RoccoR wrote:The "brain" and the "mind" are totally two different things.
RoccoR, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there is no “mind” - It is just a concocted ‘story’; a fairy tale that we ‘religiously’ believe, and has been told (indoctrinated) to us by past generations as an attempt to make sense of our reality. This dualistic entity called “mind”, is absolutely positively logically impossible at least 2 times over. It is no more valid than a fairy godmother with a magical wand.
The belief in the “mind” is not really any different than early cave-man’s belief in the “sun god”. Believing the fairy tale, that the sun was controlled by a sun-god, quelled the nagging question of why the sun does what it does. But both of these “fairy tales” are just phantom solutions, as it only just shifts, and hides the issue/problem (the nagging question) back out of line-of-sight (i.e. it kicks-the-can-down-the-road). Sure, it satisfies most of the cave-men and today’s-men’s
need for a solution, just like any religion (or belief in fairy tales) does, …but the nagging question/problem is still there (…it is just hidden out of sight).
Let me start by asking -- how do you know (other than being told/indoctrinated by others) that this “mind” actually exists; what are the tell-tale signs, the symptoms; the indicators? What gives you the clue that this thing actually exists?
In other words, please don’t tell me any ‘hearsay’. Please don’t tell me what you read in the latest “Philosophy of Mind” literature. I don’t want to hear the hearsay from publications/peers/preachers/professors/parents or anyone else but ‘you’, …tell my how
YOU directly know this “mind” exists.
Okay, I am going to guess your answer here. -- Umm, is it because you experience thoughts that you feel are ‘unique’ to you?
You say that it is more than that? -- Okay, so is it because you believe that this “mind” is the ‘thinker’ of the thoughts that you experience?
Yes, you say? -- Okay, so then does the existence of “mind” quell the nagging question of ‘who/what’ thinks/creates these thoughts that you experience?
Congratulations your belief in religion (fairy tales) is confirmed. You are in good company. You have reached the same spot/conclusion as Rene Descartes.
But before we continue, let me back up, and share these eloquently relevant words from my very good friend RJG:
RJG wrote:How does one even really know that they have a ‘mind’? I suspect we all have been told that we have one. But, for me, being told is not reason enough to automatically accept as a truth. Other than being told, is there another way to know that we possess a ‘mind’?
Many of us automatically; without direct confirmation, accept as truth, that which is told to us by “trusted sources” (i.e. parents, professors, preachers, etc.). For example, most of us accept as truth, that the earth is spherically shaped, as opposed to being flat. In fact, many of us will mock those people who claim that the earth is flat. But unless we are an astronaut and had the fortune to observe and confirm this spherically shaped earth ourselves directly, then we don’t really know, as we are relying on the “hearsay” of trusted sources to tell us our truths.
One can justify (their acceptance of truth) that the earth is spherical, because of one’s belief that confirmation exists, though indirectly, via the words from the astronaut or pictures from his camera. The certainty of this truth is less certain than via direct confirmation. But what about those things that are seemingly impossible to confirm, such as ‘minds’? Is it possible to directly or indirectly, confirm such a thing?
Who else really knows that I have a ‘mind’, if not me directly? I am the only one that can possibly confirm such a thing. There is no astronaut or any other to confirm this; there is no one able to peer into me to detect and photograph this thing called mind.
If I'm told, by a trusted source, that I possess a marble in my hand should I accept this as truth even if I can't see or feel it? If I actually do possess a marble in my hand, then shouldn't I know this without being told?
Many of us seem to unquestionably accept as true, those things, as told from those whom we trust. But what if those that we unquestionably trust, accept from those that they unquestionably trust? How long is this chain of unquestionable and automatic trust and acceptance? And what if the first person in the chain has erred? Being told, from a trustworthy source, that something (i.e. a "mind") exists just doesn't cut it for me. There has to be something more!
If I actually do possess a mind then shouldn't I know this without being told so? Or is it that, one only knows they have a mind because they have been told so? Is it possible to know that one has a mind without ever being told so? If I lived on a deserted island isolated from all other people (or trusted sources) could I know I possess this thing that others called "mind"?
Others may claim that I have a mind, and I suppose that I could just go along and simply and blindly accept this as truth, but does this really mean that it is? But really, how can they know I have a mind? I am the only one that can possibly know. Certainly, to make such a claim of having a mind means that there 'must' be some indication (other than an outside person telling me so). So what is it, how do I know I have a mind, what is this indicator that tells me, with unquestionable certainty, that I, in fact, possess this thing called a "mind"?
And from this point, we follow with Descartes assertion/answer -- Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence was
proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity; a “self”; a “mind”, for there to be a thought.
So RoccoR, you are in good company. You and Rene both believe in a “thinking” entity (res cogitans) called the “mind”. On the surface this conclusion seems very reasonable, but logically, it is seriously flawed.
Firstly, Descartes (and RoccoR, and others) made a huge leap of blind faith. They falsely assumed that because they ‘experienced’ thoughts, that they therefore must ‘also’ be the “thinker” (creator/constructor/author) of these thoughts. This is flawed logic; blind faith; a pure religious belief. There is no causal, nor logical, connection to make the claim between the awareness/experiencing of something to the causing/creating of this something. In effect, Descartes inadvertently (and fallaciously) created a sun-god (“mind”) to think for and control the sun (“body”).
And secondly, even if this (mind/body dualism) were hypothetically possible (which it is not), it would still be logically impossible, as it just kicks the can down the road. As the next logical question would then be:
If the mind controls the body, then what controls the mind? …oh, okay, the mind has it’s own (dualistic) mind within it. …okay I am so satisfied now. …but wait, what controls the mind within the mind? …oh, okay that mind ‘also’ has a mind within it. Got it. I am now super satisfied, …what’s for lunch?
There is no mind, but instead only a body/brain that experiences stuff, including thoughts. These thoughts are just bodily reactions/experiences; and more specifically, they are composed and comprised of many bits of sensory experiences (emanating from memory).
The "mind" is a grand fairy tale.
Last edited by Old Rasputin on May 21st, 2017, 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.