Philosophy of Mind

[Darkneos]

Neurons are biased, that is at the bottom of the mind's emergence from biology.

Neurons aren't biased, they just are.

[Darkneos]

Probably even AI would agree with you on that one. Whitehead on Education. I don't remember much of it, but I remember being most impressed. You seem to be echoing some of his materials.

Undergraduate education 1970s and college of education 1970s both supported children's learning through play. It's also essential that they exchange ideas and feelings through language, so they need to talk with parents and with each other in reality rather than with disembodied voices and texts.

I think when you write about biology as the basis of the mind, another way to phrase the idea is that the mind is embodied what do you think?

Experience is the fuel for thought, and through judgment, meaning then arises. Certainly, both experience and judgment are the property of subjectivity as is their product, meaning. Children should be taught that they are the sources of meaning and the creators of values; it is their biological heritage. The generations that preceded them created the values that surround them today. It is their job to judge whether they are still appropriate to the present. Not knowing this instills a sense of powerlessness, and the world then just happens to them; they do not feel to be agents or creators.

Well because they aren't agents or creators. Neuroscience seems to prove that free will is a myth, the world does in fact happen to you. The meaning made isn't in your power to determine. Also the notion of the mind being embodied has been disproven, that's called embodied cognition.

I will agree with AI being bad for teaching, it's already shown that relying on AI depletes cognitive ability, so far AI has just been a net negative for society.

[popeye1945]

Neurons are biased, that is at the bottom of the mind's emergence from biology.

Neurons aren't biased, they just are.

The mind/brain is a secondary organ in serves to the body, the body being the first idea of the mind and interface to the world as an object. Yes, I agree with Darkneos that the statement that Neurons are biased needs some expansion towards credibility. It might help to keep in mind that the physical world is meaningless; meaning only emerges when the forces of the outside world alter the standing state of biology or biological consciousness as a whole. The key, somehow, to the mind must be how it creates order out of the imperfections of reality, only to produce ordered imperfections that constitute apparent reality, a biological readout of its experiences. Through this process, we do not experience what is out there; we experience how what is out there alters our biology, giving us experiences. I suspect Darkneos is correct that Neurons just are, for that is the reality of the world. Nothing has meaning that is not attributed to it by biological consciousness as its experience; that which we do not experience is meaningless, as meaning is the property and product of biology through its reactions to the physical world as an object. Biology, which includes the brain, is the measure and the meaning of all things as its subjective property.

[Darkneos]

Neurons are biased, that is at the bottom of the mind's emergence from biology.

Neurons aren't biased, they just are.

The mind/brain is a secondary organ in serves to the body, the body being the first idea of the mind and interface to the world as an object. Yes, I agree with Darkneos that the statement that Neurons are biased needs some expansion towards credibility. It might help to keep in mind that the physical world is meaningless; meaning only emerges when the forces of the outside world alter the standing state of biology or biological consciousness as a whole. The key, somehow, to the mind must be how it creates order out of the imperfections of reality, only to produce ordered imperfections that constitute apparent reality, a biological readout of its experiences. Through this process, we do not experience what is out there; we experience how what is out there alters our biology, giving us experiences. I suspect Darkneos is correct that Neurons just are, for that is the reality of the world. Nothing has meaning that is not attributed to it by biological consciousness as its experience; that which we do not experience is meaningless, as meaning is the property and product of biology through its reactions to the physical world as an object. Biology, which includes the brain, is the measure and the meaning of all things as its subjective property.

This is not true, I told you that embodied cognition was proven to be false.

Meaning has nothing to do with biology either, it's just assigning value to things based on circumstances. The mind doesn't create order so much as recognize it, as reality seems to be fairly ordered and appears to follow structure. Chaos is more a lack of information to see the big picture.

Biology doesn't play any role in it at all. We do experience what is out there, it's however mediated by our senses, same for anything else that has a sensory method.

