What is the use of self?

[ken]

I believe that there is a link between what we have experienced (input) and an abstract thought. That is true because we learn simple things (not abstract) through what we perceive in early part of life. I however don't understand how we could initiate an abstract thought and following a chain of abstracts thoughts since an abstract thought might not have anything to do with what we have experienced. So I am puzzled.

I explained this previously in the question, If you have never experienced anything, then how could you have a thought? If you say we still can AND you provide some logically reasonable examples, then we can look at this further. However, if you can not and do not, and you do not change your view, then you will just remain puzzled.

That is true that we need to experience actual things in our early stage of lives before we can construct any abstract thoughts.

If you agree that we need to experience actual things, which is a set of stimulus (input), first, before any thought, abstract or not, takes place, and it can be proven that every function/behavior comes from a thought, then you must also be able to agree that the system, human being, can NOT function without input, right?

This has to be accepted, agreed upon, and understood first, before we can move onto discovering What the actual use of self is.

I just don't understand how such a things is possible: How we can possibly have an abstract thought when all things we can experience in our lives are actual?

This is, again, easy to understand, once you know how the sixth sense works. But because you believe some things already, you are not prepared to understand how the human being actually works exactly. You have to be prepared to understand some thing before it could be fully explained to you.

But one example might be to think about what does 'love' and/or the 'Mind' actually mean?

The way knowledge is passed on from one generation to the next (from adults to children) influences how much actual abstract thinking takes place.

Yes, human could function without any thoughts. Consider the cases when we do things that we learn very well, like driving.

If you believe there is absolutely no thoughts at all exidting within a head while it is driving, then you are seriously mistaken.

Just because you are not consciously aware of thoughts that does not mean they are not there, taking place. For example do you think your body can stop the car without some sort of thought taking place in the brain telling the foot to place itself on the brake pedal and push it at a certain amount of pressure so to reduce the speed of the car to a necessary speed so as to avoid a collision with something else? Or do you just think your body can function completely autonomously without any one driving it?

Sure, the human body can function in unconscious mode, for example, like when it is completely unaware of why it is here in Life and who the person within it actually is. The human body can also function in sub-coscious mode, for example, like when after years of experience of driving a car the human body can preform many, many functions and even drive very long distances whilst not being fully aware of what it is actually doing. BUT there is still thoughts taking place that are only sub-consciously being aware of. Then there are the obvious consciously aware of thoughts like when we are deciding were we are, where we are, and how we are going to get to where we want to get to when we are not very familiar with the places.

I am not sure that the subconscious mental states are thoughts. Do you have an argument or an evidence to show that? Thought for me is a conscious mental state.

When you are driving a motor vehicle and you want to turn left at the next intersection. The brain will tell the hand to move the indicator in the right direction, the brain will instruct the foot/feet to perform the correct procedures to slow down the motor vehicle, stop it if necessary, and then speed it up around the corner, all at the same time the brain is guiding your eyes to move from side to side looking out for pedestrians, other motor vehicles, as well as any other obstacles in your path, and also to look in the mirrors for any danger behind you. You may not be in a fully conscious mental state of the brain telling, instructing, and guiding all the parts of the body to behave in certain ways to perform the actions that are needed to move the motor vehicle safely around a left hand corner, BUT the telling, the instructing, and the guiding from the brain all exist in thought. These thoughts are happening in the sub-conscious mental state. You may be actually conscious (fully aware) of the thought that you may be having at the moment you are turning the corner, which could be absolutely anything, but you still managed to have thoughts, within/from the brain, that controlled the rest of the body.

You wanted to get somewhere and you can only get there by thinking or with thoughts. You may not be fully aware of every thought that got you to where you are, but how you actually got to where you are is obviously done by thinking or thoughts. You could not have turned the indicator on if you did not have a thought to turn left, and, if you had not had a thought, obviously from the brain, which controlled the movement of the hand that actually turned the left indicator on and turned the steering wheel to the left. All of those thoughts that you were not fully aware of, which got you to where you are now, were sub-conscious thoughts. They happened in the sub-conscious mental state.

