Originally posted by ivanhoeessence of human nature
Maybe we would advance in exploring this question of "the nature of mind" if we would compare it with the question of the "essence of human nature" .......
That seems to me to be one of those phrases that sounds really profound and leads to really 'deep' conversations which in the end have almost no content. "Like...dude...we are the cosmos...yeah...the inevitable dance of life energy that swirls in the ethereal, spiritual reality behind reality...yeah..." Sounds cool, means nothing.
I think the mind is probably located in the brain. It is the arrangement of that matter and energy within the brain which leads to concious or subconcious sensations.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungATY: "That seems to me to be one of those phrases that sounds really profound and leads to really 'deep' conversations which in the end have almost no content. "Like...dude...we are the cosmos...yeah...the inevitable dance of life energy that swirls in the ethereal, spiritual reality behind reality...yeah..." Sounds cool, means nothing."
[b]essence of human nature
That seems to me to be one of those phrases that sounds really profound and leads to really 'deep' conversations which in the end have almost no content. "Like...dude...we are the cosmos...yeah.. ...[text shortened]... hin the brain which leads to concious or subconcious sensations.
[/b]
Those people have smoked too much ...... whoaaa ..... like, know what I'm saying, dude ....
What I am referring to is to be found if you google on "The essence of human nature".
Try it and report back to me please ......
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf the mind is in the brain. how does it come to know external phenomena? Wouldn't the mind then have to 'go out' to perceive that which lies outside this human body?
I think the mind is probably located in the brain. It is the arrangement of that matter and energy within the brain which leads to concious or subconcious sensations.
Originally posted by eagles54The mind receives messages from sensory nerves. Sensory nerves transform things like photons hitting them, molecules fitting into their receptors, pressure waves in the air hitting the nerves in the ear, pressure against the nerves through the skin, etc into messages that they then transmit to the brain.
If the mind is in the brain. how does it come to know external phenomena? Wouldn't the mind then have to 'go out' to perceive that which lies outside this human body?
Originally posted by ivanhoeOK.
ATY: "That seems to me to be one of those phrases that sounds really profound and leads to really 'deep' conversations which in the end have almost no content. "Like...dude...we are the cosmos...yeah...the inevitable dance of life ener ...[text shortened]... human nature".
Try it and report back to me please ......
*Political thinkers often disagree about the fundamental question of human nature — whether people at their most basic level are morally good creatures or self-interested scoundrels.
http://www.mdhc.org/speakers/text/ernst_human_nature.html
To this person, "the essence of human nature" is whether people are "morally good" or "self interested scoundrels". I think it's pretty clear people are capable of both.
**Using Survivor as source material, Robert Wright finds evidence for the "individual selectionist view of human nature." Which basically includes back-stabbing.
http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/survivor/2001_Jan_26_does_survivor_show
This one looks like it's actually some sort of scientific jargon which I am not familiar with. Possibly it's referring to the same ideas as the first one - moral or scoundrel?
***The next one only contains the author, publisher etc of a book. I'll skip that one.
****The concept of human nature is, of course, a highly contested one, and many deny the very existence of a universal essence to human life...
"Nature"? "Universal essence"? Hopefully this will be clarified.
Nineteenth racial science had viewed humans as entirely moulded by the laws of nature, and the differences between human groups as the consequence of distinct evolutionary paths.
OK. This is talking about the differences between "races". Probably whether it's genetic or not, and how those genetic differences occurred.
In response, twentieth century anthropology rejected not simply racial essentialism, but increasingly any form of essentialism.
OK..."essentialism" again. It looks like here "essence" refers to genetic identity.
Human nature, and indeed the very idea of the human itself, has come to be see by many anthropologists as suspect.
So "essence" and "nature" seem to be the same thing? Then how can we have an "essence of human nature"? Is it the same thing as "the essence of essence" or the "nature of human nature"? What does that mean?
On the other side of the debate, sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists view an understanding of human nature as a fixed quality that constrains the human condition, and fundamental to any understanding of what it is to be human.
So "nature" is a "fixed quality" that constrains "the human condition". And this means what?
What is "fundamental to any understanding of what it means to be human" is whether or not something fits the definition of "human" whatever we decide that is.
The denial of human nature, Steven Pinker suggests, 'distorts our science and scholarship, our public discourse and our day-to-day lives'.
I still don't have a clear idea of what "human nature" is. Let me see if I got this straight; "nature" is the same as "essence" which refers to genetic predispositions towards things like altruism and selfishness. Is that right?
