ruveyn ben yosef

Introspecting

49 posts in this topic

But he believes in atoms external to himself -- even though they are inferred by minds that don't exist. But there is an explanation. You will just have to recognize and accept that the history of civilization has been a fundamental battle between the asparagus addicts and the broccoli addicts. Such is the human condition. Asparagus addiction is very serious.

By the way, he was never a pilot, even though he stroked his pet Sopwith Camel. He only played one on TV. He was the character with only one line: "Good Grief". Even Democritus could not have delivered it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But he believes in atoms external to himself -- even though they are inferred by minds that don't exist.

Inferred by a brain that DOES exist. Every thought you ever had was cooked up in your brain by an electro-chemical process. That includes inferring.

Tell me sir. Have you ever objectively detected a mind in a body that was not your own? If so how. And where is the physical proof that you were right.

I have detect brains not only in my head but in other people's heads. I have the fNMR scans to prove it.

My brains do my thinking. What does your thinking, assuming that you think.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
---------------

My brains do my thinking. ---------

ruveyn

Where's your scan of that? How do you know it's your brains and not your facial muscles? Sounds like you're doing too much introspecting on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But he believes in atoms external to himself -- even though they are inferred by minds that don't exist.

Inferred by a brain that DOES exist. Every thought you ever had was cooked up in your brain by an electro-chemical process. That includes inferring.

Inferring is not a kind of cooking. It's not "raw" either. It's not like asparagus, which can be eaten -- cooked, or when the addiction becomes desperate, raw.

Tell me sir. Have you ever objectively detected a mind in a body that was not your own? If so how. And where is the physical proof that you were right.]

Yes, but the chain of reasoning goes beyond the perceptual level.

I have detect brains not only in my head but in other people's heads. I have the fNMR scans to prove it.

My brains do my thinking. What does your thinking, assuming that you think.

His lack of a concept of mind and need to tentatively hypothesize as an "assumption" that I think are both his problem, not explained away by too much munching on asparagus. The rest of us realize that concepts of mind and of the physical organ brain are both required before establishing relationships between thinking and organs -- which is why the stubornly repetitious obnoxious banter due supposedly to too much asparagus as an excuse in the name of 'genius' isn't taken seriously here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
---------------

My brains do my thinking. ---------

Where's your scan of that? How do you know it's your brains and not your facial muscles? Sounds like you're doing too much introspecting on this one.

But it's the same thing. Haven't you ever heard of 'body language'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised to see nominalism, determinism, and mindlessness(literally) advocated here, albeit by a singular poster. All of the assertions made in favor of such ideas have been founded entirely on concept-stealing. If Mr. Yosef were consistent he would ultimately have to remain silent on all matters. What precisely are all these words he is using? What is fact? What is cosmos? What is time? What is a Ruveyn? The folly of claiming to be a supporter of "facts first" while casting aside the unifying faculty that discovers facts should be evident. At least he admits his rhetoric is genetic and not objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am surprised to see nominalism, determinism, and mindlessness(literally) advocated here, albeit by a singular poster. All of the assertions made in favor of such ideas have been founded entirely on concept-stealing.

I won't remain silent. I will state facts. I love facts. Facts are solid and real. Opinions and judgements are here, there and everywhere.

When the Little Boy in the story -The Emperor and His New Clothes- pointed out to the emp that he was bare-a**, he was stating a fact. I am like that Little Boy (but somewhat older).

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While consciousness perceives facts, only a conceptual level consciousness grasps "I am conscious of facts." In explicit terms, your argument amounts to, "I am conscious of the fact that I do not have a mind." As others have patiently stated, this is a bizarre and hopeless claim. Again, to defend such a claim on the basis of brain scans performed machines built not by genetic rhetoric but by the creativity and power of reason is philosophic grand larceny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While consciousness perceives facts, only a conceptual level consciousness grasps "I am conscious of facts." In explicit terms, your argument amounts to, "I am conscious of the fact that I do not have a mind." As others have patiently stated, this is a bizarre and hopeless claim. Again, to defend such a claim on the basis of brain scans performed machines built not by genetic rhetoric but by the creativity and power of reason is philosophic grand larceny.