A good way to see/understand how this actually works is to write down every thought that is actually taking place in that head, then you will notice that it is near impossible to be in a full and always conscious mental state. Thoughts are happening but near impossible, if not impossible, to keep up with all of them. There may well be millions of thoughts happening within that head that you are NOT fully aware of. To Me, 'conscious' implies being fully aware of or having knowledge of something, and, 'sub-conscious' implies only being somewhat or partly aware of or only having some knowledge of something, and, obviously 'unconscious' implies not being aware at all of and not having any knowledge of something.

No matter if a person is in a conscious, sub-conscious, or unconscious mental state, thoughts are still changing and always existing, within an awaken head. Within a sleeping head, however, how much thought or thinking is actually happening I am not at all aware of.

[attofishpi]

What is the use of self?

It helps when eating fish and chips.

[bahman]

That is true that we need to experience actual things in our early stage of lives before we can construct any abstract thoughts.

If you agree that we need to experience actual things, which is a set of stimulus (input), first, before any thought, abstract or not, takes place, and it can be proven that every function/behavior comes from a thought, then you must also be able to agree that the system, human being, can NOT function without input, right?

This has to be accepted, agreed upon, and understood first, before we can move onto discovering What the actual use of self is.

This we can agree upon for sake of discussion. I however don't understand yet that how we could construct apriori thoughts, what I call abstract thought, such as all bachelors are unmarried.

I just don't understand how such a things is possible: How we can possibly have an abstract thought when all things we can experience in our lives are actual?

This is, again, easy to understand, once you know how the sixth sense works. But because you believe some things already, you are not prepared to understand how the human being actually works exactly. You have to be prepared to understand some thing before it could be fully explained to you.

But one example might be to think about what does 'love' and/or the 'Mind' actually mean?

The way knowledge is passed on from one generation to the next (from adults to children) influences how much actual abstract thinking takes place.

I have no idea what the sixth sense is.

I am not sure that the subconscious mental states are thoughts. Do you have an argument or an evidence to show that? Thought for me is a conscious mental state.

When you are driving a motor vehicle and you want to turn left at the next intersection. The brain will tell the hand to move the indicator in the right direction, the brain will instruct the foot/feet to perform the correct procedures to slow down the motor vehicle, stop it if necessary, and then speed it up around the corner, all at the same time the brain is guiding your eyes to move from side to side looking out for pedestrians, other motor vehicles, as well as any other obstacles in your path, and also to look in the mirrors for any danger behind you. You may not be in a fully conscious mental state of the brain telling, instructing, and guiding all the parts of the body to behave in certain ways to perform the actions that are needed to move the motor vehicle safely around a left hand corner, BUT the telling, the instructing, and the guiding from the brain all exist in thought. These thoughts are happening in the sub-conscious mental state. You may be actually conscious (fully aware) of the thought that you may be having at the moment you are turning the corner, which could be absolutely anything, but you still managed to have thoughts, within/from the brain, that controlled the rest of the body.

You wanted to get somewhere and you can only get there by thinking or with thoughts. You may not be fully aware of every thought that got you to where you are, but how you actually got to where you are is obviously done by thinking or thoughts. You could not have turned the indicator on if you did not have a thought to turn left, and, if you had not had a thought, obviously from the brain, which controlled the movement of the hand that actually turned the left indicator on and turned the steering wheel to the left. All of those thoughts that you were not fully aware of, which got you to where you are now, were sub-conscious thoughts. They happened in the sub-conscious mental state.

A good way to see/understand how this actually works is to write down every thought that is actually taking place in that head, then you will notice that it is near impossible to be in a full and always conscious mental state. Thoughts are happening but near impossible, if not impossible, to keep up with all of them. There may well be millions of thoughts happening within that head that you are NOT fully aware of. To Me, 'conscious' implies being fully aware of or having knowledge of something, and, 'sub-conscious' implies only being somewhat or partly aware of or only having some knowledge of something, and, obviously 'unconscious' implies not being aware at all of and not having any knowledge of something.

No matter if a person is in a conscious, sub-conscious, or unconscious mental state, thoughts are still changing and always existing, within an awaken head. Within a sleeping head, however, how much thought or thinking is actually happening I am not at all aware of.