Man that was a pain in the butt to figure out. Is this understood by most people? Are these definitions standard and it's just my lack of vocabulary that keeps me from clearly understanding these questions?
I bet other questions or statements about "human essence" and "human nature" that have nothing to do with these definitions could be asked or stated, and no one would argue with them. For example, is the "human essence" the soul? This seems like a reasonable question, but when compared with the definitions I've dredged out of the materials I found with Google, this says that the soul is simply genetic predispositions to certain behaviours. This means that the soul is not immortal, since genes can be destroyed.
http://www.kenanmalik.com/papers/sshb_universal.html
Originally posted by eagles54The good thing about "mind" is that it is a testable thing.
What is the nature of the human mind? What are its defining characteristics? Where is it located?
These things are not subject to debate.
1 - It is contained within or it relies upon the solid mass of neuron cells that we call the central nervous system to exist.
This is proven every time a brain injury occurs. Parts of the mind are inevitably affected.
2 - Things can and do go wrong with "mind" because of physical stimuli and/or physical and chemical effect.
This is proven by getting drunk or stoned.
3 - There is a lot about the storage and retrieval of "thought" that can't yet be explained by the "neuronic" model.
This doesn't mean that we won't eventually be able to explain, just as surely as we explain super computers, how it works. But we can't do it yet.
4 - The basic nature of "quantum" states of matter do not "preclude" the notion that "mind" may be at least partially outside of the physical framework of the required brain.
This is pure speculation. SVW Rides again. Actually, the mysterious parts of "mind" are those things called "Soul" and "Being".
You know what I mean. We all 'have one'. We just can't explain what it is. It may be a gift of god or a gift of nature. It may even be illusory.
But we all have one. Ain't life wonderful? Tell me. What kind of life would a poor bunch of chimps endure if not for the mystery of "soul"?
No "drama". No great literature. For all great literature demands conscience and the destruction of it. No great "art". For all art requires a 'soul' to understand and appreciate it. No Shakespeare. For William was a master of the soul.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't know about Ivan. But I have a real problem with you. Because you pretend to be open to all thought, when all that I have seen implies that you are locked into a rut.
Seriously, ivanhoe - do you have a problem with me? Or do you think you're being funny?
Prove me wrong.
I have referred to you as "athousanddeadbabies".
Do you want to know why?
I'll tell you. It is because you refuse to acknowledge that a full term baby isn't a 'being'.
Is that any kind of an attitude that a true liberal would take as to the civil and physical 'rights" of a being?
Originally posted by StarValleyWySVW, you use way too many insults, you don't acknowledge others' points, and in general you make no sense. I don't respect you and won't waste my time responding to you except to remind you of the fact. So, here I am reminding you.
I don't know about Ivan. But I have a real problem with you. Because you pretend to be open to all thought, when all that I have seen implies that you are locked into a rut.
Prove me wrong.
I have referred to you as "athousandd ...[text shortened]... ral would take as to the civil and physical 'rights" of a being?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo ATY, you're all right. I'm just having some fun. That's all ..... 😉
Seriously, ivanhoe - do you have a problem with me? Or do you think you're being funny?
"Imagine, at the point of BIG BANG the "nothingness" had more than one type of derivative. In our current form and recent evolution, we emphasize only on materials (atom-based structures). Many others we are not aware of, which did not quite form atomic structures or any such little particle that can be seen, heard or touched... but they still interact with the atomic structures, even with the ones that construct our physique, even with the ones in the chemicals of our brains, and sensors... all the sensors we could not define."
http://www.zip.com.au/~shampan/evolutio.htm
Hoo ba hoo ba hoo ba hop hop hop ..... 😲
Originally posted by AThousandYoungJust refute the claim.
SVW, you use way too many insults, you don't acknowledge others' points, and in general you make no sense. I don't respect you and won't waste my time responding to you except to remind you of the fact. So, here I am reminding you.
It is that easy. Really.
Originally posted by ivanhoeOk, just checking 🙂
No ATY, you're all right. I'm just having some fun. That's all ..... 😉
"Imagine, at the point of BIG BANG the "nothingness" had more than one type of derivative. In our current form and recent evolution, we emphasize only on materials (atom-based structures). Many others we are not aware of, which did not quite form atomic structures or any such ...[text shortened]... "
http://www.zip.com.au/~shampan/evolutio.htm
Hoo ba hoo ba hoo ba hop hop hop ..... 😲