Philosophy of Mind

[popeye1945]

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.

Ok, I agree we are flogging a dead horse here. All the best to you!

[Belinda]

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.

What Darkneos is missing is that humans evolve mostly culturally which is much more rapid change than evolution by natural selection. The human is the only known animal that can know what the extended mind hypothesis is, and which can try to draw subject and object closer together.

[popeye1945]

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. 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.

What Darkneos is missing is that humans evolve mostly culturally, which is a much more rapid change than evolution by natural selection. The human is the only known animal that can know what the extended mind hypothesis is, and which can try to draw subject and object closer together.

The problem with that, Belinda, is that subject and object can never be separated, granted we speak sometimes as though they are for discussion and debated, but that is a bit like poetic license in philosophy. To say that humanity evolves mostly culturally, you need to emphasize that this is not truly evolution, but rather advances in technology and changing fashions. However, biology does not follow fashion, political or otherwise. The idea that it does is a source of great chaos.

[Darkneos]

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.

What Darkneos is missing is that humans evolve mostly culturally which is much more rapid change than evolution by natural selection. The human is the only known animal that can know what the extended mind hypothesis is, and which can try to draw subject and object closer together.

No I’m not missing that, Popeye is just incorrect in their assessment of what’s going on.

Though culture could just be natural selection as well. You say more rapidly than when it’s just a variation of it. Again, nature is neutral, only we seem to care one way or the other. Animals are limited by biology but if they weren’t they’d do what we are doing now, dominate the ecosystem.

You both don’t really seem to get it.

[Darkneos]

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.

What Darkneos is missing is that humans evolve mostly culturally, which is a much more rapid change than evolution by natural selection. The human is the only known animal that can know what the extended mind hypothesis is, and which can try to draw subject and object closer together.

The problem with that, Belinda, is that subject and object can never be separated, granted we speak sometimes as though they are for discussion and debated, but that is a bit like poetic license in philosophy. To say that humanity evolves mostly culturally, you need to emphasize that this is not truly evolution, but rather advances in technology and changing fashions. However, biology does not follow fashion, political or otherwise. The idea that it does is a source of great chaos.

Well in some instances biology does follow fashion so to speak.

Again you’re trying to promote a false idea, that being embodied cognition. But subject and object are separated and that’s not just a language thing.

Also humans evolving culturally is truly evolution. You’re trying to make reality other than what it is to make your incorrect view work.

But that’s what I expect on this forum. Maybe like 5% of people here have any idea what they’re talking about or know anything.

[Belinda]

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.

What Darkneos is missing is that humans evolve mostly culturally, which is a much more rapid change than evolution by natural selection. The human is the only known animal that can know what the extended mind hypothesis is, and which can try to draw subject and object closer together.

The problem with that, Belinda, is that subject and object can never be separated, granted we speak sometimes as though they are for discussion and debated, but that is a bit like poetic license in philosophy. To say that humanity evolves mostly culturally, you need to emphasize that this is not truly evolution, but rather advances in technology and changing fashions. However, biology does not follow fashion, political or otherwise. The idea that it does is a source of great chaos.

Evolution means change . To evolve means to change. Technology ,and changing fashions, are cultural.

You misunderstood . I never confused culture and biology .

[popeye1945]

What Darkneos is missing is that humans evolve mostly culturally, which is a much more rapid change than evolution by natural selection. The human is the only known animal that can know what the extended mind hypothesis is, and which can try to draw subject and object closer together.

The problem with that, Belinda, is that subject and object can never be separated, granted we speak sometimes as though they are for discussion and debated, but that is a bit like poetic license in philosophy. To say that humanity evolves mostly culturally, you need to emphasize that this is not truly evolution, but rather advances in technology and changing fashions. However, biology does not follow fashion, political or otherwise. The idea that it does is a source of great chaos.

Evolution means change . To evolve means to change. Technology ,and changing fashions, are cultural.

You misunderstood . I never confused culture and biology .

It does need clarification. Humans do not evolve culturally; humans make changes in culture. It is in keeping with the nature of technology that when humanity invents something to improve the quality of life for the average person, that person does not need to understand it to benefit from it. This is most often what is considered cultural evolution, but it is the culture or the culture's technology that has evolved, not humanity itself. Your statement to Darkneos says humans evolve mostly culturally, it's splitting hairs, I suppose. Human cultures are monstrosities relative to their culture's foundation, which is the natural world, so of necessity, as culture is once removed from the natural world, its inhabitants are also monstrosities relative to the natural world. This is evident by nature's present chaos, which might be seen as its attempt to cleanse itself. It is again a matter of what the proper foundation for a term is. In our discussions on morality, I stated that the proper foundation of a human system of morality is biology itself, humanity itself. Is there any human morality directed towards nature? Like subject and object, the two can never be separated. Most animals know not to shit in their own nest, but humanity does not.