We can keep going for sake of discussion. I understand what you are saying but I am not fully conceived that we have thoughts in subconscious mind since we cannot experience them. Mental states in subconscious mind could be simply instructions in a language that only subconscious mind and body understand.

[ken]

That is true that we need to experience actual things in our early stage of lives before we can construct any abstract thoughts.

If you agree that we need to experience actual things, which is a set of stimulus (input), first, before any thought, abstract or not, takes place, and it can be proven that every function/behavior comes from a thought, then you must also be able to agree that the system, human being, can NOT function without input, right?

This has to be accepted, agreed upon, and understood first, before we can move onto discovering What the actual use of self is.

This we can agree upon for sake of discussion. I however don't understand yet that how we could construct apriori thoughts, what I call abstract thought, such as all bachelors are unmarried.

I have not studied what they teach in philosophy courses, for the obvious reason that people who enter them may come out the other end of the course knowing a lot more stuff but they never seem to any clearer about any of the real meaningful issues in Life, so I just read a few words about a priori thoughts in relation to all bachelors are unmarried. To Me, you may "need not have experienced the unmarried status of all—or indeed any—bachelors to justify this proposition" BUT you have to have gained a language, which contains words and a concept of definitions for some of those words, PRIOR to having the thought "all bachelors are unmarried". You need to have previously experienced that by definition the word 'bachelor', means to be unmarried, in order to then be able to have the so called "abstract" thought 'all bachelors are unmarried'.

We construct any thought from and with the prior knowledge that we have already grasped, which has obviously come from previous experiences. Even a relatively, and maybe even a, brand new thought comes from at least two or more previously gained thoughts. ALL thoughts come from a previous experience. This may sound slightly contradictory but there is even an instinctual knowing or the knowledge of right and wrong, which human beings are born with and is still unconscious to most human beings because it is yet to come into conscious thought to them, but to even have this knowledge come into conscious thought is depended upon previous experiences. If a human being has not had a particular set of experiences, then they will not be able to have this knowledge in thought. But when this knowledge comes to be known is better understood and more widely accepted and agreed upon, by more and more people, then the passing on of this knowledge, which takes place through thought, will naturally take place. Depending on what 'world', period and place on this planet, this affects what thoughts are within a human body. We seemingly "construct" ALL of our individual thinking and thoughts depended solely upon our own individual previous experiences. Absolutely everything is relative to the observer, and, absolutely everything the observer self sees is depended solely upon the previous experiences of the body.

I just don't understand how such a things is possible: How we can possibly have an abstract thought when all things we can experience in our lives are actual?

This is, again, easy to understand, once you know how the sixth sense works. But because you believe some things already, you are not prepared to understand how the human being actually works exactly. You have to be prepared to understand some thing before it could be fully explained to you.

But one example might be to think about what does 'love' and/or the 'Mind' actually mean?

The way knowledge is passed on from one generation to the next (from adults to children) influences how much actual abstract thinking takes place.

I have no idea what the sixth sense is.

You are just like most human beings. They also have no idea of what the 'sixth sense' is, and also what 'love' and the 'Mind' actually is either. There are many, many words, phrases, and terms that human beings do not actually have any idea of what they actually are nor mean. Again, this is because of how ALL knowledge gets passed on from one generation to the next. If some thing is not yet known in one generation, then how could that knowledge get passed on to the next?

There may be many, many ways to understand all of this, but I only know of one way to understand this fully so that confusion will be non-existent. That way is through experiences. But this involves a process, which I only know one way of, of which i think will not allow just the telling of what is unknown, like the sixth sense, so that it will be accepted, understood, and agreed upon. To Me, it is just like the telling of 'the stove is hot,' this is not generally accepted, understood, and agreed with, without prior, and/or first hand (usually burnt), knowledge first. Openness is needed prior to hear and listen to what is being said and explained, but how many adults are really open? And, then only through people's own prior previous experiences will they accept, understand, and agree with what is being said and explained or they will not. Individual prior experiences verifies the truth in statements for individuals. But they first need to be prepared to be open to any new ideas and thinking.

I am not sure that the subconscious mental states are thoughts. Do you have an argument or an evidence to show that? Thought for me is a conscious mental state.

