A Philosophy of Mind

[AMod]

BB,

Amod,
You are defeating your purpiose the more people read your tyrannical stupidity they want to read what I write about philosohy of mind.

And from this you infer that I'm defeating my purpose?

The real problem here is you and the administration let Straw dog get away with not explaining what Metaphysics really means instead you let him reduce it to a shamful situation. I am starting to see your impairment Amod, it is ignorance. By the way how bout you telling the forum what is metaphysics?

What is it with philosophers that there always has to be a 'real' problem?

Why should the Dog be constrained by what you think it should be doing any more than you should be by what it thinks you should be doing and why does everyone one always want a third person to sort it out for them, or, is that to blame?

What do I think the word "metaphysics" is or means?

My current understanding of Metaphysics is it's those chapters after Aristotles Physics. Do I understand how the History of Philosophy is based upon those thoughts? Yes, as I've met some of the Romans and the 'Scholars' and read a fair chunk of the subsequent philosophical thought up to the late 20th century. So, to me, a "metaphysic" is the attempt to create what the Physicists call a TOE, a Theory of Everything, but in this case one related to what its like to be a Human or a Mind. A theory that explains why and how we 'think' thoughts. As such I think that Phenomenology is what Aristotle was describing as the tasks of his Metaphysics.

AMod

[Barbara Brooks]

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerning the nature of being; its underlying principle is pure thought, a state of being.

All things come under the might of physics beginning with the sun which has called individuality within itself, but metaphysics deals with space and time or matter and motion, specific gravity for they are only spatiality.

A main question metaphysics hypothesis about is not physical things, it is the study of non-being being and being non-being not about mere the property of things but wholly abstract being without any intermediary.

Material things are of time are subject to change, thus time has relativity, Metaphysics is absent from relativity: example, if there is no matter there is no motion or without motion there is no matter, this is the same of space and time and the repulsion and attraction of the gravitational force.


The study of Physics unfolds real being-for-self, the whole development of being-for-self and determination of the solar system. Individuality within one self, determined within oneself, liberated extracted from gravity revealed light

[Lusia Mousky]

Dear Mr. Butlin,

you are perfectly right about the compulsive behaviour of women who shop too much. As far as a I know they are tryiny to compensate for some unbearable fact of their lives: being stuck with an unloving husband for example.

As for women who were discouraged from philosophising I am still of the opinion that it was so. Aristotle, St. Paul and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were explicit about it and in Victorian England and also later young girls were expected to be charming sweeties in order to get a husband at all.
Why ?
Probably because a charming sweety without much brains was supposed to be good for a man´s virility. She would never contradict him, but always listen in great admiration.
Whereas an educated woman would point out the weak points of his argumentation to him and how many men like that ?

Men like to nurse their egos and they are ready to buy an illusion.
Truth and honesty are only interesting for very few courageous men.

Kind regards from

Lusia Mousky

[ponziq]

Socrates believed that God being everywhere and traverses the whole heaven appears perfect and fully winged soars upward, and orders the whole world, whereas we humans lose our wings droop in flight because of our ignorance.

The mind the greatest of God’s blessings, a thing, which is moved from without, is mindless; but that which is moved from within has a mind.



Knowledge to the rescue gives way to calculation, measure, and weight. In addition, this surely is the rational principle in the soul. The better part of human being is likely to be that which trusts to measure and calculate. The great elevating effect that compels the mind to reason about things is mathematics. It may truly be called necessary for the use of knowledge and truth. Mathematics is a kind of knowledge in which the best learners should be trained and which they must never give up. Second as necessary is geometry because it compels mind to view the vision of the idea of good, look at the full perfection of being and which everyone ought to behold, not in a narrow squaring, extending, and applying but with the mind for the sake of reason.

Barbara Brooks makes some good points here. However, the fact that Socrates believed that God being everywhere and traverses the whole heaven appears perfect and fully winged soars upward, and orders the whole world, whereas we humans lose our wings droop in flight because of our ignorance.

The mind the greatest of God’s blessings, a thing, which is moved from without, is mindless; but that which is moved from within has a mind.


