing the same passionate level of emotion causes the events not to be so random anymore.
Thoughts do not have mass, and in a sense they are free of the limits of space and time... We can be a hundred years late, in the center of a star, and at the far side of the visible cosmos in mere moments with a thought... We cannot with thought alone give to thoughts greater moment than they possess as the next to nothings they are, and yet those little things built upon the mighty complexity of the human brain give us all the meaning and moment we own... I think your conclusion of "Majority" says it all... We are all the same and all different, and at times think or do not think with a single mind, and at times think well or badly with our individual minds...All the arguments of determinism and free will center on the mind as our method of focusing on the human brain...

I don't want to be sentimental or soft headed.. I welcome every understanding granted to us by the hard and soft sciences, and yet I recongize that in humanity and in human experience is vested a great deal of variation born out of the variability of our genes, environment and social situations... I am personally unusual... Well, I grew up in an unusual time with unusual people... Still, I would be much more like others were it not for experiences unique to me and; and worse still, if I had not brought a uniqueness to those unique experiences that twisted me, and tied me up in a fashion all my own... I am not like anyone my parents ever knew, and I am so unlike my siblings as to seem nearly an alien and sorjourner... My situation was weird and I brought weirdness to the experiences of it...No science looking for the average would ever see me... I could slip out of all but the strongest and finest net, and for that reason I am still free... I alone have survived to tell you...
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 03:04 pm
@Fido,
Interesting statement, Fido.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 03:04 pm
@Fido,
Interesting statement, Fido.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 03:40 pm
@fresco,
...nonsense comment as usual...my criticism was upon the claim that thoughts have been weighted, and not about they having mass which they do, or better, they reflect the existence of mass...man u need to pay attention...u are just biased all the way when I write something are n´t you ? oh well... Laughing
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 09:14 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
By "weighted" I assume you mean "experimentally weighed". To argue something has "mass" but not "weight" is merely to argue that that the thing does not detectably respond to what we call a "gravitational field". And since even photons do respond to gravitational fields the ontological status of "thoughts with mass" is somewhat nebulous !
Does the thought of a "thought with mass" have mass ? Wink
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 12:59 am
@fresco,
Again Fresco point me to where I argued against mass in thought...I merely remarked with irony that no such thing as measurement of the weight of a thought did ever occurred !
People often confuse scientific statements has those previously presented in which we deduce thoughts to have weight with such a concrete measurement ever been made...you are aiming at blue thin air there !
Arrogant as you are you did n´t care to look at what I actually wrote up there...but no worries I take the time to refresh your memory:

Quote:
Well that is the most amazing claim I heard in the past few days...even I who actually believe it would n´t there to make such a statement...must be a very advanced scale you heard about...


At best we measure neural activity or the electric charges pressure occurring in neural transaction and such like but arguing something as generalist and vague as the measurement of the "weight of thoughts" ? give me a break...its not even good for pop science. Laughing
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 11:35 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Just to clarify. What are you claiming to believe ?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 01:16 pm
@fresco,
I believe that the brain and its neural activity have weight...I don´t believe "thoughts" have been weighed....
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 02:47 pm
@fresco,
Wow, Fresco. That's heavy--such weighty thoughts! Smile
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 05:33 pm
@JLNobody,
...its amazing that people like you two self portray themselves a respectable image of education and good behaviour...most of your comments when not complete nonsense are resumed either to side talks or really very primary easy jokes...you look like children playing with candy, pathetic...I am left wondering if this is a race to the dumbest pseudo intellectual moment of the week ?

...your pal back there was far off, and you if clever enough should have left it alone...trying to distort other people comments in such a low and dumb form is not just annoying but fundamentally poor...
bulldogcoma
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 05:45 pm
@Fido,
Well, considering the way electrons and molecules travel in the brain, whatever part of your brain your using to form a cohesive thought would have more mass due to electrons bundling in a certain area. Therefore, at the place where the "thought" occurs there would be more mass than existed previously. I don't want to act like I believe that we create mass just by thinking, but rather that our minds put more molecular emphasis on the task we are focusing on. Also, the brain tends to rewire itself due to shifts in perspective, therefore the neurons are pointed more in a particular direction than before, allowing us to adapt to situations our brains have recognized as being more frequent than others (look at the brain scans of yogi monks during meditation.) But, hey, I'm no scientist, I'm just ruminating about nonsensical conclusions which seem accurate to me...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 12:25 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Do us all a favour and steer clear of personal comments.

You have advocated, on previous threads, a belief in a universal "information exchange system". Since "information" in physics always implies particle exchange, and by definition particles have mass/energy, then assuming you associate "thoughts" with "information", it follows from your system that thoughts should have mass (and therefore weight). The fact that such mass/weight is difficult to detect should be irrelevant to you.

If on the other hand, you don't wish to pursue the "thought-information-particle" argument, it suggests your system is ontologically inconsistent.
(From my point of view, that has always been the case irrespective of the physics).
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 04:43 am
I may have got this all wrong, but it is my impression that the newer theories of physics tells us that the physical realm we can observe is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
We need to get it into our heads that "physicality" is our perception.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 05:42 am
@Cyracuz,
I agree. "Physicality" is one aspect of a relationship between conceptualizer and conceived.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 07:07 am
@fresco,
Again my criticism was upon the false statement that Thoughts have been WEIGHED which is FALSE and a false statement is anything but irrelevant less alone one which was done in the name of Science...

First of all thoughts are streams of several not one associated processes sufficient reason why no such measurement would ever be possible, there´s no such thing as "thoughts" in one exact place to be weighed, but processes that are conductive to a state of mind...therefore the case was not against mass or weight but against a false and vague statement in the name of science...it follows that I never claimed that thoughts don´t have mass or weight but that no such scale was ever used to measure the weight of thought, at best of bests, of thought processes which are specific neuronal transactions that result in thought...you insisting on such mistake out of trying to get me or force me into contradiction to gain the upper hand on something as simple to explain as that only shows the display of sheer mediocrity and the simple-mindedness of most of your posts and comments, as they don´t deserve or are worth a minute of attention. Tonto which promptly came into your help could n´t get it either...classic !
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/18/2021 at 02:46:53