[Belinda]

The problem with that, Belinda, is that subject and object can never be separated, granted we speak sometimes as though they are for discussion and debated, but that is a bit like poetic license in philosophy. To say that humanity evolves mostly culturally, you need to emphasize that this is not truly evolution, but rather advances in technology and changing fashions. However, biology does not follow fashion, political or otherwise. The idea that it does is a source of great chaos.

Evolution means change . To evolve means to change. Technology ,and changing fashions, are cultural.

You misunderstood . I never confused culture and biology .

It does need clarification. Humans do not evolve culturally; humans make changes in culture. It is in keeping with the nature of technology that when humanity invents something to improve the quality of life for the average person, that person does not need to understand it to benefit from it. This is most often what is considered cultural evolution, but it is the culture or the culture's technology that has evolved, not humanity itself. Your statement to Darkneos says humans evolve mostly culturally, it's splitting hairs, I suppose. Human cultures are monstrosities relative to their culture's foundation, which is the natural world, so of necessity, as culture is once removed from the natural world, its inhabitants are also monstrosities relative to the natural world. This is evident by nature's present chaos, which might be seen as its attempt to cleanse itself. It is again a matter of what the proper foundation for a term is. In our discussions on morality, I stated that the proper foundation of a human system of morality is biology itself, humanity itself. Is there any human morality directed towards nature? Like subject and object, the two can never be separated. Most animals know not to shit in their own nest, but humanity does not.

For instances Popeye:-

*Vaccination against Covid put culture ahead of biology in the evolutionary stakes.

* Inventions of the wheel evolved man culturally.

* Use of contraceptive techniques caused cultural evolution

* Colonialism caused a great deal of cultural evolution throughout the world and throughout man's past. Commercial colonialism still does so. And contemporary genocide causes cultural evolution to this day .

Nature does not intend to "cleanse itself"!

[popeye1945]

Evolution means change . To evolve means to change. Technology ,and changing fashions, are cultural.

You misunderstood . I never confused culture and biology .

It does need clarification. Humans do not evolve culturally; humans make changes in culture. It is in keeping with the nature of technology that when humanity invents something to improve the quality of life for the average person, that person does not need to understand it to benefit from it. This is most often what is considered cultural evolution, but it is the culture or the culture's technology that has evolved, not humanity itself. Your statement to Darkneos says humans evolve mostly culturally, it's splitting hairs, I suppose. Human cultures are monstrosities relative to their culture's foundation, which is the natural world, so of necessity, as culture is once removed from the natural world, its inhabitants are also monstrosities relative to the natural world. This is evident by nature's present chaos, which might be seen as its attempt to cleanse itself. It is again a matter of what the proper foundation for a term is. In our discussions on morality, I stated that the proper foundation of a human system of morality is biology itself, humanity itself. Is there any human morality directed towards nature? Like subject and object, the two can never be separated. Most animals know not to shit in their own nest, but humanity does not.

For instances Popeye:-

*Vaccination against COVID put culture ahead of biology in the evolutionary stakes. * invention of the wheel evolved man culturally.
* Use of contraceptive techniques caused cultural evolution
* Colonialism caused a great deal of cultural evolution throughout the world and throughout man's past. Commercial colonialism still does so. And contemporary genocide causes cultural evolution to this day.
Nature does not intend to "cleanse itself"!

No, vaccination was an attempt to save life/biology, though the point is taken, it was generated by a people-generated culture.
You say contraceptive techniques caused cultural evolution, that is a little obscure, change does not necessarily mean evolution, most mutations are deadly to the organisms affected, would you deny there are cultural mutations? Colonialism spread technology, agreed, but at a terrible cost to much of humanity. You say commercial colonialism still generates cultural evolution, that's true, but again at a terrible cost. You'll have to forgive that bit of anthropomorphism, its true nature does not intend, but neither does culture. I do not believe humanity has much in the way of self-control. That leaves the benefits of culture questionable, at least given aspects of it. I think the global situation speaks to that.