Knowledge to the rescue gives way to calculation, measure, and weight. In addition, this surely is the rational principle in the soul. The better part of human being is likely to be that which trusts to measure and calculate. The great elevating effect that compels the mind to reason about things is mathematics. It may truly be called necessary for the use of knowledge and truth. Mathematics is a kind of knowledge in which the best learners should be trained and which they must never give up. Second as necessary is geometry because it compels mind to view the vision of the idea of good, look at the full perfection of being and which everyone ought to behold, not in a narrow squaring, extending, and applying but with the mind for the sake of reason.

Furthermore, Socrates believed that the mind being the greatest of God’s blessings (God being everywhere and traverses the whole heaven appears perfect and fully winged soars upward), is mindless is mindless is mindless and orders the whole world, whereas we humans lose our wings droop in flight because of our ignorance.

To wit the smell of noise is mindless is mindless is mindless and is a thing, which is moved from without, but that which is moved from within has a mind.

Knowledge to the rescue may truly be called necessary and gives way to calculation, measure, and weight. In addition, this surely is the rational principle in knowledge and truth. The soul being the essential in the human being is likely to be that which trusts to measure and calculate is mindless is mindless is mindless. The great elevating effect that compels the mind to reason about things is one that traverses the whole heaven appears perfect and fully winged soars upward. It may truly be called necessary for the use of knowledge and truth and is mindless is mindless is mindless. Mathematics is a kind of knowledge in which the best learners should be trained and which they must never give up for it gives way to calculation, measure, and weight. Second as necessary is geology because it compels mind to view the vision of rocks and stuff. The idea of good is to look at the full perfection of being and which everyone ought to behold, not in a narrow squaring, extending, and applying but with the mindless mind is mindless is mindless is mindless for the sake of reason and popcorn. Amen.

[ponziq]

Edited due to misattribution of authorship

Barbara and/or Arising,

Reason is regulated by words self-control such of things about beauty, harmony, grace, and good rhythm they depend on a ordered mind. Symbolically this is equivalent to the following statement

A map f of a set X to a set Y is a triple consisting of X, Y , and a rule,1
which assigns to every element of X exactly one element of Y . There are
other words with the same meaning: mapping, function, etc.
If f is a map of X to Y , then we write f : X → Y , or X
f→Y . The element b of Y assigned by f to an element a of X is denoted by f(a) and called the image of a under f, or the f-image of a. We write b = f(a), or af
7→ b, or f : a 7→ b.
A map f : X → Y is a surjective map, or just a surjection if every element
of Y is the image of at least one element of X. A map f : X → Y is an
injective map, injection, or one-to-one map if every element of Y is the image
of at most one element of X. A map is a bijective map, bijection, or invertible
map if it is both surjective and injective.
1

Thus moral actions is our work our grace and harmony as effective instrument of the mind, because rhythm and harmony find their way imparting grace, and good when reason comes we will recognize and salute it. Again, using our highly developed notation:

The image of a set A ⊂ X under a map f : X → Y is the set of images
of all points of A. It is denoted by f(A). Thus
f(A) = {f(x) | x ∈ A}.
The image of the entire set X (i.e., the set f(X)) is the image of f, it is
denoted by Imf.
The preimage of a set B ⊂ Y under a map f : X → Y is the set of
elements of X whith images in to B. It is denoted by f−1(B). Thus
f−1(B) = {a ∈ X | f(a) ∈ B}.


The true nature of the beauty and grace; and good is in everything that flow, like a gentle wind from a purer region, into likeness with reason.


QED

[Duncan Butlin]

Good evening, Ms. Mousky,

I am honoured by your reply. Several people on this site don’t take me seriously, so it is heart-warming when somebody does. Thanks very much. Please excuse me if this reply is a little incoherent, for I am in a rush, and cannot apply my normal standards of vetting and proof-reading.

I guess we will have to differ for the moment, concerning the suppression of female philosophising. I believe I have a far more interesting point bearing on the issue, anyway, which I am in the process of preparing for a post. I will alert you if and when I do. Basically, I am saying that women have actively avoided philosophising -- choosing to control all the philosophers instead!

I don’t think many men go for the ‘air-head’ blonde bimbo -- at least not when considering marriage. As I note on his subject thread, even Arthur Schopenhauer slips in an accolade to female perspicacity, right in the middle of his diatribe against women of all stripes. I think most husbands appreciate the fact that their wives can pick holes in their logic and ideas, and purposely try them out on their spouses, specifically to take advantage of their ‘flaw detection’ ability.