When you are driving a motor vehicle and you want to turn left at the next intersection. The brain will tell the hand to move the indicator in the right direction, the brain will instruct the foot/feet to perform the correct procedures to slow down the motor vehicle, stop it if necessary, and then speed it up around the corner, all at the same time the brain is guiding your eyes to move from side to side looking out for pedestrians, other motor vehicles, as well as any other obstacles in your path, and also to look in the mirrors for any danger behind you. You may not be in a fully conscious mental state of the brain telling, instructing, and guiding all the parts of the body to behave in certain ways to perform the actions that are needed to move the motor vehicle safely around a left hand corner, BUT the telling, the instructing, and the guiding from the brain all exist in thought. These thoughts are happening in the sub-conscious mental state. You may be actually conscious (fully aware) of the thought that you may be having at the moment you are turning the corner, which could be absolutely anything, but you still managed to have thoughts, within/from the brain, that controlled the rest of the body.

You wanted to get somewhere and you can only get there by thinking or with thoughts. You may not be fully aware of every thought that got you to where you are, but how you actually got to where you are is obviously done by thinking or thoughts. You could not have turned the indicator on if you did not have a thought to turn left, and, if you had not had a thought, obviously from the brain, which controlled the movement of the hand that actually turned the left indicator on and turned the steering wheel to the left. All of those thoughts that you were not fully aware of, which got you to where you are now, were sub-conscious thoughts. They happened in the sub-conscious mental state.

A good way to see/understand how this actually works is to write down every thought that is actually taking place in that head, then you will notice that it is near impossible to be in a full and always conscious mental state. Thoughts are happening but near impossible, if not impossible, to keep up with all of them. There may well be millions of thoughts happening within that head that you are NOT fully aware of. To Me, 'conscious' implies being fully aware of or having knowledge of something, and, 'sub-conscious' implies only being somewhat or partly aware of or only having some knowledge of something, and, obviously 'unconscious' implies not being aware at all of and not having any knowledge of something.

No matter if a person is in a conscious, sub-conscious, or unconscious mental state, thoughts are still changing and always existing, within an awaken head. Within a sleeping head, however, how much thought or thinking is actually happening I am not at all aware of.

We can keep going for sake of discussion. I understand what you are saying but I am not fully conceived that we have thoughts in subconscious mind since we cannot experience them. Mental states in subconscious mind could be simply instructions in a language that only subconscious mind and body understand.

Is there a subconscious mind, as you put it? If you say there is, then what is it and where is it?

How exactly does the conscious mind, the subconscious mind, and the unconscious mind work? In fact while you are at it, how exactly does the Mind, itself, work? Why does It work that way? Where is It? What does It do? And, when does It work that way?

What I say is there are thoughts that must, by their very nature take place, but we are not fully aware of them. So, I call them sub-conscious thoughts. In fact I just heard on the television today that the brain has about 36,000 processes every hour. If this is true or even remotely true it gives you an idea of how many thoughts are actually taking place within the head. If you ever, literally, STOPPED, to take notice of how many thoughts that are actually taking place at any given moment I think you will come to realize what I am saying about how many thoughts actually happen subconsciously. For example just think about the thought, 'I want to write the word "word",' besides the fact that that thought happens within or alongside other thoughts, there are still thought processes within the brain telling the fingers to push the 'w' button on the keypad, and the 'o' button, and the 'r' button, and then the 'd' button to finish just that one word off, PLUS the multitude of other thoughts going on just write the rest of this sentence. As I said previously it would be nearly impossible to be conscious of ALL thoughts happening within one's own head, therefore they are mostly sub-conscious thoughts. I call them sub-conscious thoughts because they must have happened, I wrote down the word "word' and all the rest, but i am not fully aware of all the thought processes that took place to make this happen.

[bahman]

Is there a subconscious mind, as you put it? If you say there is, then what is it and where is it?

How exactly does the conscious mind, the subconscious mind, and the unconscious mind work? In fact while you are at it, how exactly does the Mind, itself, work? Why does It work that way? Where is It? What does It do? And, when does It work that way?

To the best of my understanding the three minds are performing the following task:

(1) We experience thought and our environment by conscious mind and we also decide consciously with conscious mind.