[Belinda]

It does need clarification. Humans do not evolve culturally; humans make changes in culture. It is in keeping with the nature of technology that when humanity invents something to improve the quality of life for the average person, that person does not need to understand it to benefit from it. This is most often what is considered cultural evolution, but it is the culture or the culture's technology that has evolved, not humanity itself. Your statement to Darkneos says humans evolve mostly culturally, it's splitting hairs, I suppose. Human cultures are monstrosities relative to their culture's foundation, which is the natural world, so of necessity, as culture is once removed from the natural world, its inhabitants are also monstrosities relative to the natural world. This is evident by nature's present chaos, which might be seen as its attempt to cleanse itself. It is again a matter of what the proper foundation for a term is. In our discussions on morality, I stated that the proper foundation of a human system of morality is biology itself, humanity itself. Is there any human morality directed towards nature? Like subject and object, the two can never be separated. Most animals know not to shit in their own nest, but humanity does not.

For instances Popeye:-

*Vaccination against COVID put culture ahead of biology in the evolutionary stakes. * invention of the wheel evolved man culturally.
* Use of contraceptive techniques caused cultural evolution
* Colonialism caused a great deal of cultural evolution throughout the world and throughout man's past. Commercial colonialism still does so. And contemporary genocide causes cultural evolution to this day.
Nature does not intend to "cleanse itself"!

No, vaccination was an attempt to save life/biology, though the point is taken, it was generated by a people-generated culture.
You say contraceptive techniques caused cultural evolution, that is a little obscure, change does not necessarily mean evolution, most mutations are deadly to the organisms affected, would you deny there are cultural mutations? Colonialism spread technology, agreed, but at a terrible cost to much of humanity. You say commercial colonialism still generates cultural evolution, that's true, but again at a terrible cost. You'll have to forgive that bit of anthropomorphism, its true nature does not intend, but neither does culture. I do not believe humanity has much in the way of self-control. That leaves the benefits of culture questionable, at least given aspects of it. I think the global situation speaks to that.

If you look at old photos of people say 19th century, you see they are smaller than comparable people today. Is this difference caused by natural selection? Or is is much more likely to have been caused by improved nutrition, and an extended childhood with no hard manual work?

[popeye1945]

For instances Popeye:-

*Vaccination against COVID put culture ahead of biology in the evolutionary stakes. * invention of the wheel evolved man culturally.
* Use of contraceptive techniques caused cultural evolution
* Colonialism caused a great deal of cultural evolution throughout the world and throughout man's past. Commercial colonialism still does so. And contemporary genocide causes cultural evolution to this day.
Nature does not intend to "cleanse itself"!

No, vaccination was an attempt to save life/biology, though the point is taken, it was generated by a people-generated culture.
You say contraceptive techniques caused cultural evolution, that is a little obscure, change does not necessarily mean evolution, most mutations are deadly to the organisms affected, would you deny there are cultural mutations? Colonialism spread technology, agreed, but at a terrible cost to much of humanity. You say commercial colonialism still generates cultural evolution, that's true, but again at a terrible cost. You'll have to forgive that bit of anthropomorphism, its true nature does not intend, but neither does culture. I do not believe humanity has much in the way of self-control. That leaves the benefits of culture questionable, at least given aspects of it. I think the global situation speaks to that.

If you look at old photos of people in the 19th century, you see they are smaller than comparable people today. Is this difference caused by natural selection? Or is it much more likely to have been caused by improved nutrition and an extended childhood with no hard manual work?

Excellent, point well taken! Yeah, sorry Blinda got a little carried away---lol! Culture should shelter but still have an eye on its adaptiveness to the larger reality of nature.

[Darkneos]

The problem with that, Belinda, is that subject and object can never be separated, granted we speak sometimes as though they are for discussion and debated, but that is a bit like poetic license in philosophy. To say that humanity evolves mostly culturally, you need to emphasize that this is not truly evolution, but rather advances in technology and changing fashions. However, biology does not follow fashion, political or otherwise. The idea that it does is a source of great chaos.

Evolution means change . To evolve means to change. Technology ,and changing fashions, are cultural.

You misunderstood . I never confused culture and biology .

