Philosophy of Mind

[Darkneos]

Where? And no, I'm not mistaken. Got any reasoning, again? What questions? Science cares?

There’s not really a point bringing it up if that’s your line of questioning. Like I said, I made my point, can’t hold your hand to see it.

Reason doesn’t seem to work with you, given your sources.

You didn't, you can't, you won't. Troll.

You’re the troll and your source was more than proof enough.

[Belinda]

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

All right .Correction: insufficiency of our senses and our memories

Still not quite, again it’s more a processing limit than a sensory one.

But I think that no matter how advanced senses might be you don’t know what you don’t know or sense.

The special senses, and memory bits of brain , may be regarded by the scientist physiologically i.e as process; or anatomically i.e. as structure. Or both.

[Darkneos]

All right .Correction: insufficiency of our senses and our memories

Still not quite, again it’s more a processing limit than a sensory one.

But I think that no matter how advanced senses might be you don’t know what you don’t know or sense.

The special senses, and memory bits of brain , may be regarded by the scientist physiologically i.e as process; or anatomically i.e. as structure. Or both.

Well it might not even be a brain thing. Panpsychism could be a thing given how recent theories about consciousness were disproven. But a process isn't physical and as for structure we don't know.

Though given new studies on the brain it might not be process or structure like previously thought, like I said people have lost half their brain and still function normally.

Even still, reality is reality, and we still experience what is "out there". IMO speculating about that isn't important, what is important is how to live.

[popeye1945]

We do not experience what is out there; we experience how what is out there alters/changes our biology. Our apparent reality is the experiences of the body, not the world as an object. There must indeed be some continuity of forms for us as organisms to function, but we experience the altered conditions of the body, not the object in and of itself.

[Belinda]

Still not quite, again it’s more a processing limit than a sensory one.

But I think that no matter how advanced senses might be you don’t know what you don’t know or sense.

The special senses, and memory bits of brain , may be regarded by the scientist physiologically i.e as process; or anatomically i.e. as structure. Or both.

Well it might not even be a brain thing. Panpsychism could be a thing given how recent theories about consciousness were disproven. But a process isn't physical and as for structure we don't know.

Though given new studies on the brain it might not be process or structure like previously thought, like I said people have lost half their brain and still function normally.

Even still, reality is reality, and we still experience what is "out there". IMO speculating about that isn't important, what is important is how to live.

After all, anatomy is nothing but a very useful heuristic.
Is panpsychism much like the extended mind hypothesis?

[Darkneos]

We do not experience what is out there; we experience how what is out there alters/changes our biology. Our apparent reality is the experiences of the body, not the world as an object. There must indeed be some continuity of forms for us as organisms to function, but we experience the altered conditions of the body, not the object in and of itself.

That is incorrect and I showed that embodied cognition isn't true.

We do experience what is "out there" it's just indirectly. The brain takes in information and makes a best guess of what's out there, hence indirect realism. We don't experience the altered conditions of the body (again embodied cognition is false as shown before), but more the approximate reality based on not just the brain but past experience.

But we do experience the world out there, just indirectly.

[Darkneos]

The special senses, and memory bits of brain , may be regarded by the scientist physiologically i.e as process; or anatomically i.e. as structure. Or both.

Well it might not even be a brain thing. Panpsychism could be a thing given how recent theories about consciousness were disproven. But a process isn't physical and as for structure we don't know.

Though given new studies on the brain it might not be process or structure like previously thought, like I said people have lost half their brain and still function normally.

Even still, reality is reality, and we still experience what is "out there". IMO speculating about that isn't important, what is important is how to live.

After all, anatomy is nothing but a very useful heuristic.
Is panpsychism much like the extended mind hypothesis?

No. But I'd also argue that anatomy isn't a heuristic, it's a very real thing. It's just that consciousness might not be a brain thing and might be an arrangement thing. We don't really know. It sounds like you didn't understand my point.

Extended mind theory is along the same lines as embodied cognition and is equally fallacious. There is nothing to suggest the mind extends beyond the brain and a lot to show otherwise. In short it's not true.