(2) Subconscious mind process the information which comes from sensory system and unconscious mind, and forms thoughts and memory (what reside in unconscious mind).

(3) Unconscious mind is simply hold all experiences that we have in our lives which these experiences also form our personalities.

[ken]

Is there a subconscious mind, as you put it? If you say there is, then what is it and where is it?

How exactly does the conscious mind, the subconscious mind, and the unconscious mind work? In fact while you are at it, how exactly does the Mind, itself, work? Why does It work that way? Where is It? What does It do? And, when does It work that way?

To the best of my understanding the three minds are performing the following task:

(1) We experience thought and our environment by conscious mind and we also decide consciously with conscious mind.

(2) Subconscious mind process the information which comes from sensory system and unconscious mind, and forms thoughts and memory (what reside in unconscious mind).

(3) Unconscious mind is simply hold all experiences that we have in our lives which these experiences also form our personalities.

Okay, it seems like you have everything sorted out here, but only to you, so I am not really sure why you are asking others what is the use of self? Your responses only seem to add more confusion to the issue here.

Just like in the other posts you began, you ask questions, but then you appear to believe you already "know" the answer. Therefore, only you know why you are posting these questions.

By the way who is the 'we', who experiences thought and our environment? How do you propose the environment is 'ours'? How do we experience 'by' conscious mind? I asked you before what is it and where is it? And, how exactly do we also decide consciously with conscious mind?

These questions are just in relation to your number (1). Let us just make this simple, what is the Mind exactly, and how does it work exactly? Then we can look at how there could possibly be three minds.

[bahman]

Okay, it seems like you have everything sorted out here, but only to you, so I am not really sure why you are asking others what is the use of self? Your responses only seem to add more confusion to the issue here.

Just like in the other posts you began, you ask questions, but then you appear to believe you already "know" the answer. Therefore, only you know why you are posting these questions.

What I said is the result of my thinking. I am not sure if they are 100% correct.

By the way who is the 'we', who experiences thought and our environment?

This depends whether you are a dualist or monist/materialist. The "I" in dualism is what your spirit is. Under materialism the sense of "I" is created by your brain.

How do you propose the environment is 'ours'?

What do you mean?

How do we experience 'by' conscious mind?

No one knows. This is called hard problem of consciousness. You can read about it here.

I asked you before what is it and where is it?

Mind is construct of your brain activities in materialism. Mind is your spirit under dualism. Your mind doesn't have any location.

And, how exactly do we also decide consciously with conscious mind?

No one exactly knows. This talk however could be constructive.

These questions are just in relation to your number (1). Let us just make this simple, what is the Mind exactly, and how does it work exactly? Then we can look at how there could possibly be three minds.

Mind is the result of electromagnetic fields constructed by neurons firing in my opinion. This link could be useful.

[ken]

Okay, it seems like you have everything sorted out here, but only to you, so I am not really sure why you are asking others what is the use of self? Your responses only seem to add more confusion to the issue here.

Just like in the other posts you began, you ask questions, but then you appear to believe you already "know" the answer. Therefore, only you know why you are posting these questions.

What I said is the result of my thinking. I am not sure if they are 100% correct.

If "your" thinking is not yet 100% correct, without any confusion still existing whatsoever, the result being verified by being able to see and understand the jigsaw puzzle placed together perfectly to form a big picture of Life without any contradiction, then I suggest you remain open and listen instead of believing, insisting, and expressing that you already know some answers. If some of "your" answers are in contradiction and/or do not fit in perfectly with other answers, then there still exists some confusion and therefore just maybe what is thought here could be completely and utterly wrong.

For example, do you know who the 'my' is in "my thinking"? If not, then there still remains some confusion.

By the way who is the 'we', who experiences thought and our environment?

This depends whether you are a dualist or monist/materialist. The "I" in dualism is what your spirit is. Under materialism the sense of "I" is created by your brain.

Seeing one's self as one or the other does not make any sense. Truthful answers are never found that way.

How do you propose the environment is 'ours'?

What do you mean?

You said, "our environment". Who is the 'our'? How do you propose the 'our' owns or makes/creates the environment? If the truth be known, the opposite actually happens.

How do we experience 'by' conscious mind?