It does need clarification. Humans do not evolve culturally; humans make changes in culture. It is in keeping with the nature of technology that when humanity invents something to improve the quality of life for the average person, that person does not need to understand it to benefit from it. This is most often what is considered cultural evolution, but it is the culture or the culture's technology that has evolved, not humanity itself. Your statement to Darkneos says humans evolve mostly culturally, it's splitting hairs, I suppose. Human cultures are monstrosities relative to their culture's foundation, which is the natural world, so of necessity, as culture is once removed from the natural world, its inhabitants are also monstrosities relative to the natural world. This is evident by nature's present chaos, which might be seen as its attempt to cleanse itself. It is again a matter of what the proper foundation for a term is. In our discussions on morality, I stated that the proper foundation of a human system of morality is biology itself, humanity itself. Is there any human morality directed towards nature? Like subject and object, the two can never be separated. Most animals know not to shit in their own nest, but humanity does not.

Biology is not a foundation of morality, at all.

Subject and object are separated by definition, you keep saying they can’t when they clearly already are. You’re the one denying reality.

You also have a very naive view of nature and animals, and calling culture a monstrosity shows you don’t understand it. Hell even non human animals have culture. Culture is nature, in fact everything is, even computers.

Like I said, you have a very stupid and uninformed notion of nature.

[popeye1945]

Evolution means change . To evolve means to change. Technology ,and changing fashions, are cultural.

You misunderstood . I never confused culture and biology .

It does need clarification. Humans do not evolve culturally; humans make changes in culture. It is in keeping with the nature of technology that when humanity invents something to improve the quality of life for the average person, that person does not need to understand it to benefit from it. This is most often what is considered cultural evolution, but it is the culture or the culture's technology that has evolved, not humanity itself. Your statement to Darkneos says humans evolve mostly culturally, it's splitting hairs, I suppose. Human cultures are monstrosities relative to their culture's foundation, which is the natural world, so of necessity, as culture is once removed from the natural world, its inhabitants are also monstrosities relative to the natural world. This is evident by nature's present chaos, which might be seen as its attempt to cleanse itself. It is again a matter of what the proper foundation for a term is. In our discussions on morality, I stated that the proper foundation of a human system of morality is biology itself, humanity itself. Is there any human morality directed towards nature? Like subject and object, the two can never be separated. Most animals know not to shit in their own nest, but humanity does not.

Biology is not a foundation of morality, at all.

Subject and object are separated by definition, you keep saying they can’t when they clearly already are. You’re the one denying reality.

You also have a very naive view of nature and animals, and calling culture a monstrosity shows you don’t understand it. Hell even non human animals have culture. Culture is nature, in fact everything is, even computers.

Like I said, you have a very stupid and uninformed notion of nature.

The Inseparability of Subject and Object
1. Perception Is Always Filtered Through the Subject
Every experience of an object is mediated by the senses, cognition, and interpretation of the subject.

You never encounter “pure” objects—you encounter your version of them.

Example: A red apple is not “red” in itself. Redness is a perceptual quality created by your visual system interpreting wavelengths of light.

Conclusion: The object is never accessed independently of the subject. They are co-dependent in experience.

2. Quantum Physics Undermines Objectivity
In quantum mechanics, the observer effect shows that the act of observation alters the state of the system.

Particles exist in a superposition until measured—only then do they “collapse” into a definite state.

This implies that observation creates reality, not merely reveals it.

Conclusion: The subject (observer) plays an active role in shaping the object (observed phenomenon).

3. Language and Thought Construct Reality
We don’t perceive raw reality—we perceive conceptualized reality shaped by language and thought.

The word “tree” is not the tree itself. It’s a mental construct that organizes sensory data.

Different cultures and languages carve up reality differently. What one sees as “object,” another may see as “process” or “relationship.”

Conclusion: The object is not independent—it’s shaped by the subject’s cognitive and linguistic framework.

4. Phenomenological Evidence
Philosophers like Husserl and Merleau-Ponty argue that consciousness is always consciousness of something—there’s no pure subject without an object, and no object without a subject to perceive it.

Experience is relational, not dualistic.

Conclusion: Subject and object are two poles of a single experiential field.

5. Eastern Philosophy: Non-Dual Awareness
In Advaita Vedanta and Zen Buddhism, the separation of subject and object is seen as an illusion.

Meditation reveals that the boundary between “self” and “world” is fluid—awareness is not located in a subject, but is the field in which both subject and object arise.

Conclusion: The deepest level of consciousness reveals unity, not division.


To believe in a strict separation between subject and object is to assume that reality exists independently of experience. But every piece of evidence we have—scientific, philosophical, and introspective—suggests that reality is participatory. The subject and object are not two things—they are two aspects of one unfolding process.