[Belinda]

Well it might not even be a brain thing. Panpsychism could be a thing given how recent theories about consciousness were disproven. But a process isn't physical and as for structure we don't know.

Though given new studies on the brain it might not be process or structure like previously thought, like I said people have lost half their brain and still function normally.

Even still, reality is reality, and we still experience what is "out there". IMO speculating about that isn't important, what is important is how to live.

After all, anatomy is nothing but a very useful heuristic.
Is panpsychism much like the extended mind hypothesis?

No. But I'd also argue that anatomy isn't a heuristic, it's a very real thing. It's just that consciousness might not be a brain thing and might be an arrangement thing. We don't really know. It sounds like you didn't understand my point.

Extended mind theory is along the same lines as embodied cognition and is equally fallacious. There is nothing to suggest the mind extends beyond the brain and a lot to show otherwise. In short it's not true.

I disagree on both points.
Anatomy is analytical and therefore is heuristic; there are many ways to analyse experience. There is no reason except historical precedent to divide a body into nervous system, digestive system, musculo -skeletal system and so forth. similarly with tissues, and cells. Tissues are more like each other than they differ from each oher, Same with cells which are more like each other than they differ from each other.

Extended mind theory is so obvious to me that if you don't believe it I feel you don't understand it. For instance mind extends into the unique circumstances of your upbringing; and your mind may extend from New York to London without your using a muscle;those mental extensions into time and into space are common enough bits of many individuals' mental environments.

[Darkneos]

After all, anatomy is nothing but a very useful heuristic.
Is panpsychism much like the extended mind hypothesis?

No. But I'd also argue that anatomy isn't a heuristic, it's a very real thing. It's just that consciousness might not be a brain thing and might be an arrangement thing. We don't really know. It sounds like you didn't understand my point.

Extended mind theory is along the same lines as embodied cognition and is equally fallacious. There is nothing to suggest the mind extends beyond the brain and a lot to show otherwise. In short it's not true.

I disagree on both points.
Anatomy is analytical and therefore is heuristic; there are many ways to analyse experience. There is no reason except historical precedent to divide a body into nervous system, digestive system, musculo -skeletal system and so forth. similarly with tissues, and cells. Tissues are more like each other than they differ from each oher, Same with cells which are more like each other than they differ from each other.

Extended mind theory is so obvious to me that if you don't believe it I feel you don't understand it. For instance mind extends into the unique circumstances of your upbringing; and your mind may extend from New York to London without your using a muscle;those mental extensions into time and into space are common enough bits of many individuals' mental environments.

That's an inaccurate view of biology to be honest and it makes me doubt you truly understand things if that's your view. There is a reason to accept "historical precedent" because that's how the body is, divided in such a way. Through that knowledge we've got some rather impressive medicine as a result. Tissues aren't more alike than they differ nor are cells. It's not heuristic (nor does being analytical make it so) as this is pretty rigidly defined and operates as we define it.

Mind doesn't extend to the circumstances of my upbringing. We are influenced by things around us, sure, but the "mind" is more or less just brain activity (if there even is such a thing as mind). It doesn't extend beyond the body, or in this case brain. My mind also doesn't extend from New York to London either, nor time or space (and in fact it's debatable if time is even a thing same as space). There is more than enough evidence to show everything "mental" is just the brain: memory, perception, "time", all that jazz.

Extended mind just sounds like religion to be honest. It takes one thing about being influenced by things and takes that to mean the mind is such. Panpsychism is not extended mind, it's arguing that everything can be conscious because it's about the arrangement of matter that enables it rather than what it's made of.

There might be many ways to "analyze experience" but that doesn't make them valid or right. Extended mind is one of those. The fact you find it obvious leads me to believe you are unaware of the evidence against it (lots to be honest). Also it honestly just sounds like it's tacking "mind" onto arbitrary boundaries, so I can't take it seriously. Even the thought experiment listed on the wikipedia page has glaring holes in it. Buddhism actually disproves the notion as well.

[Belinda]

No. But I'd also argue that anatomy isn't a heuristic, it's a very real thing. It's just that consciousness might not be a brain thing and might be an arrangement thing. We don't really know. It sounds like you didn't understand my point.