Biology is also not the measure and meaning of all things, some aspects of "Biology" transcend it's base structure, like consciousness. The body is also not the first idea of the mind, it's actually the reverse. The body is secondary to the brain. Plenty of evidence shows this is true. Even though the body came first it's secondary overall. Again, embodied cognition was proven false.

In short you're wrong about cognition and what biology means. You're also wrong about what I meant, I said they are not biased they just are. There is no clarity needed on an incorrect statement.

[Belinda]

"Neurons are biased" is mentalistic language so the phrase quoted sounds odd, neurons being material things with extension in space.

The metaphorical usage of 'biased' doesn't fit neurons.I suppose anatomists may have word for neurons that are atypically arranged. Maybe biased neurons have wiggly axons.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Neurons are biased, that is at the bottom of the mind's emergence from biology.

Neurons aren't biased, they just are.

They're biased in patternicity by dopamine. That just is too.

[popeye1945]

Neurons aren't biased, they just are.

The mind/brain is a secondary organ in serves to the body, the body being the first idea of the mind and interface to the world as an object. Yes, I agree with Darkneos that the statement that Neurons are biased needs some expansion towards credibility. It might help to keep in mind that the physical world is meaningless; meaning only emerges when the forces of the outside world alter the standing state of biology or biological consciousness as a whole. The key, somehow, to the mind must be how it creates order out of the imperfections of reality, only to produce ordered imperfections that constitute apparent reality, a biological readout of its experiences. Through this process, we do not experience what is out there; we experience how what is out there alters our biology, giving us experiences. I suspect Darkneos is correct that Neurons just are, for that is the reality of the world. Nothing has meaning that is not attributed to it by biological consciousness as its experience; that which we do not experience is meaningless, as meaning is the property and product of biology through its reactions to the physical world as an object. Biology, which includes the brain, is the measure and the meaning of all things as its subjective property.

This is not true, I told you that embodied cognition was proven to be false.

Meaning has nothing to do with biology either, it's just assigning value to things based on circumstances. The mind doesn't create order so much as recognize it, as reality seems to be fairly ordered and appears to follow structure. Chaos is more a lack of information to see the big picture.

Biology doesn't play any role in it at all. We do experience what is out there, it's however mediated by our senses, same for anything else that has a sensory method.

Biology is also not the measure and meaning of all things, some aspects of "Biology" transcend it's base structure, like consciousness. The body is also not the first idea of the mind, it's actually the reverse. The body is secondary to the brain. Plenty of evidence shows this is true. Even though the body came first it's secondary overall. Again, embodied cognition was proven false.

In short you're wrong about cognition and what biology means. You're also wrong about what I meant, I said they are not biased they just are. There is no clarity needed on an incorrect statement.

You need to provide some proof that embodied cognition is not the reality. Some indication of just how this comes about. Until then, there isn't anything to talk about. It sounds absurd to me, but I am all ears!

[Belinda]

Neurons aren't biased, they just are.

The mind/brain is a secondary organ in serves to the body, the body being the first idea of the mind and interface to the world as an object. Yes, I agree with Darkneos that the statement that Neurons are biased needs some expansion towards credibility. It might help to keep in mind that the physical world is meaningless; meaning only emerges when the forces of the outside world alter the standing state of biology or biological consciousness as a whole. The key, somehow, to the mind must be how it creates order out of the imperfections of reality, only to produce ordered imperfections that constitute apparent reality, a biological readout of its experiences. Through this process, we do not experience what is out there; we experience how what is out there alters our biology, giving us experiences. I suspect Darkneos is correct that Neurons just are, for that is the reality of the world. Nothing has meaning that is not attributed to it by biological consciousness as its experience; that which we do not experience is meaningless, as meaning is the property and product of biology through its reactions to the physical world as an object. Biology, which includes the brain, is the measure and the meaning of all things as its subjective property.

This is not true, I told you that embodied cognition was proven to be false.

