@indonesia-phil saidThe pills, the chemicals in the pills, were telling her brain she was pregnant, athough her mind knew she wasn't. Body and brain are physical structures inextricably linked together. So if the body shuts down production of eggs because the brain believes the body is pregnant (which is not true), then how is she able to know what is true?
Let me have another go at this....
She was consciously altering the state and function of her unconscious body, her mind/brain were never fooled.
This leads me to believe the mind is housed in the physical structure of the body/brain, but is not in itself a physical structure.
10 Jun 22
@kilroy70 saidErgo, the mind is not a THING, not a physical structure the same as or like a brain; it is a function.
The (implied) analogy appears to work:
The pawn is to mind as wood/plastic is to brain.
It doesn't matter much what the pawn is made of, or what it looks like. If it functions as a pawn, it's a pawn.
@relentless-red saidYes, but that dodges the issue, whether lying in one's own interest is always in all circumstances morally wrong. Ghost provided an example in which it is prima facie not wrong to lie in one's own interest. Leave out the implausible bit about space aliens. Suppose you are harboring Jews in a secret cellar and the gestapo bangs on your door at 3 a.m. demanding to know whether you are harboring Jews in your house. If you are caught harboring Jews, you too will be arrested and hauled away to prison -- those were the rules at that time. Lying to save not only their lives but your own as well is the right thing to do in that situation.
Might buy you a few minutes until they ask an aardvark what they are. For me this approach relies too heavily on alien's being unable to communicate with aardvarks. I'd be more inclined just to dodge the ray gun.
10 Jun 22
@moonbus saidBeing serious Ghost was obviously completely right that it can be moral to lie.
Yes, but that dodges the issue, whether lying in one's own interest is always in all circumstances morally wrong. Ghost provided an example in which it is prima facie not wrong to lie in one's own interest. Leave out the implausible bit about space aliens. Suppose you are harboring Jews in a secret cellar and the gestapo bangs on your door at 3 a.m. demanding to know whether ...[text shortened]... Lying to save not only their lives but your own as well is the right thing to do in that situation.
I read an article years ago that was based around Piaget's theory of stages of cognitive development. Whilst there are many flaws in that theory it raised some interesting points about why people might get in a muddle about when it is okay to tell a lie.
Long story short, it concluded that it requires a certain level of development to attain the skills required, to comprehend that social rules are supposed to serve people, as opposed to people being supposed to serve social rules. Amazingly it suggested that about a third of people will never reach the stage of figuring that out.
Whilst it surprised me, the suggestion was that about a third of the population would be in a dilemma about an ambulance parking on a double yellow line and obstructing a busy main road to attend a casualty. Was it okay to break the rules? How to proceed if they were not so seriously ill at first assessment...
So the point is that the social rule "don't lie" is in place to benefit humanity and thus it can be broken in scenarios where it does not benefit humanity, but about a third of the adult population might be expected to get in a serious muddle trying to spot the right moment.
Again I would suggest this is further evidence that we should arm the aardvarks and let them take charge of more complex scenarios.
@the-gravedigger said"Why does The Gravedigger simply bring it, with his answers, time and time again?"
I will happily chomp on both but probably salt and vinegar as they have more of a kick.
10 Jun 22
@fmf saidWhy does fmf avoid the hard questions? 🙂
"Why does The Gravedigger simply bring it, with his answers, time and time again?"
-VR
@the-gravedigger saidIs the pet pangolin carrying?
What is better, a life time supply of Greggs corn beef pasties (or cheese and onion if that's your thing) or a pet pangolin ?
@moonbus saidYes. You can say the mind is or performs a function. But unlke the function of say, a pawn, the mind is consciously aware of itself.
Ergo, the mind is not a THING, not a physical structure the same as or like a brain; it is a function.
We can see pictures of bodies and brains because they are tangible objects. But has anyone seen or measured a mind? The mind is intangible, and cannot be seen because it is not a physical object. So as you said the mind is not a THING in the physical sense, but it does appear to exist as something more (or other) than a function.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 186286
10 Jun 22
@kilroy70 saidBut the mind does have an eye so it can see you…right?🤔
Yes. You can say the mind is or performs a function. But unlke the function of say, a pawn, the mind is consciously aware of itself.
We can see pictures of bodies and brains because they are tangible objects. But has anyone seen or measured a mind? The mind is intangible, and cannot be seen because it is not a physical object.