No one knows. This is called hard problem of consciousness. You can read about it here.

The 'I' in the question knows EXACTLY how the Mind and the brain works. So, although 'you' may not know, 'I' do know. Therefore, to assume no one knows is wrong.

I asked you before what is it and where is it?

Mind is construct of your brain activities in materialism. Mind is your spirit under dualism. Your mind doesn't have any location.

Obviously you are not sure and thus still somewhat confused. One reason of this is referring to either 'materialism' or 'dualism', materialism and dualism just do not work on their own. Also using terms like 'your' in reference to brain activities, spirit, and 'mind' when you do not know what 'your' actually refers to just leads you to more confusion when you are asked for clarification.

If Mind is proposed as a construct of brain activities, then when asked for clarity not much can be provided. There is NO 'your' who owns, creates, nor makes spirit nor mind, but there is a 'you' in reference to brain activities. When who/what 'you' and 'I' really are, then clarity prevails and confusion ends.

And, how exactly do we also decide consciously with conscious mind?

No one exactly knows. This talk however could be constructive.

I KNOW EXACTLY.

Not sure how constructive jill bolte taylor's talk could be to others if jill is still somewhat confused about what was actually happening and taking place.

These questions are just in relation to your number (1). Let us just make this simple, what is the Mind exactly, and how does it work exactly? Then we can look at how there could possibly be three minds.

Mind is the result of electromagnetic fields constructed by neurons firing in my opinion. This link could be useful.

These writing would not really be that useful at all to all others.

The response in "your" opinion that the "Mind is the result of electromagnetic fields constructed by neurons firing" still does in no way clarify what the Mind exactly is and how the Mind works exactly.

The answer is obvious when people want to discover this by themselves, instead of trying to find answers in the abundance of confusing and contradictory written material available. This only leads to more and more confusion.

Also, if Mind is the result of electromagnetic fields constructed by neurons firing as in "your" opinion, then what is thought/s, and how do you distinguish between the Mind and thoughts?

By the way ALL the questions I ask for clarity here in this forum I already know the answers to. I just ask the questions to highlight to the readers how much the people actually do know, what they say they know.

[Ginkgo]

It was an interesting talk, the woman in question appeared to lose her sense of self from time to time. Descartes' "I think therefore I am" locates the self in the act of thinking. On the other hand, Hume argues there is no such thing as the self because we cannot view ourselves in any unified way. I have to admit I am sympathetic to the dichotomy you propose. I think the woman in question still experiences her environment even when she loses her sense of self.

I think that the lady was able to walk without focus so the act of walking did not need a sense of self.

She was not walking when she lost her sense of self. Even if she did, she would have no idea where she was going since she had no frame of reference. Just think this through. It is simply impossible to do any activity without the sense of self.

If we look at this in terms of the p-zombie argument we can say that the p-zombie has no experiences and has no sense of self. At best we could say this lady was a partial p-zombie.

[bahman]

Okay, it seems like you have everything sorted out here, but only to you, so I am not really sure why you are asking others what is the use of self? Your responses only seem to add more confusion to the issue here.

Just like in the other posts you began, you ask questions, but then you appear to believe you already "know" the answer. Therefore, only you know why you are posting these questions.

What I said is the result of my thinking. I am not sure if they are 100% correct.

...For example, do you know who the 'my' is in "my thinking"? If not, then there still remains some confusion.

I think that is the sense of self created by your brain to give a reference view for your activities.

By the way who is the 'we', who experiences thought and our environment?

This depends whether you are a dualist or monist/materialist. The "I" in dualism is what your spirit is. Under materialism the sense of "I" is created by your brain.

Seeing one's self as one or the other does not make any sense. Truthful answers are never found that way.

I don't understand what you are stating here.

How do you propose the environment is 'ours'?

What do you mean?

You said, "our environment". Who is the 'our'? How do you propose the 'our' owns or makes/creates the environment? If the truth be known, the opposite actually happens.

I already explain what is "our". It is the sense of self in materialism and it is your spirit under dualism.

How do we experience 'by' conscious mind?

No one knows. This is called hard problem of consciousness. You can read about it here.