Extended mind theory is along the same lines as embodied cognition and is equally fallacious. There is nothing to suggest the mind extends beyond the brain and a lot to show otherwise. In short it's not true.

I disagree on both points.
Anatomy is analytical and therefore is heuristic; there are many ways to analyse experience. There is no reason except historical precedent to divide a body into nervous system, digestive system, musculo -skeletal system and so forth. similarly with tissues, and cells. Tissues are more like each other than they differ from each oher, Same with cells which are more like each other than they differ from each other.

Extended mind theory is so obvious to me that if you don't believe it I feel you don't understand it. For instance mind extends into the unique circumstances of your upbringing; and your mind may extend from New York to London without your using a muscle;those mental extensions into time and into space are common enough bits of many individuals' mental environments.

That's an inaccurate view of biology to be honest and it makes me doubt you truly understand things if that's your view. There is a reason to accept "historical precedent" because that's how the body is, divided in such a way. Through that knowledge we've got some rather impressive medicine as a result. Tissues aren't more alike than they differ nor are cells. It's not heuristic (nor does being analytical make it so) as this is pretty rigidly defined and operates as we define it.

Mind doesn't extend to the circumstances of my upbringing. We are influenced by things around us, sure, but the "mind" is more or less just brain activity (if there even is such a thing as mind). It doesn't extend beyond the body, or in this case brain. My mind also doesn't extend from New York to London either, nor time or space (and in fact it's debatable if time is even a thing same as space). There is more than enough evidence to show everything "mental" is just the brain: memory, perception, "time", all that jazz.

Extended mind just sounds like religion to be honest. It takes one thing about being influenced by things and takes that to mean the mind is such. Panpsychism is not extended mind, it's arguing that everything can be conscious because it's about the arrangement of matter that enables it rather than what it's made of.

There might be many ways to "analyze experience" but that doesn't make them valid or right. Extended mind is one of those. The fact you find it obvious leads me to believe you are unaware of the evidence against it (lots to be honest). Also it honestly just sounds like it's tacking "mind" onto arbitrary boundaries, so I can't take it seriously. Even the thought experiment listed on the wikipedia page has glaring holes in it. Buddhism actually disproves the notion as well.

Extended mind hypothesis: for instance your drinking water is so much a part of your constant and unavoidable part of the environment, beyond your anatomical brain that your drinking water is included in your extended mind.

The world view of the scientific enlightenment has been so productive of all sorts of benefits that we simply must respect and glorify it, to paraphrase you.
With climate change an existential threat the door into another world view opens. Enlightenment science is not sufficient any more we need to go through the new door.

[Darkneos]

I disagree on both points.
Anatomy is analytical and therefore is heuristic; there are many ways to analyse experience. There is no reason except historical precedent to divide a body into nervous system, digestive system, musculo -skeletal system and so forth. similarly with tissues, and cells. Tissues are more like each other than they differ from each oher, Same with cells which are more like each other than they differ from each other.

Extended mind theory is so obvious to me that if you don't believe it I feel you don't understand it. For instance mind extends into the unique circumstances of your upbringing; and your mind may extend from New York to London without your using a muscle;those mental extensions into time and into space are common enough bits of many individuals' mental environments.

That's an inaccurate view of biology to be honest and it makes me doubt you truly understand things if that's your view. There is a reason to accept "historical precedent" because that's how the body is, divided in such a way. Through that knowledge we've got some rather impressive medicine as a result. Tissues aren't more alike than they differ nor are cells. It's not heuristic (nor does being analytical make it so) as this is pretty rigidly defined and operates as we define it.

Mind doesn't extend to the circumstances of my upbringing. We are influenced by things around us, sure, but the "mind" is more or less just brain activity (if there even is such a thing as mind). It doesn't extend beyond the body, or in this case brain. My mind also doesn't extend from New York to London either, nor time or space (and in fact it's debatable if time is even a thing same as space). There is more than enough evidence to show everything "mental" is just the brain: memory, perception, "time", all that jazz.