Meaning has nothing to do with biology either, it's just assigning value to things based on circumstances. The mind doesn't create order so much as recognize it, as reality seems to be fairly ordered and appears to follow structure. Chaos is more a lack of information to see the big picture.

Biology doesn't play any role in it at all. We do experience what is out there, it's however mediated by our senses, same for anything else that has a sensory method.

Biology is also not the measure and meaning of all things, some aspects of "Biology" transcend it's base structure, like consciousness. The body is also not the first idea of the mind, it's actually the reverse. The body is secondary to the brain. Plenty of evidence shows this is true. Even though the body came first it's secondary overall. Again, embodied cognition was proven false.

In short you're wrong about cognition and what biology means. You're also wrong about what I meant, I said they are not biased they just are. There is no clarity needed on an incorrect statement.

*

We do experience what is out there, it's however mediated by our senses

Chaos is more a lack of information to see the big picture.


*

The two quotes above are from Darkneos.
Lack of information to see the big picture correlates with the insufficiency of our senses.

[Darkneos]

The mind/brain is a secondary organ in serves to the body, the body being the first idea of the mind and interface to the world as an object. Yes, I agree with Darkneos that the statement that Neurons are biased needs some expansion towards credibility. It might help to keep in mind that the physical world is meaningless; meaning only emerges when the forces of the outside world alter the standing state of biology or biological consciousness as a whole. The key, somehow, to the mind must be how it creates order out of the imperfections of reality, only to produce ordered imperfections that constitute apparent reality, a biological readout of its experiences. Through this process, we do not experience what is out there; we experience how what is out there alters our biology, giving us experiences. I suspect Darkneos is correct that Neurons just are, for that is the reality of the world. Nothing has meaning that is not attributed to it by biological consciousness as its experience; that which we do not experience is meaningless, as meaning is the property and product of biology through its reactions to the physical world as an object. Biology, which includes the brain, is the measure and the meaning of all things as its subjective property.

This is not true, I told you that embodied cognition was proven to be false.

Meaning has nothing to do with biology either, it's just assigning value to things based on circumstances. The mind doesn't create order so much as recognize it, as reality seems to be fairly ordered and appears to follow structure. Chaos is more a lack of information to see the big picture.

Biology doesn't play any role in it at all. We do experience what is out there, it's however mediated by our senses, same for anything else that has a sensory method.

Biology is also not the measure and meaning of all things, some aspects of "Biology" transcend it's base structure, like consciousness. The body is also not the first idea of the mind, it's actually the reverse. The body is secondary to the brain. Plenty of evidence shows this is true. Even though the body came first it's secondary overall. Again, embodied cognition was proven false.

In short you're wrong about cognition and what biology means. You're also wrong about what I meant, I said they are not biased they just are. There is no clarity needed on an incorrect statement.

*

We do experience what is out there, it's however mediated by our senses

Chaos is more a lack of information to see the big picture.


*

The two quotes above are from Darkneos.
Lack of information to see the big picture correlates with the insufficiency of our senses.

Not necessarily, more like we can’t keep track of all the factors at play due to limited mental capacity.

[Darkneos]

Neurons are biased, that is at the bottom of the mind's emergence from biology.

Neurons aren't biased, they just are.

They're biased in patternicity by dopamine. That just is too.

Again, no they are not. That’s not bias either.

You might want to look up what bias means.

[Darkneos]

The mind/brain is a secondary organ in serves to the body, the body being the first idea of the mind and interface to the world as an object. Yes, I agree with Darkneos that the statement that Neurons are biased needs some expansion towards credibility. It might help to keep in mind that the physical world is meaningless; meaning only emerges when the forces of the outside world alter the standing state of biology or biological consciousness as a whole. The key, somehow, to the mind must be how it creates order out of the imperfections of reality, only to produce ordered imperfections that constitute apparent reality, a biological readout of its experiences. Through this process, we do not experience what is out there; we experience how what is out there alters our biology, giving us experiences. I suspect Darkneos is correct that Neurons just are, for that is the reality of the world. Nothing has meaning that is not attributed to it by biological consciousness as its experience; that which we do not experience is meaningless, as meaning is the property and product of biology through its reactions to the physical world as an object. Biology, which includes the brain, is the measure and the meaning of all things as its subjective property.

