4 ms·

But on that note, do you think the mind can be defined? I'd be interested to see if you could do it "objectively".

by creep 9y ago

zerostar07 9y ago
No, which means maybe we should stop arguing about it. 'Mind' is primarily a word. EDIT: i seem to be restricted from replying further: We can discuss everything, but the argument goes in circles around non-duality, hard problem of consciousness, subjective experience, and keeps moving the goalpost of the "mind" to increasingly subjective and impossible to examine-or-falsify definitions. We can equally discuss about any kind of fiction. You also have another beast: define "definition" and "objectively". Those are not concrete entities that can be probed in the real world, they are convenient shortcuts to our mental processes that may well be flukes.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  The idea that we can't discuss anything until we can precisely define it presents a bootstrapping problem for science.
- creep 9y ago
  Interesting thought. Should we stop arguing about the universe as well?
- creep 9y ago
  In response to your edit: Yes, exactly. That is the chaotic aspect. You can't really define anything but you can define everything. It's paradoxical. Whatever. We still need the illusory aspects. Without such discussion we would never have had the industrial revolution, artificial intelligence, medication, etc. All of these things were based off of discussions of inexplicable ideas like morals, idealism, health, utilitarianism and, yes, MIND. Define all of those things for me, in an objective way. You can't. Sorry. None of these are really based off of reality. They work in reality, but that doesn't mean anything.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>But on that note, do you think the mind can be defined? A visceromotorically allostatic predictive regulator of sensorimotor contingencies.
didibus 9y ago
If you use mind as an undefined word, then of course, words are easily definable. If by the use of the word mind, you are referring to some specific thing, then me defining what you refer to is simply restating your definition of that thing. Most conversation of mind thus end up in semantic debates or system of beliefs. Like you say, until we can objectively observe a representation of the self in the brain, and label it mind, then the mind isn't a real thing. Now you can imagine a thing which you have not observed, believe it to exist, and call it mind. That's where you start debating beliefs, which is a futile exercise. I thus like to define the mind as the subset of my brain which generates my inner voice. And the self is the set of things my mind groups under it, for example when I say "I". Self is thus a moving target defined by my mind. Mostly an imaginary construct therefore.

But on that note, do you think the mind can be defined? I'd be interested to see if you could do it "objectively".

by creep 9y ago

But on that note, do you think the mind can be defined? I'd be interested to see if you could do it "objectively".

No, which means maybe we should stop arguing about it. 'Mind' is primarily a word. EDIT: i seem to be restricted from replying further: We can discuss everything, but the argument goes in circles around non-duality, hard problem of consciousness, subjective experience, and keeps moving the goalpost of the "mind" to increasingly subjective and impossible to examine-or-falsify definitions. We can equally discuss about any kind of fiction. You also have another beast: define "definition" and "objectively". Those are not concrete entities that can be probed in the real world, they are convenient shortcuts to our mental processes that may well be flukes.

mannykannot 9y ago
The idea that we can't discuss anything until we can precisely define it presents a bootstrapping problem for science.
creep 9y ago
Interesting thought. Should we stop arguing about the universe as well?
creep 9y ago
In response to your edit: Yes, exactly. That is the chaotic aspect. You can't really define anything but you can define everything. It's paradoxical. Whatever. We still need the illusory aspects. Without such discussion we would never have had the industrial revolution, artificial intelligence, medication, etc. All of these things were based off of discussions of inexplicable ideas like morals, idealism, health, utilitarianism and, yes, MIND. Define all of those things for me, in an objective way. You can't. Sorry. None of these are really based off of reality. They work in reality, but that doesn't mean anything.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago

>But on that note, do you think the mind can be defined? A visceromotorically allostatic predictive regulator of sensorimotor contingencies.

didibus 9y ago

If you use mind as an undefined word, then of course, words are easily definable. If by the use of the word mind, you are referring to some specific thing, then me defining what you refer to is simply restating your definition of that thing. Most conversation of mind thus end up in semantic debates or system of beliefs. Like you say, until we can objectively observe a representation of the self in the brain, and label it mind, then the mind isn't a real thing. Now you can imagine a thing which you have not observed, believe it to exist, and call it mind. That's where you start debating beliefs, which is a futile exercise. I thus like to define the mind as the subset of my brain which generates my inner voice. And the self is the set of things my mind groups under it, for example when I say "I". Self is thus a moving target defined by my mind. Mostly an imaginary construct therefore.