[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 90 KB, 960x723, mind (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14988166 No.14988166 [Reply] [Original]

what is mind?

>> No.14988208

>>14988166
My believe about the mind does not appear in here.

>> No.14988245

>>14988166
good thread.

>> No.14988332

>>14988166
It's very telling that they never mention the soul in this. Clearly a materialist trying to guide people to materialist dogma.

>> No.14988411

>>14988166
no matter

>> No.14989027
File: 25 KB, 128x128, 1664791378909.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14989027

The more I learn, the less I seem to know

>> No.14989046

>>14988166
Pseudoscience

>> No.14991017

>>14988166
What is it?

>> No.14991111

>>14988166
One day, the best fucking hunter on the savannah beat a rival's head in with a chunk of rock.

As he wiped the brains from his hands, he said to himself, "Hey, I'm pretty good at this shit. WTF? Who said that?"

>> No.14991113

a sequence of sets of perceptions

>> No.14991125

>>14991113
there's nothing deeper than this btw. all science does is describe the pattern this sequence seems to follow

>> No.14991988

>>14991125
so, basically buddhism.

>> No.14992552

>>14991988
no buddhism makes lots of extra claims

>> No.14992557

>no idealism
Garbage chart

>> No.14992575

>>14991111
Checked and kekked.

>> No.14992687

>>14991113
That's not very succinct. What is a "perception?" Where is it? Where does it come from?

>> No.14992748

>>14992687
>That's not very succinct
it's as metaphysically minimal as one can be, and your questions couldn't possibly make it any more 'succinct'.
>What is a "perception?"
perception is a primitive concept. you already know what they are.
>Where is it?
a perception is located in a set of perceptions, and a set of perceptions is located in the sequence. a sequence of sets of of perceptions has no location as location is only defined in terms of that sequence. to ask this is like asking "how many atoms does an electron have?"
>Where does it come from?
again, cause is defined in terms of the sequence, so it has no cause.

>> No.14992774

>>14988166
OP's pic is for atheist faggots. Consciousness is the simple state of being alive and having a soul as god gave (You).
>>14988332
tpbp

>> No.14993017

>>14988166
Mind is that faculty which creates and retains in focus such constructs as the ones in your image for consciousness to observe. While it is undoubtedly a powerful tool and can be a wonderful gift, it's not identical with consciousness itself but is rather an object within it. By "such constructs" I don't mean the texts and images and even their individual semantic contents, but the entire world-complexes associated with the "-isms". Now what consciousness is, the best we can do is say that it's all that is. People will get extremely hung up on this, but what it means is that you can never point to something that isn't consciousness. Rationalism vs empiricism is just an arbitrary choice of which set of objects within consciousness you choose to privilege with your attention for the purpose of creating yet another object with your mind and within consciousness and you hope this object will somehow reflect the whole, but you forget that you made a choice to privilege one set and discount another. I can drop more hints but I got tired of typing. It's a really fun game tho.
>>14988332
You can remedy that by explaining the soul in your words. You're being a bit of a dick here, shitting on other people's honest inquiry into the nature of consciousness, for no other reason than to just make yourself feel superior. Unlike you, I can even back that "clear" assertion up, after all, if you cared about guiding people, you would.

>> No.14993064

>>14988411
what is matter?

>> No.14993271

>>14993064
>what is matter?
Something that can be interacted with

>> No.14993275

>>14993017
>You can remedy that by explaining the soul in your words. You're being a bit of a dick here, shitting on other people's honest inquiry into the nature of consciousness, for no other reason than to just make yourself feel superior. Unlike you, I can even back that "clear" assertion up, after all, if you cared about guiding people, you would.
Presenting "all sides of the debate" and eliminating nearly 50% of sides, if not more, is dishonest.

>> No.14993308

>>14993064
Never mind

>> No.14993316

It’s that last one. Science is only now catching up to what Eastern thinkers have known for millennia.

>> No.14993325

>>14993271
is there something that cant be interacted with? or is this just placeholder claim

>> No.14993327

>>14988166

The only thing you've ever truly known.
The subjective field in which all objects occur

>> No.14993347

>>14993275
Well present your side then. That's kind of the whole point, innit?

>> No.14993378

>>14988166
You don’t have Thomistic hylomorphism as an option. I recommend Edward Feser OP.

>> No.14993385

>>14993308
Let's go out for some frosty chocolate milkshakes!