Extended mind just sounds like religion to be honest. It takes one thing about being influenced by things and takes that to mean the mind is such. Panpsychism is not extended mind, it's arguing that everything can be conscious because it's about the arrangement of matter that enables it rather than what it's made of.

There might be many ways to "analyze experience" but that doesn't make them valid or right. Extended mind is one of those. The fact you find it obvious leads me to believe you are unaware of the evidence against it (lots to be honest). Also it honestly just sounds like it's tacking "mind" onto arbitrary boundaries, so I can't take it seriously. Even the thought experiment listed on the wikipedia page has glaring holes in it. Buddhism actually disproves the notion as well.

Extended mind hypothesis: for instance your drinking water is so much a part of your constant and unavoidable part of the environment, beyond your anatomical brain that your drinking water is included in your extended mind.

The world view of the scientific enlightenment has been so productive of all sorts of benefits that we simply must respect and glorify it, to paraphrase you.
With climate change an existential threat the door into another world view opens. Enlightenment science is not sufficient any more we need to go through the new door.

That’s why it’s not really something I regard seriously. There is no reason to really include drinking water in the mind, it just reads like you’re randomly labeling somethings as part of mind and others not so.

And no the door to climate change doesn’t mean another view opens. Never mind that it’s too late to do anything about climate change now. Extended mind wouldn’t have prevented that. Enlightenment science is sufficient and we don’t need magical thinking to solve problems like “extended mind theory”. It’s about as nonsense as theists claiming everything is god.

You haven’t really given a case for it and just highlighted the glaring holes in it. It’s nonsense, just arbitrarily labeling things “mind” with the most tenuous criteria (that’s being generous). Nevermind that it has no real definition of mind and that modern neuroscience shows mind is nothing more than the brain, nothing extends past that.

[popeye1945]

In the relation between subject and object, knowing that they stand or fall together, our species has violated that relationship by not staying in greater harmony with nature; thus, we have a polluted environment and climate change. Nature is going to prove its dominion, and only perhaps we might survive the wiser.

[Darkneos]

In the relation between subject and object, knowing that they stand or fall together, our species has violated that relationship by not staying in greater harmony with nature; thus, we have a polluted environment and climate change. Nature is going to prove its dominion, and only perhaps we might survive the wiser.

Not true, again, and extended mind wouldn’t solve that either. The reality is that humans didn’t really evolve to think long term like climate change, no animal does. Even as hunter gatherers we hunted many animals to extinction.

It’s got nothing to do with “relationship between subject and object”. Nature isn’t going to prove anything either.

[popeye1945]

In the relation between subject and object, knowing that they stand or fall together, our species has violated that relationship by not staying in greater harmony with nature; thus, we have a polluted environment and climate change. Nature is going to prove its dominion, and only perhaps we might survive the wiser.

Not true, again, and extended mind wouldn’t solve that either. The reality is that humans didn’t really evolve to think long term like climate change, no animal does. Even as hunter gatherers we hunted many animals to extinction.

It’s got nothing to do with “relationship between subject and object”. Nature isn’t going to prove anything either.

With nature unleashed, it just proves our inadequacy in rising to the occasion, which you just stated. The physical world/nature is the object of the subject and object unity. The unity is reality.

[Darkneos]

In the relation between subject and object, knowing that they stand or fall together, our species has violated that relationship by not staying in greater harmony with nature; thus, we have a polluted environment and climate change. Nature is going to prove its dominion, and only perhaps we might survive the wiser.

Not true, again, and extended mind wouldn’t solve that either. The reality is that humans didn’t really evolve to think long term like climate change, no animal does. Even as hunter gatherers we hunted many animals to extinction.

It’s got nothing to do with “relationship between subject and object”. Nature isn’t going to prove anything either.

With nature unleashed, it just proves our inadequacy in rising to the occasion, which you just stated. The physical world/nature is the object of the subject and object unity. The unity is reality.

Nope, there is no subject or object unity. Also we are nature too, nature does not care about rising to the occasion or not.

Sounds like you're just not getting it, but I expected that.