Well put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While consciousness perceives facts, only a conceptual level consciousness grasps "I am conscious of facts." In explicit terms, your argument amounts to, "I am conscious of the fact that I do not have a mind." As others have patiently stated, this is a bizarre and hopeless claim. Again, to defend such a claim on the basis of brain scans performed machines built not by genetic rhetoric but by the creativity and power of reason is philosophic grand larceny.

Is it a bizarre and hopeless claim? I have been scanned by some of the most advanced equipment on the planet and I have not seen one trace of a mind. All I see are brain and glial connective tissue, nerves, blood vessels and glands. I have with the aid of a PET scan seen various parts of my brain "light up:" when I am doing certain intellectual tasks. Every thought is accompanied by a discernible physical process or event. My bizarre and hopeless claim is based on clinical facts and recorded data from some very fancy and expensive equipment.

I have not the foggiest notion of whether you have a mind (for all I know you might) because I have not seen your scans, but I have seen mine and I see nothing (repeat nothing there) that corresponds to this mysterious entity Mind. I go on the basis of observed facts. So the claim I make is about me and I have the evidence to back it up. If some kind of equipment is produced which show in addition to all my physical parts a heretofore unseen entity, then I will change my conclusion on the matter.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While consciousness perceives facts, only a conceptual level consciousness grasps "I am conscious of facts." In explicit terms, your argument amounts to, "I am conscious of the fact that I do not have a mind." As others have patiently stated, this is a bizarre and hopeless claim. Again, to defend such a claim on the basis of brain scans performed machines built not by genetic rhetoric but by the creativity and power of reason is philosophic grand larceny.

Is it a bizarre and hopeless claim? I have been scanned by some of the most advanced equipment on the planet and I have not seen one trace of a mind. All I see are brain and glial connective tissue, nerves, blood vessels and glands. I have with the aid of a PET scan seen various parts of my brain "light up:" when I am doing certain intellectual tasks. Every thought is accompanied by a discernible physical process or event. My bizarre and hopeless claim is based on clinical facts and recorded data from some very fancy and expensive equipment.

I have not the foggiest notion of whether you have a mind (for all I know you might) because I have not seen your scans, but I have seen mine and I see nothing (repeat nothing there) that corresponds to this mysterious entity Mind. I go on the basis of observed facts. So the claim I make is about me and I have the evidence to back it up. If some kind of equipment is produced which show in addition to all my physical parts a heretofore unseen entity, then I will change my conclusion on the matter.

ruveyn

I asked you at least once before. Where is the information contained in Morse Code. You see only dots and dashes which are the physical manifestation. Please don't dodge this again; what is the form of the information? Pretend a Martian asks you to show a scan of the information, and is not satisfied with dots and dashes. He will tell you that all he sees is facts and the facts are dots and dashes. He demands you show him the information, not the dots and dashes. Please answer this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ruveyn: If you really want to be factual and logical, it would be a good idea to know what the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept is. When people say you are committing it -- and you often do -- they are telling you that you are being illogical.

Since I know you don't want to be illogical, Google "stolen concept fallacy," find out what that means, and stop doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While consciousness perceives facts, only a conceptual level consciousness grasps "I am conscious of facts." In explicit terms, your argument amounts to, "I am conscious of the fact that I do not have a mind." As others have patiently stated, this is a bizarre and hopeless claim. Again, to defend such a claim on the basis of brain scans performed machines built not by genetic rhetoric but by the creativity and power of reason is philosophic grand larceny.

Is it a bizarre and hopeless claim? I have been scanned by some of the most advanced equipment on the planet and I have not seen one trace of a mind. All I see are brain and glial connective tissue, nerves, blood vessels and glands. I have with the aid of a PET scan seen various parts of my brain "light up:" when I am doing certain intellectual tasks. Every thought is accompanied by a discernible physical process or event. My bizarre and hopeless claim is based on clinical facts and recorded data from some very fancy and expensive equipment.

I have not the foggiest notion of whether you have a mind (for all I know you might) because I have not seen your scans, but I have seen mine and I see nothing (repeat nothing there) that corresponds to this mysterious entity Mind. I go on the basis of observed facts. So the claim I make is about me and I have the evidence to back it up. If some kind of equipment is produced which show in addition to all my physical parts a heretofore unseen entity, then I will change my conclusion on the matter.

ruveyn

I asked you at least once before. Where is the information contained in Morse Code. You see only dots and dashes which are the physical manifestation. Please don't dodge this again; what is the form of the information? Pretend a Martian asks you to show a scan of the information, and is not satisfied with dots and dashes. He will tell you that all he sees is facts and the facts are dots and dashes. He demands you show him the information, not the dots and dashes. Please answer this time.