But I am afraid I have to agree with you, though, on your last two. We men certainly do like to nurse our egos, though I don’t think that’s such a bad thing; but your final accusation hits the nail right on the head. Men are so terrified in this modern, feminised world of ours, that they keep their mouths shut for most of the time -- and then hide this fact from themselves.

It takes a huge dose of courage, as you say, for a normal man to speak out ‘fearlessly’ -- slightly less for a man like me, who has very little left to lose.

[Straw Dog.]

Typical Princeton math.
I would smooth it out as such :

The ratio on the right is the average velocity over a short time At. The derivative, on
the left side, is its limit as the step At (delta t) approaches zero.
Go slowly and look at each piece. The distance at time t + At is f (t + At). The
distance at time t is f(t). Subtraction gives the change in distance, between those
times. We often write A f for this difference: A f =f (t + At) -f (t). The average velocity
is the ratio AflAt-change in distance divided by change in time.
The limit of the average velocity is the derivative, if this limit exists:
df -lim -.Af
dt At-0 At
This is the neat notation that Leibniz invented: Af/At approaches df /dt. Behind the
innocent word "limit" is a process that this course will help you understand.
Note that Af is not A times f! It is the change in f. Similarly At is not A times t.
It is the time step, positive or negative and eventually small. To have a one-letter
symbol we replace At by h.
The right sides of (1) and (2)contain average speeds. On the graph of f(t), the
distance up is divided by the distance across. That gives the average slope Af /At.
The left sides of (1) and (2)are instantaneous speeds dfldt. They give the slope at
the instant t. This is the derivative dfldt (when At and Af shrink to zero).

[ponziq]

Typical Princeton math.
I would smooth it out as such :

The ratio on the right is the average velocity over a short time At. The derivative, on
the left side, is its limit as the step At (delta t) approaches zero.
Go slowly and look at each piece. The distance at time t + At is f (t + At). The
distance at time t is f(t). Subtraction gives the change in distance, between those
times. We often write A f for this difference: A f =f (t + At) -f (t). The average velocity
is the ratio AflAt-change in distance divided by change in time.
The limit of the average velocity is the derivative, if this limit exists:
df -lim -.Af
dt At-0 At
This is the neat notation that Leibniz invented: Af/At approaches df /dt. Behind the
innocent word "limit" is a process that this course will help you understand.
Note that Af is not A times f! It is the change in f. Similarly At is not A times t.
It is the time step, positive or negative and eventually small. To have a one-letter
symbol we replace At by h.
The right sides of (1) and (2)contain average speeds. On the graph of f(t), the
distance up is divided by the distance across. That gives the average slope Af /At.
The left sides of (1) and (2)are instantaneous speeds dfldt. They give the slope at
the instant t. This is the derivative dfldt (when At and Af shrink to zero).

Can't argue with you here. However, Barbara Brooks also makes some good points about metaphysics and mathematics when she wrote the following (in a trance no doubt):

Mathematics is a kind of knowledge in which the best learners should be first toilet-trained and one in which they must take it up the fundamental aperture for reasons unknown to all but those similar to Arising. Second as necessary is topology because it compels mind to view the vision of two people making love. By love I mean physical love and not the non-existent non-physical kind. Hey everybody! Look at the full perfection of a hot babe which everyone ought to hold onto tight, not in a narrow screwing, extending, and applying but with the mindless drive of hotsexytime for reason is but a means and not an end.

To which I might add. Socrates believed that the genitals as being the greatest of God’s blessings (God being here and there and everywhere especially in our underwear and traverses the whole of hotsexybodies to appear perfect and fully erect soaring upwards and upwards until until until aaaahhhhhrrrrggggg!!!). Furthermore, all is mindless is mindless is mindless and disorders the whole world, whereas we humans lose our erections eventually (at least half of us do) and it's on to the next greatest thing ever that will finally finally make us happy for ever and ever. Amen.

Now this all ties into objective reality. To wit the smell of noise is mindless is mindless is mindless and is a thing, which is moved from without, but that which is moved from within has a mind which is subjectivity made objective. If you see what I mean.