[Belinda]

No, vaccination was an attempt to save life/biology, though the point is taken, it was generated by a people-generated culture.
You say contraceptive techniques caused cultural evolution, that is a little obscure, change does not necessarily mean evolution, most mutations are deadly to the organisms affected, would you deny there are cultural mutations? Colonialism spread technology, agreed, but at a terrible cost to much of humanity. You say commercial colonialism still generates cultural evolution, that's true, but again at a terrible cost. You'll have to forgive that bit of anthropomorphism, its true nature does not intend, but neither does culture. I do not believe humanity has much in the way of self-control. That leaves the benefits of culture questionable, at least given aspects of it. I think the global situation speaks to that.

If you look at old photos of people in the 19th century, you see they are smaller than comparable people today. Is this difference caused by natural selection? Or is it much more likely to have been caused by improved nutrition and an extended childhood with no hard manual work?

Excellent, point well taken! Yeah, sorry Blinda got a little carried away---lol! Culture should shelter but still have an eye on its adaptiveness to the larger reality of nature.

How long would it take for natural selection to make a family big enough and strong enough to feed itself, as compared with the bright idea to enclose some wild goats and pigs.

[Belinda]

Evolution means change . To evolve means to change. Technology ,and changing fashions, are cultural.

You misunderstood . I never confused culture and biology .

It does need clarification. Humans do not evolve culturally; humans make changes in culture. It is in keeping with the nature of technology that when humanity invents something to improve the quality of life for the average person, that person does not need to understand it to benefit from it. This is most often what is considered cultural evolution, but it is the culture or the culture's technology that has evolved, not humanity itself. Your statement to Darkneos says humans evolve mostly culturally, it's splitting hairs, I suppose. Human cultures are monstrosities relative to their culture's foundation, which is the natural world, so of necessity, as culture is once removed from the natural world, its inhabitants are also monstrosities relative to the natural world. This is evident by nature's present chaos, which might be seen as its attempt to cleanse itself. It is again a matter of what the proper foundation for a term is. In our discussions on morality, I stated that the proper foundation of a human system of morality is biology itself, humanity itself. Is there any human morality directed towards nature? Like subject and object, the two can never be separated. Most animals know not to shit in their own nest, but humanity does not.

Biology is not a foundation of morality, at all.

Subject and object are separated by definition, you keep saying they can’t when they clearly already are. You’re the one denying reality.

You also have a very naive view of nature and animals, and calling culture a monstrosity shows you don’t understand it. Hell even non human animals have culture. Culture is nature, in fact everything is, even computers.

Like I said, you have a very stupid and uninformed notion of nature.

But biology is a foundation of morality and moreover the only foundation that avoids the divisiveness and autocracy of organised religions.
See where culture has got us! Culture has brought us to genocide, nuclear bombs, capitalism, and unbalanced social class structures. The natural "biological" man on the other hand is our only hope for survival. Our God must be in the image of "biological" man.

Darkneos last Thursday:-

Though culture could just be natural selection as well. You say more rapidly than when it’s just a variation of it. Again, nature is neutral, only we seem to care one way or the other. Animals are limited by biology but if they weren’t they’d do what we are doing now, dominate the ecosystem.

But they don't! Animals remain in Eden. Man it is that is an outcast. Animals lack the ability to adapt according to culture. And that is their saving grace.

With info from ChatGPT:-
Extended Mind Hypothesis – Spiritual and Philosophical Correlates

Clark & Chalmers’ Extended Mind Hypothesis (EMH) argues that cognition isn’t confined to the brain or body — it extends into tools, environments, and social systems. This aligns with several spiritual and philosophical traditions:

Buddhism (Anatta): The mind is not a fixed self but a process dependent on conditions — similar to how EMH views cognition as distributed across internal and external elements.

Neoplatonism: The soul is not entirely contained in the body but participates in a larger cosmic intellect — echoing the idea of an extended mind.

Advaita Vedanta: The self (Atman) is ultimately one with Brahman (universal consciousness). This reflects EMH’s challenge to the boundaries between individual mind and world.

Animist / Indigenous Worldviews: Mind or spirit is not limited to humans but found throughout nature — resonating with EMH’s emphasis on distributed cognition.

Phenomenology (Merleau-Ponty): Perception and cognition are always situated and embodied — supporting the view that mind and world are inseparable in practice.

Together, these traditions suggest that EMH is more than a theory of cognition — it taps into longstanding metaphysical views of mind–world interdependence.

I included the above because the extended mind is how subject and object can again be made into one.