Do You Know Anything Free Of Your Mind?

[1137]

I think this is a very important question that all philosophies need to answer. In many cases, theism really understates the role of the individual in existence. The focus is on god, the outside world and its creation, things like that. And for political reasons, undermining the individual makes a ton of sense, because it takes away control. But even with the most closed minded of theists, the self has to be center to all you belief. As the title says, what do you know of your gods, morals, etc that is free from your own mind, your interpretation, your actual experience of knowing? I think religions need to address the individual more if they're truly after more than controlling their followers. Obviously it was important to god(s) that we have this mind, personal experience, subjectivity, even an ability to question and reason. I find it suspicious when groups ignore this.

For other groups such as materialism, the question is even more important to address. Often I am asked "do you know of a mind not related to a brain ?" The answer is no, but I also don't know a brain not related to a mind. To accept one monism over another here is irrelevant, they make the same mistake. Same for idealists, who simply assume it is matter that is an illusion, and that there is immaterial monism. Both of these need to explain why we cannot know one without the other, both ways.

 

[buddhist]

The Buddha taught that everything is created by Mind.

However, is it true that "mind-created things" = "unreal"?

 

[Quintessence]

A popular way of understanding the individual is a threefold division: mind, body, and spirit (sometimes called soul, heart, or emotions). Each of these can be said to have their own knowings. From this paradigm, then no, the "mind" part of the threefold division is not the source of all of an individual's knowledge. There are various other paradigms that divide up the essence of individuals beyond this one. It seems to me in any model that doesn't presume that there is only "mind," the other parts can be said to "know" things.

As for religions addressing individuals... meh. Paganisms don't seem to have an issue with this.

 

[Sunstone]

Often I am asked "do you know of a mind not related to a brain ?" The answer is no, but I also don't know a brain not related to a mind. To accept one monism over another here is irrelevant, they make the same mistake.

If you mean that the mind exists independently of the brain, then you have a long, hard, uphill battle to prove it. I've not yet in 60 years heard of any convincing evidence that the mind actually does exist independent of the brain.

 

[1137]

If you mean that the mind exists independently of the brain, then you have a long, hard, uphill battle to prove it. I've not yet in 60 years heard of any convincing evidence that the mind actually does exist independent of the brain.

I'm stating we've never seen a brain without a mind.

 

[Twilight Hue]

People do realise I hope, that the minds revelence is exclusively dependent upon one's form.

You could also ask if rocks are alive to provide perspective.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm stating we've never seen a brain without a mind.

Sure we have. There are birth defects that result in brains without minds. There are injuries that result in brains without minds. And death results in brains without minds.

But even if we never see a brain without a mind, that would not, in itself, logically entail the conclusion that minds exist independent of brains.

 

[Skwim]

I'm stating we've never seen a brain without a mind.

I beg to differ.

.​

 

[Onyx]

There are aspects of our being that can't be explained very well by science. One of them is perception. The brain seems to have some undiscovered mechanism for translating wavelengths of light and sound into personal experiences.

I've seen no scientific evidence for why the color red appears as it does, or why what I perceive as red doesn't look green instead. The experience itself is entirely subjective in nature.

Humans clearly have a superior will and ability to go beyond what our bodies should be capable of. Chimpanzees and humans share a great deal of DNA. But adult chimpanzees can only scribble nonsense with edible paint, yet a human of only a few years might render a house, parents, sky, sun, trees, etc.

So I do believe there is a metaphysical reality which consists of the rational and irrational. The explainable and unexplainable. Knowledge of each must be pursued separately: one with the laws of physics as we know them, the other through subjective experiences. Only then can the interactions between the two become fully realized.

The very fact that mankind has pursued religion so vigorously is evidence that we have some inherent need to figure out how this puzzle of life fits together. "Taming the beast" is a prominent goal of mainstream religions, and many people are rather successful in achieving mind over matter. The chimpanzees can't do it, because their subjective frames of reference are too limited for self-analysis.

I hope I didn't go off on too many tangents, but those are my current views.

 

[buddhist]

I'm stating we've never seen a brain without a mind.

Yep ... we perceive brains, in the mind.

 

[1137]

Sure we have. There are birth defects that result in brains without minds. There are injuries that result in brains without minds. And death results in brains without minds.