Let me quote myself for I believe this quote will shed some light on life in general and reality in particular.

Knowledge to the rescue may truly be called necessary and gives way to calculation, measure, and weight. In addition, this surely is the rational principle in knowledge and truth. The soul being the essential in the human being is likely to be that which trusts to measure and calculate is mindless is mindless is mindless. The great elevating effect that compels the mind to reason about things is one that traverses the whole heaven appears perfect and fully winged soars upward. It may truly be called necessary for the use of knowledge and truth and is mindless is mindless is mindless. Mathematics is a kind of knowledge in which the best learners should be trained and which they must never give up for it gives way to calculation, measure, and weight. Second as necessary is geology because it compels mind to view the vision of rocks and stuff. The idea of good is to look at the full perfection of being and which everyone ought to behold, not in a narrow squaring, extending, and applying but with the mindless mind is mindless is mindless is mindless for the sake of reason and popcorn. Amen.

Reason and popcorn. Amen indeed!

[Barbara Brooks]

We acquired rknowledge before we were born, or at least at the instant of our birth. How astonishing. By the use of our senses we acquire what we previously knew. Then knowledge is a process of recovering and t maybe rightly termed recollection?

Whenever we perceive anything, either by the help of sight or hearing or some other senses, there is no difficulty in getting an idea of some other thing like it or unlike it. The proof of anything belongs to the process of knowledge.


Happy New Everyone.

[Duncan Butlin]

Good Morning, Amateur Philosopher,

Thank you for your kind words, and your support -- I will always be most grateful. But here I would like to question you one or two things, if you wouldn’t mind? I don’t think it is a good idea for you to churn back over all that Straw Dog stuff, you see; I think it would be far better left well alone. It is just the worst side of everybody’s nature coming out, and that is best concealed whenever possible. Pretend it was never exposed in public in the first place!

While we are talking, I hope you don’t mind me poking my nose, but I have noticed your posts on many other topics, and have read some of them. I am worried that you are repeating yourself, and thus risk diluting your message. Have you thought carefully about what you are trying to achieve?

Your comments to Straw Dog on Monday particularly caught my eye. First of all, do you really want to be talking to him at all? Since you have condemned his topic to outer darkness, I think you should do the same to him. Ok, he occasionally has real insights, but he is so out-of-control, and his language so vulgar, that it is not worth snorting around in the dirt to discover the rare truffles. When he does this for us himself, of his own accord, so all we see are the truffles; then he will be worth listening to.

Secondly, in your haste to defend those with mental illness, you over-state your case. I agree that no-one should be ruled out-of-court a priori, and that everyone who speaks up should have the floor for a while. But they have to be judged on what they say -- particularly if they hog the floor -- and if they don’t make sense, or are unable to control themselves to the satisfaction of the audience, then I think it reasonable to consider banning them. There are many other places for such people nowadays, if they really need support and assistance.

Anyway, with not a sign of mental illness, some people are still able to talk forever, without actually saying anything at all! They are simply being wayward, and we certainly have to prevent such people taking over. Barbara Brooks has not satisfied me with her replies. If she makes no further response for a week or two, I for one would like to take part in a grilling, to see if she can straighten up when put to the test. I suspect she needs to come down from her pedestal more frequently, and talk with the common herd, man-to-man.

Thirdly, you repeat your announcement of a special project you have in mind. How about telling us some more about it?, and seeing if anyone wants to help with it? I would really like to know what is on your mind. It seems to me that it might be a good idea to start a new topic for it, under an appropriate heading? Would you please alert me if you do?

What I would suggest is holding back a bit on these other issues, until you have something of real significance to contribute. Thanks for your time and patience!

[Straw Dog.]

Amod,

You are defeating your purpiose the more people read your tyrannical stupidity they want to read what I write about philosohy of mind.

The real problem here is you and the administration let Straw dog get away with not explaining what Metaphysics really means instead you let him reduce it to a shamful situation. I am starting to see your impairment Amod, it is ignorance. By the way how bout you telling the forum what is metaphysics?

Barbara

Metaphysics was a thinking tool employed before the advance of science to investigate the meaning of things. It is now no longer relevant.