And beyond this, how does he know that the blotches of color on an electronic display correspond to the spatial arrangement of types of tissue within his own head? Shouldn't he say that he sees only colors? I doubt he's ever literally sawed open a living man's head, so he's never actually detected a brain within his definition. He's only seen schematics that must be symbolically interpreted by a conceptual mind to relate to the brain that he assures to us exists. Based on this discussion, I don't believe brains exist. There are only colors on a display; red, blue, and green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And beyond this, how does he know that the blotches of color on an electronic display correspond to the spatial arrangement of types of tissue within his own head? Shouldn't he say that he sees only colors? I

corroberated by comparing images in the brain to actual brains removed from cadavers. The guys who invented the PET scan andfMRI are not dunces. They are scientist who check their conclusion very, very carefully before the publish

ruveyn.

P.S. I have said my say. I base my conclusion on my own experiences and reading made of my brains. I take these to be fact.

I have not one single foggy notion of what goes on in your head(s) for I have not seen the scans nor do I have you subjective correlations with the actual physical effects you would produce on the scanner. I only know what I see, what I hear, what I taste, what I feel and what I remember. I am not a "mind reader" I do not possess telepathy to any degree. Also my empathy and sympathy is below your average since I am an Aspergarian dunce, therefore an autistic person.

I have no more to add

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just something I should have added (damn the lack of an edit function!). I not only cannot see (or perceive) what goes on in your heads, I have no desire to perceive it. I am interested in your external verbalization (what you write or what you say, if I am within earshot). I consider what goes on in one's had totally private and is also sacred space. Not to be violated by Outsiders. My innermost thoughts are my own, my feeling are my own, by memories are my own and I only share with other what I speak and write in a public domain.

I will give proper and polite attention to what you say or right. I will make no effort (because for me it is futile) to even guess what you feel on intend.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And beyond this, how does he know that the blotches of color on an electronic display correspond to the spatial arrangement of types of tissue within his own head? Shouldn't he say that he sees only colors? I doubt he's ever literally sawed open a living man's head, so he's never actually detected a brain within his definition. He's only seen schematics that must be symbolically interpreted by a conceptual mind to relate to the brain that he assures to us exists. Based on this discussion, I don't believe brains exist. There are only colors on a display; red, blue, and green.

It is unfortunate that the most critical questions have been ignored. I will try to answer one I posed earlier: what is fact? So far the word, fact, has been thrown around as if it grants the writer an automatic intellectual knock-out blow. But "fact" is a stolen concept when it is used to divorce the faculty in question from it. Fact is not observed in the literal sense, it is a concept whose referents can observed, can be seen, tasted or heard. The only real mysticism in this thread is the claim that one is aware of facts without conceptual consciousness. That is a fact. :P

Or to quote Ayn Rand in ITOE:

AR: ... "Fact" is merely an epistemological convenience. The term "fact" can apply to a particular existent, to an aspect, to an attribute, or to an event.

...

It is a concept necessitated by our form of consciousness—that is, by the fact that we are not infallible. An error is possible, or a lie is possible, or imagination is possible. And, therefore, when we say something is a fact, we distinguish primarily from error, lie, or any aberration of consciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. The only real mysticism in this thread is the claim that one is aware of facts without conceptual consciousness. That is a fact. :P

A working throbbing brain won't do? I think with my brains. You think with your mind or so you think.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the third time you refuse to answer my question. I assume you have no answer. Once again, where is the manifestation of something that exists, in this case, the information carried by Morse code?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And beyond this, how does he know that the blotches of color on an electronic display correspond to the spatial arrangement of types of tissue within his own head? Shouldn't he say that he sees only colors? I doubt he's ever literally sawed open a living man's head, so he's never actually detected a brain within his definition. He's only seen schematics that must be symbolically interpreted by a conceptual mind to relate to the brain that he assures to us exists. Based on this discussion, I don't believe brains exist. There are only colors on a display; red, blue, and green.