But even if we never see a brain without a mind, that would not, in itself, logically entail the conclusion that minds exist independent of brains.

I beg to differ.

.​

Can you share how you are aware of these individuals if not through your mind?

 

[Sunstone]

Can you share how you are aware of these individuals if not through your mind?

On that point, I agree with you. Our disagreement is over your notion that mind is independent of the brain. Your comment does not address that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think this is a very important question that all philosophies need to answer. In many cases, theism really understates the role of the individual in existence. The focus is on god, the outside world and its creation, things like that. And for political reasons, undermining the individual makes a ton of sense, because it takes away control. But even with the most closed minded of theists, the self has to be center to all you belief. As the title says, what do you know of your gods, morals, etc that is free from your own mind, your interpretation, your actual experience of knowing? I think religions need to address the individual more if they're truly after more than controlling their followers. Obviously it was important to god(s) that we have this mind, personal experience, subjectivity, even an ability to question and reason. I find it suspicious when groups ignore this.

For other groups such as materialism, the question is even more important to address. Often I am asked "do you know of a mind not related to a brain ?" The answer is no, but I also don't know a brain not related to a mind. To accept one monism over another here is irrelevant, they make the same mistake. Same for idealists, who simply assume it is matter that is an illusion, and that there is immaterial monism. Both of these need to explain why we cannot know one without the other, both ways.

I'm not sure of your main point here. Is it that that the beliefs people have are sometimes very little to do with their empirical experience, or is it that experience is always subjective because of the internal processing which goes on? Or something else?

 

[YmirGF]

I'm stating we've never seen a brain without a mind.

Sure we have. In the US, they are called Democrats. (Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm so, very, very... weak.)

Then again, I could just introduce you to my sister.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It would be good to talk about the central nervous system rather than just the brain in isolation.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

There are aspects of our being that can't be explained very well by science. One of them is perception. The brain seems to have some undiscovered mechanism for translating wavelengths of light and sound into personal experiences.

It's really just a coding issue, which is currently being investigated. Even now, for the "Locked in" types of people, we can get "yes/no" answers from them by saying "yes" is imagining their bedroom and "no" is playing tennis or something, because locations and actions are stored differently.

I've seen no scientific evidence for why the color red appears as it does, or why what I perceive as red doesn't look green instead. The experience itself is entirely subjective in nature.

Only in the sense of labeling. An object that gives off a certain wavelength is generally considered to be this or that color. Objectively, of course, it is just the wavelength being given off. How we interpret it depends on whether or not we can see that wavelength.

But adult chimpanzees can only scribble nonsense with edible paint, yet a human of only a few years might render a house, parents, sky, sun, trees, etc.

Human kids don't start out that way unless they're geniuses. It's ALL scribbles in the beginning. We have art classes for a reason: it's not instinctive. If you taught different techniques to other primates, they'd surely get at least a C.

 

[Onyx]

Only in the sense of labeling. An object that gives off a certain wavelength is generally considered to be this or that color. Objectively, of course, it is just the wavelength being given off. How we interpret it depends on whether or not we can see that wavelength.

My argument is, who picked the color for us to see at any particular wavelength, provided our eyes can receive it? Why do they appear as they do?

Human kids don't start out that way unless they're geniuses. It's ALL scribbles in the beginning. We have art classes for a reason: it's not instinctive. If you taught different techniques to other primates, they'd surely get at least a C.

Painting done by a 37-year old chimp:


Painting done by a 6-year old human:

 

[idav]

Both of these need to explain why we cannot know one without the other, both ways.

Cause you can't be part of the system and expect to see the system from the outside. Everything is free of mind cause we are all independent individuals. However the mind is free of nothing as long as its part of the system it tries to identify.

 

[buddhist]

My argument is, who picked the color for us to see at any particular wavelength, provided our eyes can receive it? Why do they appear as they do?


Painting done by a 37-year old chimp:
View attachment 14315

Painting done by a 6-year old human:
View attachment 14316

Many "modern artists" will claim that the chimp's art is superior.

 

[Willamena]

It would be good to talk about the central nervous system rather than just the brain in isolation.

Considering that I know nothing about biology, it's not "good" for me to talk about either.