The 'I' in the question knows EXACTLY how the Mind and the brain works. So, although 'you' may not know, 'I' do know. Therefore, to assume no one knows is wrong.

I mean no one still knows how a biochemical activity can turn into a conscious experience.

I asked you before what is it and where is it?

Mind is construct of your brain activities in materialism. Mind is your spirit under dualism. Your mind doesn't have any location.

Obviously you are not sure and thus still somewhat confused. One reason of this is referring to either 'materialism' or 'dualism', materialism and dualism just do not work on their own. Also using terms like 'your' in reference to brain activities, spirit, and 'mind' when you do not know what 'your' actually refers to just leads you to more confusion when you are asked for clarification.

If Mind is proposed as a construct of brain activities, then when asked for clarity not much can be provided. There is NO 'your' who owns, creates, nor makes spirit nor mind, but there is a 'you' in reference to brain activities. When who/what 'you' and 'I' really are, then clarity prevails and confusion ends.

I think I was clear in what I was stated.

And, how exactly do we also decide consciously with conscious mind?

No one exactly knows. This talk however could be constructive.

I KNOW EXACTLY.

Not sure how constructive jill bolte taylor's talk could be to others if jill is still somewhat confused about what was actually happening and taking place.

I don't understand what you are talking about.

These questions are just in relation to your number (1). Let us just make this simple, what is the Mind exactly, and how does it work exactly? Then we can look at how there could possibly be three minds.

Mind is the result of electromagnetic fields constructed by neurons firing in my opinion. This link could be useful.

These writing would not really be that useful at all to all others.

The response in "your" opinion that the "Mind is the result of electromagnetic fields constructed by neurons firing" still does in no way clarify what the Mind exactly is and how the Mind works exactly.

The answer is obvious when people want to discover this by themselves, instead of trying to find answers in the abundance of confusing and contradictory written material available. This only leads to more and more confusion.

Also, if Mind is the result of electromagnetic fields constructed by neurons firing as in "your" opinion, then what is thought/s, and how do you distinguish between the Mind and thoughts?

By the way ALL the questions I ask for clarity here in this forum I already know the answers to. I just ask the questions to highlight to the readers how much the people actually do know, what they say they know.

I think we still have a long way to go before we can understand what thought is.

[OuterLimits]

We know that any system is functional if it does X by receiving Y, where X is a set of actions (output) and Y is a set of stimulus (input). The question is what is the use of self if the system, human for example, can function without it?

A thing doesn't have an intrinsic use. Are you asking for evolutionary analysis? Are you looking for advice regarding what use can be put to it?

[bahman]

We know that any system is functional if it does X by receiving Y, where X is a set of actions (output) and Y is a set of stimulus (input). The question is what is the use of self if the system, human for example, can function without it?

A thing doesn't have an intrinsic use. Are you asking for evolutionary analysis? Are you looking for advice regarding what use can be put to it?

I am asking what specific function the self has.

[OuterLimits]

We know that any system is functional if it does X by receiving Y, where X is a set of actions (output) and Y is a set of stimulus (input). The question is what is the use of self if the system, human for example, can function without it?

A thing doesn't have an intrinsic use. Are you asking for evolutionary analysis? Are you looking for advice regarding what use can be put to it?

I am asking what specific function the self has.

How does one determine the "function" of something? Can you give an example? Very often, in evolution, the seeming use to which something is put nowadays might not be the earlier use.

[bahman]

A thing doesn't have an intrinsic use. Are you asking for evolutionary analysis? Are you looking for advice regarding what use can be put to it?

I am asking what specific function the self has.

How does one determine the "function" of something? Can you give an example? Very often, in evolution, the seeming use to which something is put nowadays might not be the earlier use.

We can determine the function of something by studying which type of outputs we get by having certain type of inputs.

[OuterLimits]

I am asking what specific function the self has.

How does one determine the "function" of something? Can you give an example? Very often, in evolution, the seeming use to which something is put nowadays might not be the earlier use.

We can determine the function of something by studying which type of outputs we get by having certain type of inputs.

Does that imply that the function was somehow "designed in"?

A hole that you throw animals into, and only the largest are able to climb out - do I then deduce some sort of "animal selecting function" to the hole?