This is not true, I told you that embodied cognition was proven to be false.

Meaning has nothing to do with biology either, it's just assigning value to things based on circumstances. The mind doesn't create order so much as recognize it, as reality seems to be fairly ordered and appears to follow structure. Chaos is more a lack of information to see the big picture.

Biology doesn't play any role in it at all. We do experience what is out there, it's however mediated by our senses, same for anything else that has a sensory method.

Biology is also not the measure and meaning of all things, some aspects of "Biology" transcend it's base structure, like consciousness. The body is also not the first idea of the mind, it's actually the reverse. The body is secondary to the brain. Plenty of evidence shows this is true. Even though the body came first it's secondary overall. Again, embodied cognition was proven false.

In short you're wrong about cognition and what biology means. You're also wrong about what I meant, I said they are not biased they just are. There is no clarity needed on an incorrect statement.

You need to provide some proof that embodied cognition is not the reality. Some indication of just how this comes about. Until then, there isn't anything to talk about. It sounds absurd to me, but I am all ears!

Besides the fact that all the studies that claim it is so couldn’t be replicated, the studies dealing with fetuses blows a hole in that they have goal directed behavior.

Also embodied cognition doesn’t solve the binding problem.

Like I said, it’s just wrong. The brain doesn’t serve the body it’s the other way around. In fact what you call sensing with the body is really sensing with the brain.

Embodied cognition is false.

But assuming it wasn’t what’s the takeaway here? Why should someone care?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Neurons aren't biased, they just are.

They're biased in patternicity by dopamine. That just is too.

Again, no they are not. That’s not bias either.

You might want to look up what bias means.

Yes they are.

You might want to look up your fundament.

Try looking up this first and refuting it line by line with a tad more than mere automatic gainsaying.

The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths
Michael Shermer (2011)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0DKms ... -slY7LVqMg
Page 129
Chapter 6
The Believing Neuron

Your 'refutation' will make an excellent case study in bias.

[Darkneos]

They're biased in patternicity by dopamine. That just is too.

Again, no they are not. That’s not bias either.

You might want to look up what bias means.

Yes they are.

You might want to look up your fundament.

Try looking up this first and refuting it line by line with a tad more than mere automatic gainsaying.

The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths
Michael Shermer (2011)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0DKms ... -slY7LVqMg
Page 129
Chapter 6
The Believing Neuron

Your 'refutation' will make an excellent case study in bias.

I don’t have to, the Amazon reviews speak for themselves and I’ve heard of it before. The dude is incorrect about how the brain works, plus that’s from 2011.

Nevermind the book reeks of the bias the author chides others for, ironically enough. He’s so convinced he’s correct.

He’s also wrong that we know how the brain works. Hell two of the most recent theories of consciousness in neuroscience just got disproven. So we have no idea what it is or means.

Honestly, I knew I was right to dismiss you and citing that just proves it. That book ain’t neuroscience it’s just an opinion piece.

If anything it’s ironic you cited that to me and then talk bias when it’s dripping with it.

EDIT: I wish I could get back the time I spent reading Chpt 6 as it is laughably wrong. The part about losing parts of the brain isn’t accurate and research after 2011 shows people can be missing more than half and still be fine. He’s also wrong about dopamine as it’s not the belief drug or the pleasure drug, these are common misunderstandings as there is more to it than that.

It’s more or less a book by someone who doesn’t understand the brain and believes we know more than we actually do about it.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

No it isn't.

[Darkneos]

No it isn't.

It totally is, I even read the SA article by him and dude has a chip on his shoulder. Doesn't understand what science really is.