Thales :"everything is water" is a tidy way to exemplify what metaphysical
inquiry is all about.

The fact that Straw Dog Blog at one point exceeded the page views of Barbara Brooks proves that BB is not necessarily popular for academic content .
If it were not for idiots like Mark Black and humanist bimbos like bustobondi then the woman would not be encouraged in her delusion that she has special metaphysical insight.

The fact is that her little space here on PN is sustained by curiosity which is an
insatiable human behaviour.

Barbara Brooks talks sheer nonsense and is deluded clinically and pathologically..
Her words do not make proper sentences and are the disjointed phrases of the mentally ill.

[Straw Dog.]

We acquired rknowledge before we were born, or at least at the instant of our birth. How astonishing. By the use of our senses we acquire what we previously knew. Then knowledge is a process of recovering and t maybe rightly termed recollection?
.

Great, now BB has finally decided to use proper syntax to communicate her ideas. This is a step forward in understanding the vacuity of her message.

BB states that we acquire knowledge before we are born. and then recants and modifies this to the instant(sic) of our birth.

It is not astonishing for geneticists that we have prior "knowledge"
Genetics makes up a fundamental part of our personalities.
The other factor is our personal unshared experiences.

When BB drops her pseudo babble all we see is lightweight rubbish ;notions unsupported by any academic learning.

[Straw Dog.]

Duncan Butlin wrote :Anyway, with not a sign of mental illness, some people are still able to talk forever, without actually saying anything at all! They are simply being wayward, and we certainly have to prevent such people taking over. Barbara Brooks has not satisfied me with her replies. If she makes no further response for a week or two, I for one would like to take part in a grilling, to see if she can straighten up when put to the test. I suspect she needs to come down from her pedestal more frequently, and talk with the common herd, man-to-man.

Good luck with the "grilling" pal.

[Barbara Brooks]

What utter sourness comes from here how can you stand living with yourselves and more so how can someone stand living with you ? You guys denounce ridicule and pontificate your way out of philosophy instead of trying to figure it out and make it better or at least to keep it alive. Maybe that is one reason the world is the way it is today.

What I talk about is ancient philosophy true, but for me it is the best around is harmless and loving. But, I get this ridicule as a response from you. Yes sometimes I repeat myself because that is how I feel at the time.

The process of earth perpetually ignited and incited by the sun, elements, and chemical process including the other particular physics of magnetism and electricity. The relationship of the sun to earth brings the difference of day and night, without earth's connection to the sun; earth would be devoid of process.

“If,” Schelling said, “Plants had consciousness they would worship the sun as its God.” The ego has a likeness to sun as self-consciousness, as a pure reflection to oneself or an empty uncertainty of oneself. The Hindus believe that if the ego could maintain itself in pure sameness it would pass away into transparent sunlight."

Unfortunately, the ego exists only in self-consciousness as a consciousness. Sunlight creates a product, has pure power, it has the possibility of unifying with all things it enters into community with; it is sharing of common interconnectedness where everything exists because it is in sunlight; Kindles the process of the Elements, arouses them and governs. The Elements are four, they are four, and air, fire, water, earth, and they are the roots of individuality.

It is my humble attempt to introduce from the standpoint of dialectic science a constructive deductive rational way of observing nature's definite unchanging scheme. Why so mean spirited has life crushed you so?

[Straw Dog.]

" Unfortunately, the ego exists only in self-consciousness as a consciousness. "

It is my humble attempt to introduce from the standpoint of dialectic science a constructive deductive rational way of observing nature's definite unchanging scheme. Why so mean spirited has life crushed you so?

Ok ,so here is your humble chance to enter into a discourse ,with the Dog.
Your phrase above has no meaning in neurological science or psychology; so where does it come from ?

There is no such thing as the self-conscious vs the conscious.
They are the same thing. If you consider Freud ,you have the conscious the unconscious the super ego and the id. However ,none of these states can be proved . You Barbara Brooks are laying claim to being rated among the great minds of psychology. You are a charlatan .


It is up to right minded people to expose frauds. I hate frauds and pseudos they are a disease. Philosophy is the pursuit of truth and clarity of
thought. You do nothing but obscure the truth with your pseudo babble.