The gross brain images of an MRI (doing electronic "slicing") have been checked against brains removed from cadavers.

The PET scans show the electrochemical activity wherever it takes place.

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_scan

In particular the operation of the device:

Operation

To conduct the scan, a short-lived radioactive tracer isotope is injected into the living subject (usually into blood circulation). The tracer is chemically incorporated into a biologically active molecule. There is a waiting period while the active molecule becomes concentrated in tissues of interest; then the subject is placed in the imaging scanner. The molecule most commonly used for this purpose isfluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), a sugar, for which the waiting period is typically an hour. During the scan a record of tissue concentration is made as the tracer decays.

200px-PET-schema.png
magnify-clip.png
Schema of a PET acquisition process

As the radioisotope undergoes positron emission decay (also known as positive beta decay), it emits a positron, an antiparticle of theelectron with opposite charge. The emitted positron travels in tissue for a short distance (typically less than 1 mm, but dependent on the isotope[11]), during which time it loses kinetic energy, until it decelerates to a point where it can interact with an electron.[12] The encounter annihilates both electron and positron, producing a pair of annihilation (gamma) photons moving in approximately opposite directions. These are detected when they reach a scintillator in the scanning device, creating a burst of light which is detected byphotomultiplier tubes or silicon avalanche photodiodes (Si APD). The technique depends on simultaneous or coincident detection of the pair of photons moving in approximately opposite direction (it would be exactly opposite in their center of mass frame, but the scanner has no way to know this, and so has a built-in slight direction-error tolerance). Photons that do not arrive in temporal "pairs" (i.e. within a timing-window of a few nanoseconds) are ignored.

After I was PET scanned a number of times and I felt like a pin cushion. The inject radioactive tracers into the blood stream. However the stuff they use is safe. I am still alive, so it must be o.k.

If one volunteers for the right studies one can get test which normally would run into the tens of thousands of dollars for free.

I keep my eyes peeled for neurological studies done in the Princeton N.J. area and if I find an interesting one I volunteer.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When the Little Boy in the story -The Emperor and His New Clothes- pointed out to the emp that he was bare-a**, he was stating a fact. I am like that Little Boy (but somewhat older).

This little boy has no mind.

Isn't this nonsense clear yet? He robotically repeats the same fallacies, over and over, in multiple threads and within threads, and then in new threads again. He perversely ignores and evades all responses to his nonsense, exploiting them only as a hook to repeat himself again. And then again. When the exasperated responses die out he repeats himself again to provoke more attention. And then again. If he is so unbalance that he thinks he has no mind then that is his problem and no one should help him pretend that he will be responsive or deserves further rational explanation.

This nonsense is absolutely pointless and disruptive. It does not belong here. It is neurotic and has been allowed to go on for too long. Whatever the motives for the little boy's attention-seeking or whatever he wants, it is mindless and should be stopped. Permanently. Like the emperor, the little boy has no mind and no adult maturity. Let him seek counseling somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When the Little Boy in the story -The Emperor and His New Clothes- pointed out to the emp that he was bare-a**, he was stating a fact. I am like that Little Boy (but somewhat older).

This little boy has no mind.

Isn't this nonsense clear yet? He robotically repeats the same fallacies, over and over, in multiple threads and within threads, and then in new threads again. He perversely ignores and evades all responses to his nonsense, exploiting them only as a hook to repeat himself again. And then again. When the exasperated responses die out he repeats himself again to provoke more attention. And then again. If he is so unbalance that he thinks he has no mind then that is his problem and no one should help him pretend that he will be responsive or deserves further rational explanation.

This nonsense is absolutely pointless and disruptive. It does not belong here. It is neurotic and has been allowed to go on for too long. Whatever the motives for the little boy's attention-seeking or whatever he wants, it is mindless and should be stopped. Permanently. Like the emperor, the little boy has no mind and no adult maturity. Let him seek counseling somewhere else.

Agreed. No more debating about the mindless with the mindless for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will match my oozey sticky brain against anyone's "mind" any day of the week and I will probably win.

How do you explain the excerpt I put up from Dr Locke's lecture, ruveyn, all that insight into the human experience, human behavior, trends, history, etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because this subject has been discussed to the point of exhaustion and frustration, from here on in, new remarks by ruveyn about his own mental functioning and opinions of same in others will be deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites