The Ultimate Truth

[Peace]

Descartes exclamed, "I think therefor I am!". But how do you account for over 6 billion other bodys on our planet? The only logical proof you can come to is that each person is simple a multiple personality of yourself. "Friends" are personalities of ourself that we are compatible. "Enemies" are just the opposite. We are a hub mind looking out onto nothing but ourselves.

[extreme_tezza]

i agree with that, i also reckon that i am just a jigsaw puzzle of every single person i have met and everything i have seen or heard. every moment in your life has an impact on u, it influences u and creates u. which i think is the same kinda thing u r saying???
beyond the constraints of reality, where all beings unite as one, where we all reside on the tree of life a huge mass of energies, we are unable to be individuals, to have our own mind. so i guess descrates is saying that reality is having a mind, thinking, making sense of something, feeling living. so yeah, 'i think therefore i am' has a lot of significance for me

[Hikaru Zero]

That is a very interesting way of looking at things.

I can't say I agree with it in nature, but I think society would all be a lot better off if we treated other people as if they were different selves.

[Common Sense]

Umm... I can't say I agree with that. You're dealing with the problem of solipsism, which I think is best refuted by G.E. Moore's "A Defense of Common Sense." You're looking at the problem wrong, getting tripped up in abstraction and confused by your own language. To say that everyone is just a mind within some bigger supermind, seems to violate the Law of Indiscernables to me. But even if it doesn't, your going to inevitably be stuck, I think, in an idealist metaphysics.

Btw, if that's a logical proof, then I'd like to see the deduction.

[Colours]

the other 6 billion bodies are thinking therefor aming.

[Peace]

the other 6 billion bodies are thinking therefor aming.
Define "aming". Unless of course it was a typo and you meant to say "among".

[darrellkitchen]

not sure ... but perhaps that was am'ing

I think, therefore I am ...

The other 6 billion bodies are thinking ... therefore am'ing

Darrell

[humandraydel]

Define "aming".
You think, therefore you are. They think, therefore they are.

[Peace]

Is it a foreign word, because it's not an english word?

[Soulless||Chaos]

I think therefore I am, they think therefore they are (am being are merely in the wrong case.) :rolleyes:

[Colours]

no, i was just being a silly goose.

[Soulless||Chaos]

But am and are are the same.

[XFRODOBAGGINSX]

I think therefore God exists.

The fact that you exist proves that God exists.
The fact that people exist is proof that God exists.
First of all we have the bible as proof that God exists. We have endless prophecies that have come true in the bible to prove that God exists. We have the universe around us to prove that God exists. I have a personal relationship with God that you can have also if you wish, proving to me that God exists. We have The law of conservation of mass and energy:

There is a scientific law called the Law of Conservation of Mass, discovered by Antoine Lavoisier in 1785. In its most compact form, it states:

matter is neither created nor destroyed.

In 1842, Julius Robert Mayer discovered the Law of Conservation of Energy. In its most compact form, it it now called the First Law of Thermodynamics:

energy is neither created nor destroyed.

In 1907 (I think), Albert Einstein announced his discovery of the equation E = mc2 and, as a consequence, the two laws above were merged into the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy:

the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant.

If matter can not be created, then where did all of the matter in the universe come from? Did it create it's self? I believe that an all powerful God, (the God of the bible) created it out of nothing as the bible says. How would the writers of the bible know the law of conservation of energy when it was written 3-4,000 years ago? They didn't. God told them what to write.

God exists make no mistake about it. miracles are proof that God exists. I have experienced numerous miracles in my life, that could only have originated from God Himself.

The fact that people are delivered from demonic possession is proof that God exists.

The fact that God has changed my life so radically when I followed His Word is proof that God exists.

The fact that people exist is proof that God exists.

Think about this. You are concious. Look around you. Go on...do it. Now close your eyes and remember before you were born, what were you? You see nothing but blank. Now look around you again. You are alive, not just a functioning body, but you are literally here, conciously. That is proof that God exists. He created you, he put your conciousness (soul) into a physical body that your soul controls. A computer has no soul. A machine has no soul, yet it performs tasks. We are concious. Praise God that He Does indeed exist.

[Soulless||Chaos]

I think therefore God exists.

The fact that you exist proves that God exists.
The fact that people exist is proof that God exists.
First of all we have the bible as proof that God exists. We have endless prophecies that have come true in the bible to prove that God exists. We have the universe around us to prove that God exists. I have a personal relationship with God that you can have also if you wish, proving to me that God exists. We have The law of conservation of mass and energy:

There is a scientific law called the Law of Conservation of Mass, discovered by Antoine Lavoisier in 1785. In its most compact form, it states:

matter is neither created nor destroyed.

In 1842, Julius Robert Mayer discovered the Law of Conservation of Energy. In its most compact form, it it now called the First Law of Thermodynamics:

energy is neither created nor destroyed.

In 1907 (I think), Albert Einstein announced his discovery of the equation E = mc2 and, as a consequence, the two laws above were merged into the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy:

the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant.

If matter can not be created, then where did all of the matter in the universe come from? Did it create it's self? I believe that an all powerful God, (the God of the bible) created it out of nothing as the bible says. How would the writers of the bible know the law of conservation of energy when it was written 3-4,000 years ago? They didn't. God told them what to write.

God exists make no mistake about it. miracles are proof that God exists. I have experienced numerous miracles in my life, that could only have originated from God Himself.

The fact that people are delivered from demonic possession is proof that God exists.

The fact that God has changed my life so radically when I followed His Word is proof that God exists.

The fact that people exist is proof that God exists.

Think about this. You are concious. Look around you. Go on...do it. Now close your eyes and remember before you were born, what were you? You see nothing but blank. Now look around you again. You are alive, not just a functioning body, but you are literally here, conciously. That is proof that God exists. He created you, he put your conciousness (soul) into a physical body that your soul controls. A computer has no soul. A machine has no soul, yet it performs tasks. We are concious. Praise God that He Does indeed exist.
Prove it.

[TrippinBTM]

In 1907 (I think), Albert Einstein announced his discovery of the equation E = mc2 and, as a consequence, the two laws above were merged into the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy:

the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant.

If matter can not be created, then where did all of the matter in the universe come from? Did it create it's self?
That's not entirely true. At the quantum level, matter is constantly popping into existance from "nowhere", but it is always destroyed nearly instantly because with it pops an "anti-particle" that when they meet, they destroy each other. BUT, if this occurs at the edge of a black hole, right at the event horizon, the antiparticle may get trapped by the gravity of the black hole while the particle escapes. This is just one example where the rules bend a bit on that law. There are many strange things happening at the quantum level which are only just being discovered and understood.

Inflationary Theory is based on a similar principle. An "inverted vacuum" pops into existance and creates the universe as it expands (it's called an inverted vacuum because rather than contract, it expands). As it expands, energy is created, which later becomes matter. (there's more to it, of course, but you can research that on your own)

You may not accept this theory (it's one of many on the universe's origins out there) but you seem like an intelligent person, so I thought you'd want to be informed.

[Colours]

frodo shut the fuck up. seriously

[Colours]

christians have no valid logic whatsoever. open your eyes and look around this is proof there is a god? what bullshit.

none of your statements would ever be considered "proof" as you continually stated. take your senseless preaching elsewhere.

and the fact that your life has been so radically changed by God is only proof that youre incredibly weak minded.

[Peace]

christians have no valid logic whatsoever. open your eyes and look around this is proof there is a god? what bullshit.

none of your statements would ever be considered "proof" as you continually stated. take your senseless preaching elsewhere.

and the fact that your life has been so radically changed by God is only proof that youre incredibly weak minded.Wow, your ignorance humours me. Colours, how about you list some "proof" that there isn't a God? No offense, but you are quite asinine. ANd if you start frothing more (because it seems you have already started), I have a napkin that you can wipe yourself with.

[Common Sense]

If you're going to postulate that a being exists, then the burden of proof is with you. But how did this turn into an argument about God, what's that got to do with the original post? And I'd still like to know your proof that all thinking subjects are merely parts of a larger thiniking subject.

[Kharakov]

Only God can prove God's existence to someone. However, if someone doesn't believe in God now, later on the christians get to say "I told you so", which is always fun to do. That's why I say "God Exists and is awesome" to all you morons out there, just so I can say "I told you so" later. It's not like I am the one to prove God's existence to you, I am a man, God will prove God's existence to you in time. I do reserve my God given right to say "I told you so."

[Colours]

i dont have proof that there isnt a God, but i do know many things thought to have been acts of God have been proven false by science.
And my response was no more asanine than your sorry attempt to be deep in this thread, which was neither thought provoking nor interesting.

[bohemian]

I think therefore God exists.


I think therefore God does not exist.

[White Feather]

Descartes exclamed, "I think therefor I am!". But how do you account for over 6 billion other bodys on our planet? They all have egos.

"I think therefore I am". In a sense. Does that mean that when you sleep you are not? Or will the mind play little semantic games to try to define its own identity and uniqueness?

The plain fact is that whatever lives is. Do dogs think? Do fish think? Do cows and chickens and bugs think?

We know that dogs dream. They must therefore think. We know that apes and monkeys, and probably all mammals dream - so they must be able to think. Rats show intelligence, too.

The only thing which really separates us from animals is our ability to create tools. One of these tools is language and the ability to write. Another may be the ability to play a musical instrument. But it would not include the ability to sing as birds and whales can sing.

So yes, DesCartes was right - thinking is the "I". It's what Buddhists have always said. That doesn't mean that it is the epitome of Man, it is not the paramount of consciousness.

The only logical proof you can come to is that each person is simply a multiple personality of yourself. "Friends" are personalities of ourself that we are compatible. "Enemies" are just the opposite. Then don't use logic. Everyone seems to have the same type of mind because of society - a commonness among the species. Other people are not multiple personalities of me - they are each unique in their own right, sharing certain common traits while also having other different traits common only to themselves, their race, their nationality, their upbringing, etc.

Enemies are enemies because they have a much different ego. Friends are friends because they accept each other's egos.

We are a hub mind looking out onto nothing but ourselves.
There is no hub mind. There is only mind. The mind only sees outward because of the ego (that's why it thinks its inside your head). If there was a hub mind then we'd probably be robots. (Well, we are, but... :D )

[Hikaru Zero]

Dunno. Recently, I've been reading up on a lot of Buddhist philosophy, and now, I seem to think that cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am") is a bit flawed, at least from the Buddhist perspective of the mind. Very interesting.

In my history class, my teacher pointed out, that the phrase should have been dubio ergo sum ("I doubt [my existance], therefore I am"). =P That does sound a little better, haha.

Either way ... just because a thought occurs, and the mind interacts with that thought, doesn't presuppose awareness of the interaction (also known as consciousness, or what we call the "I/ego").

[Common Sense]

The cogito is flawed, not because it's false, its obviously true, but because it fails to eliminate the possibility of the existence of the evil demon, which Descartes postulates in Meditation I. In the face of the demon, Descartes says that he cannot know that 2 + 2 = 4, which is true analytically and deductively. So, if deductive, analytic statements are out, then Descartes isn't justified in concluding that he exists by using the cogito, which, like math, is analytic and deductive. Descartes finally gives an ontological argument for God's existence, which is supposed to eliminate the possibility of the demon, but this argument is circular and vicious.

"Either way ... just because a thought occurs, and the mind interacts with that thought, doesn't presuppose awareness of the interaction (also known as consciousness, or what we call the "I/ego")."

Here, I disagree with you. The cogito certainly does prove the existence of the self, even if it can't get rid of the evil demon. And Descartes' cconception of the self, as thinking subject, is probablly not far from the truth either. The mind does not interact with thought. The mind is thought. And a thinking mind must be conscious. That's all the cogito says and it's just true analytically. For a subject to think, it has to exist.

[Hikaru Zero]

Common Sense:

I am talking from a Buddhist view here. Buddha taught the Five Aggregates:

1) The Aggregate of Matter: That is ... stuff exists. Included in that stuff are your six sense-organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. (Thinking of the mind in such a way that the mind is a sense-organ like anything else.)

2) The Aggregate of Sensations: That is ... there exists interaction between the six senses and the rest of the world. Interaction between the eye and forms and colours is visual sensation. Interaction between the ear and sounds is auditory sensation, and so on. Similarly, there is interaction between the mind and thoughts (thought-objects), producing mental sensation. It is to be noted that sensation is NOT to be confused with perception; there is the sensation of interaction, but at this stage, there is not recognition of the things sensed.

3) The Aggregate of Perceptions: That is ... recognition of sensation. Recognition of forms, colours, smells, tastes, and thoughts.

4) The Aggregate of Mental Formations: This includes all volitional activities (all activities that are driven by your "willpower" so to speak; all things that you "will" to happen; they are carried out through the body). This includes only the activities of the mind, not of the body. That is ... moving is not a volitional activity; it's a physical activity. The act of willing your body to move is the volitional activity. Some sample volitional activities include attention, concentration, hate, conceit, determination, etc.

5) The Aggregate of Consciousness: That is ... awareness of sensation, the reaction to sensation (which drives perception; and perception turns the sensation into a thought, which is then again sensed by the mind and reacted to).

These are very simple descriptions, though. Anyway ... Buddha taught that the combination of all of these is what we call the "I" or the ego. While Buddha's words should not be taken to be perfect or definately correct, Buddha put a lot of thought into it.

Looking at it from this light, if one is not aware of sensing things, and only percieves them and responds through voilition (as a machine does), then that does not presuppose consciousness (awareness of sensation, including thought objects, and the concept of self).

i.e. There is no consciousness unless you are aware of what you sense, even if you do not recognize it.

It makes sense to me. Just because you think ... doens't mean you are. Beacuse you aren't really "you" in the sense that you have an ego, because even if you think (you sense thoughts and percieve thoughts), that doesn't mean you are aware that you are thinking (that is ... consciousness, or more accurately mental consciousness). Such is the nature of machines; machines are not aware of their sensing and percieving (as a machine's sense organs are electrical circuits), and thus they do not have consciousness, and thus, machines think (in the same sense that they process data exactly as we tell them), but machines aren't "I"s and don't have egos; they aren't what we deem as "beings," which is why we call them machines instead of mechanical beings.

[Common Sense]

1) The Aggregate of Matter: That is ... stuff exists. Included in that stuff are your six sense-organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. (Thinking of the mind in such a way that the mind is a sense-organ like anything else.)
I don't think that the mind is a sense-organ like any other, but let's see where you're going with this.

2) The Aggregate of Sensations: That is ... there exists interaction between the six senses and the rest of the world. Interaction between the eye and forms and colours is visual sensation. Interaction between the ear and sounds is auditory sensation, and so on. Similarly, there is interaction between the mind and thoughts (thought-objects), producing mental sensation. It is to be noted that sensation is NOT to be confused with perception; there is the sensation of interaction, but at this stage, there is not recognition of the things sensed.
So things don't make sense until they're organised or recognised. Makes sense. But isn't organising and recognising sense-impressions exactly what the mind does? Isn't the only reason we can make mental "sensations" because we have gained those ideas from our senses (not including the mind)?

3) The Aggregate of Perceptions: That is ... recognition of sensation. Recognition of forms, colours, smells, tastes, and thoughts.
What I don't understand is how it is possible not to recognise a thought. When I imagine a red blanket, I know that I am thinking about a red blanket. If I saw a red blanket in the external world, I would not recognise it as such until those perceptions were organised in my mind and something clicked in my mind to make me recognise, "Hey, that's a red blanket!" The difference between the two is that no sensation caused by the external world was perceived and so that pereception did not have to be recognised by the mind. It was already recognised because its a part of the contents of the mind to begin with.


No disagreement there.

[quote]5) The Aggregate of Consciousness: That is ... awareness of sensation, the reaction to sensation (which drives perception; and perception turns the sensation into a thought, which is then again sensed by the mind and reacted to).
Hmm... it makes sense, but I can't find a way to distinguish between reactive acts of consciousness and an act of volition. Also, what's the difference between awareness of perception and perceiving? How can you perceive and not be aware of it?

Looking at it from this light, if one is not aware of sensing things, and only percieves them and responds through voilition (as a machine does), then that does not presuppose consciousness (awareness of sensation, including thought objects, and the concept of self).
Hmm... that's interesting too. Perception can certainly be compared to input for computers. But I don't know if a computer running its program is a proper act of volition.

i.e. There is no consciousness unless you are aware of what you sense, even if you do not recognize it.
No doubt. But I still don't understand how you can not be aware of sensing.

It makes sense to me. Just because you think ... doens't mean you are. Beacuse you aren't really "you" in the sense that you have an ego, because even if you think (you sense thoughts and percieve thoughts), that doesn't mean you are aware that you are thinking (that is ... consciousness, or more accurately mental consciousness). Such is the nature of machines; machines are not aware of their sensing and percieving (as a machine's sense organs are electrical circuits), and thus they do not have consciousness, and thus, machines think (in the same sense that they process data exactly as we tell them), but machines aren't "I"s and don't have egos; they aren't what we deem as "beings," which is why we call them machines instead of mechanical beings.
Hmm... it's a good point. I've never taken a class in the philosophy of mind, so I can't say I have an opinion on whether machines "think" or not. Descartes was searching for a priori knowledge though, meaning a thought which is independent of sensory experience. If those kinds of thoughts are possible, which they are not, but Descartes thought they were, then do you think that would qualify as proof that something thinks, in the way we mean it when we say a person thinks?

[Kharakov]

i dont have proof that there isnt a God, but i do know many things thought to have been acts of God have been proven false by science.The physical universe is an Act of God so how does something conforming to physical laws prove that something was not an act of God?

And my response was no more asanine than your sorry attempt to be deep in this thread, which was neither thought provoking nor interesting.
Thank God you were neither interested in or provoked to thought over what I said, because otherwise you would have responded.

Was I really being that deep? I thought I was drinkin' salty water.

[Peace]

i dont have proof that there isnt a God, but i do know many things thought to have been acts of God have been proven false by science.
And my response was no more asanine than your sorry attempt to be deep in this thread, which was neither thought provoking nor interesting.Nice try, care to elucidate as to how I was being asinine? I wasn't the one instructing people to "shut the fuck up" because I didn't agree with their opinion. I simply offered a perspective of the possible truth and labeled it with a catchy title. Care to explain how that demonstates being an ass or stupid? And if this thread wasn't "thought provoking or interesting" then don't post in it.

[Hikaru Zero]

But isn't organising and recognising sense-impressions exactly what the mind does? Isn't the only reason we can make mental "sensations" because we have gained those ideas from our senses (not including the mind)?

That is what the brain does, not the mind. =)

I intend to be very clear; the brain is, as you observed, not a sense organ, it's a part of the body. Just like the stomach is not a sense organ.

The mind may be based in the brain, just as the eye is ... well, I guess based in the eye. But that is not to say that they are the same thing.

What I don't understand is how it is possible not to recognise a thought. When I imagine a red blanket, I know that I am thinking about a red blanket. If I saw a red blanket in the external world, I would not recognise it as such until those perceptions were organised in my mind and something clicked in my mind to make me recognise, "Hey, that's a red blanket!" The difference between the two is that no sensation caused by the external world was perceived and so that pereception did not have to be recognised by the mind. It was already recognised because its a part of the contents of the mind to begin with.

I can see how that is hard to understand. And I can't defend myself (or Buddha; not that I intend to defend him anyway) on that issue.

However ... must it be possible to not recognize a thought?

Let me answer this question with my reply to this part of your post:

Hmm... it makes sense, but I can't find a way to distinguish between reactive acts of consciousness and an act of volition.

This is the part of Buddhism that I disagree with a bit. I believe that there are two types of consciousness. There is a consciousness that is aware of sensation, and a consciousness that is aware of perception.

The part that acts when a sensation occurs ... that would be instinct.

The part that acts when a perception occurs ... that would be volitional activity.

It is possible for people to act both instinctively and volitionally ... I can't think of a good example at the moment, but you should be able to if you spend a few minutes thinking.

Edit: I thought of a decent example. Say, you're, uh, going into a dark dungeon or something, and you get a "bad feeling" and you instinctively pay closer attention to where you are. You can't explain why you have a bad feeling, because you don't (immediately at least) recognize the sensation that gives you that bad feeling. Later on, say, in another few seconds, you think hard, and realize that the darkness is what gives you the bad feeling, because you are scared of the dark. Thus, you have now percieved the darkness, and your response to that perception is to no longer feel bad, but also to pay closer attention.

As for the answer to the previous quote ... must it be possible to sense a thought without percieving it? It doesn't seem that there is any "instinct" for having a thought ... perhaps thought-objects are of the nature of being self-recognizable? Perhaps that is because thoughts are of all different kinds of all different natures, whereas blue is still a colour, sulfur is still an odour, boom is still a sound, etc.

Also, what's the difference between awareness of perception and perceiving? How can you perceive and not be aware of it?

A fax machine percieves (that is, recognizes and responds accordingly) instructions, yet it is not aware that it is enacting those instructions. =)

In all human beings, both states exist, but they should not be confused and mistaken for the same thing.

Hmm... that's interesting too. Perception can certainly be compared to input for computers. But I don't know if a computer running its program is a proper act of volition.

I'm sorry, I COMPLETELY misphrased that. =P

The computer percieves and responds, but because it does not have consciousness, it is incapable of volition. i.e. The computer cannot shift its attention, nor can it concentrate, nor can it have varying degrees of determination, or wisdom, et cetera.

Thus, computers act "instinctively" in a sense. While at this point, the terminology gets confusing, suffice it to say, computers don't have volition, but they still sense things, percieve things, and respond to them.

Descartes was searching for a priori knowledge though, meaning a thought which is independent of sensory experience. If those kinds of thoughts are possible, which they are not, but Descartes thought they were, then do you think that would qualify as proof that something thinks, in the way we mean it when we say a person thinks?

Honestly, I can't answer this question. Throughout my life (which until 3 days ago was void of any of Buddha's teachings, I just picked up a really great book), I've mostly believed in cause and effect, and Buddha teaches that as well. I don't believe that there are thoughts that have no causes (whether the causes are sensations, perceptions, OR other thought-objects).

Regardless, if they do exist (which I don't believe they do), then that might be proof of a soul or something, but ... I can't recall any thoughts I have ever had that weren't inspired by something else, so I can't consider this question a valid question or provide a definite answer, or even a "good guess" for that matter.

Michael:

I AM is not an egotistical statement

I disagree. The structure of "I," in any language, presupposes the existance of an ego; that is, a self which is both independent of other objects as well as currently speaking.

While it may not be egotistical in that it isn't conceited, it does require the existance of the concept of self.

[Colours]

explain to me what relevance Frodo's post had to this thread and then explain to me why you are defending him. you can't, because it is utter nonsense. maybe if you'd wipe your shaggy hair from your eyes you'd see that.

[Peace]

Because it's his opinion and the HipForums are free speech forums. So you don't go bashing other's opinions just because you disagree with them.

[darrellkitchen]

I don't think that the mind is a sense-organ like any other ...I disagree. The mind, in relation to the other sense organs is exactly what was stated earlier ... as sense "organ".

Take into consideration the other five "organs," eye, nose, tongue, ear, body.

The Eye is made up of components such as the cornea, vitrious humor, pupil, iris, lense, scleara, retina, optic nerve. The Retna has a layer of nerves called cones and rods which are sensitve to various electromagnetic wavelengths, or spectrum of light. Once the object of the eye (light) and the eye come into contact with each other via the cones and rods, a sensation occurs. So in essence the eye feels the wavelength of light, because it is in a constant state of change due to the nature of the electromagnetic properties of light. In order to catagorize (label) the type of wavelength we are "feeling" (seeing) a consciousness occurs whereby we can identify this or that wavelength as this or that color. Typically in Buddhism this is called the Eye Consciousness because the consciousness that occurs from the sensations are only associated with the eye. The ear cannot sense these sensations (feelings), the tongue cannot sense these sensations (feelings), the nose cannot sense these sensations (feelings) and the body cannot sense these sensations (feelings) and thereby are not conscious of their existence.

Likewise the Nose with its Olfactory epithelium which is sensitive to airborne chemical molecules (feel changes in airborne chemicals), the Tongue with its papillae which contain microvilli which are sensitive (feel changes in solid/liquid chemicals), the Ear with the hairs in the cochlea which are sensitive to movement/pressure exhibited by the ossicles (malleus, incus and stapes) in reaction to sound waves, and the Body with its nerve endings in the skin and other body organs which are sensitive changes in tactial sensations (feels changes in touch).

Similiarly, the mind is all these other five sense "organs" reacting together as one, just as each sense organ is comprised of other smaller components which make up the sense organ(s) we call eye, nose, tongue, ear, body.

If the eye were not present, and did not become conscious of what color felt like, the mind would not be conscious of color. It would not know the particular electromagnetic wavelength to associate with color. Nor could anyone explain red, blue, or green in such a way that you could comprehend color because you have never sensed, or come into direct contact with color. To say that red is red, does not produce the sensation or feeling of red and therefore no consciousness of red ... however, you can become aware of the existence of red, because everyone is using it, they sense red and are able to tell you that red exists even if you cannot directly experience the sensation yourself to become conscious of it.

If the ear were not present and did not become conscious of what sound felt like, the mind would not be conscious of sound. If the eye and ear were not present, the mind would not be conscious of color and sound. If the eye were present and the ear were not present, the mind would be conscious of color, but not of sound. If the eye and ear were both present then the mind would be conscious of both color and sound. Now if the eye and ear were the only organs you posessed that allowed you to interact with reality, then your total consciousness would only be that of sight and sound and you would have no awareness at all of touch, taste and smell because you would not be conscious of its existence ... no organs in which contact between object and organ can be made to produce sense consciousness.

The same with the other sense organs.

So IMO, mind consciousness is the total consciousness of each organ as if each organ were the cilli of the mind. Now Thought ...

Again, this is only opinion as I am not a definitive authority on Thought.

The Dictionary says that thought is to have or formulate in the mind. To reason about or reflect on. To decide by reasoning, reflect, ponder. To judge or regard. To suppose. To expect. To intend. Remember, call to mind. To visualize, imagine. To devise or evolve; invent. To bring into a given condition by mental preoccupation. To exercise the power of reason as by conceiving ideas, drawing inferences, and using judgement. To weight or consider an idea. To recall a thought or image to mind. To dispose the mind in a given way. The act or instance of delierate or extended thinking.

Where thought comes in is a learned response to a specific stimulation/sensation experience. Learned meaning one has to be tought that what one is experiencing is this or that. And, using thought, one can take the sensations being felt and with the knowledge of what it is, create independent communication in various forms; words, music, art, buildings, books, food, aromas, etc., even weapons ...

One can become conscious of objects, either visually, auditorially, aromas, tastes or touch, and without knowing, or having any knowledge of what it is you are conscious or aware of you will not know what to call or classify it in order to make logical reasonings or inferences to ... i.e, thought. You will not know that red is red, yellow is yellow, bitter is bitter, sweet it sweet, a tree is a tree, solid is solid. You will not know how to organize your experiences in order to relate them. You can be born in total deprevation of the senses and upon experiencing the sensations, not know or even be capable of thinking of what it is you have become conscious of because there has been no prior communication on what it is you are experiencing, therefore no relation to what the experience is. You can't even ask, "What is that" because you have not yet been exposed to words or language in order to formulate words to express your curiosity. All you would be at this point is a walking sensory bag, incapable of thought, or thought the way we experience thought, because you have no idea on how to process the information you are receiving or feel. You don't know what feeling is ... all you know is that something is going on and you don't know how to intrepret it ... you can't even think "something is going on and I don't know how to intrepret it."

In order to think, you need to have a learned response to formulate ideas correctly in a comprehensible way for others, and your self to understand what it is you are expressing or feeling. Someone somewhere was the first experiencer who classified each experience and related these experiences in a form of communication that others could mimic in order to express their feelings identical to the way others were experiencing them. This way they could interact on some kind of level of communication where they could become aware of themselves as this or that and as such and such. They can communicate their experiences and classify them so that everyone is capable of independent thought in order to formulate an order of communication for interaction. Communication in language and action then evolves, becomes more complex as beings are capable of recriprocating understanding and interaction, and subsequently, thought becomes more developed.

So, in conjunction with the responses of others, and the sensations and feelings you experience with your own senses, you create thought. Thought then becomes the object of the mind, and a consciousness occurs in the mind (called mind consciousness) based and related on the interactions and experiences of all the senses and their related consciousnesses.

Again, I am not an authority on Thought so this is all pure speculation and reasoning on my part ...

So things don't make sense until they're organised or recognised. Makes sense. But isn't organising and recognising sense-impressions exactly what the mind does? Isn't the only reason we can make mental "sensations" because we have gained those ideas from our senses (not including the mind)?

What I don't understand is how it is possible not to recognise a thought. When I imagine a red blanket, I know that I am thinking about a red blanket. If I saw a red blanket in the external world, I would not recognise it as such until those perceptions were organised in my mind and something clicked in my mind to make me recognise, "Hey, that's a red blanket!"How can you imagine "red" or "blanket" if you have no visual consciousness of "red" and no tactile consconsciousness of "blanket"? If you had no eye to produce the visual consciousness "red", how can the mind imagine "red" anything? If you had no skin, or more to the point, nerve endings in the skin to produce the tactile consciousness of "blanket", how can you identify blanket? I suspect that "blanket" requires more than a tactile consciousness, however. More like a visual and tactile consciousness. You can feel "blanket" without seeing it, and it will not always feel the same because of the various kinds and textures of blankets, one could easily mistake a rug for a blanket.

The difference between the two is that no sensation caused by the external world was perceived and so that pereception did not have to be recognised by the mind. It was already recognised because its a part of the contents of the mind to begin with.The consciousness of "red" and the consciousness of "blanket" is not already part of the contents of the mind until the mind is aware of what "red" and "blanket" are. Again, if you are born without eyes, or nerve endings in the skin to become consciousness of tactile sensations, you would have no idea or thought at all about what "red" or "blanket" was. Someone can say, "This is a blanket", but you would still not be become conscious of "red" or "blanket" without prior direct experience of what "red" or "blanket" feels like, and then you would not be 100 percent sure of "blanket" without both visual and tactile sensations.

_____________________

Darrell

[BlackGuardXIII]

tuum ascendo

I love therefore I am.
I yearn therefore I am.
My heart aches therefore I am.
I cry
I laugh
I

[Common Sense]

To Hikaru:

I just thought of something and wanted to get it down as quickly as possible. Even if the Buddhist conception of self is correct, Descartes' cogito still proves that you exist as a "thinking" (in the ordinary sense of the word) subject, even if that subject is just an automaton. To tell you the truth, this doesn't surprise me because the rationalists tended towards determinism anyway. Descartes felt that a choice between two options, neither of which being better than the other, is no real choice at all. Our choices are predetermined by the light of reason, which is true and immutable. Choosing wrong is just the result of not thinking things through clearly enough. It's sounds to me like the Buddhist view can be reconciled with the Cartesian view, which would probably be philosophically disasterious, but an interesting thought experiment nevertheless. Just wanted to hear your thoughts.

[Common Sense]

I disagree. The mind, in relation to the other sense organs is exactly what was stated earlier ... as sense "organ".
I'm going to skip over a lot of what you posted, which I feel a little bad for since you obviously put a lot of time into it. But we all know what the five senses are. The question is, what is the mind? It seems to me that you get into that right about here:

Similiarly, the mind is all these other five sense "organs" reacting together as one, just as each sense organ is comprised of other smaller components which make up the sense organ(s) we call eye, nose, tongue, ear, body.
Not exactly, and here's the key difference: the sense organs {mind excluded) collect data from the outside world. The mind merely organises that data and cannot come to any conclusions about the universe which have not been supplied by the senses. Your mistake becomes a little more obvious right here:

If the eye were not present, and did not become conscious of what color felt like, the mind would not be conscious of color.
The eye itself can never be conscious of anything because the eye all by itself lacks consciousness. To perceive something is to be conscious of that thing. There is no intermediary stage where the eye has perceived something but the mind is not yet conscious of it. A lot of neuroscientists and philosophers of mind would back me up here too.

To say that red is red, does not produce the sensation or feeling of red and therefore no consciousness of red ... however, you can become aware of the existence of red, because everyone is using it, they sense red and are able to tell you that red exists even if you cannot directly experience the sensation yourself to become conscious of it.
Mental states aside, the statement "red is red" can be known to be true by anyone, even someone who hasn't experienced the colour red, because its a tautology. You know very well that, "all gnomes are gnombs" even though you've never actually seen a gnome. Likewise, you know that, "all bachelors are unmarried men" even though you've never seen all bachelors. That last statement isn't a tautology but it is analytic, and all tautologies are analytic.

Now, as to thought, I don't really deal with philosophy of mind, so I can't say that I know what, exactly, thought is. Your guess is as good as mine.

[Peace]

I wouldn't consider the mind an organ or a sense. An organ is tangible; the brain is an organ, but the mind isn't. It's not one of the senses either because it isn't "stimulated" in the way the others are. The mind, in my opinion, is merely the control center for the self.

[Hikaru Zero]

The eye itself can never be conscious of anything because the eye all by itself lacks consciousness.

I must disagree here. Consciousness is most often defined as "awareness." Well, the eye has awareness of sight; it has "visual consciousness." If it didn't have visual consciousness, we would be unaware that we are seeing anything at all (which is not the case).

Mental states aside, the statement "red is red" can be known to be true by anyone ... (omitted)

Aye, but red is {experience of red} cannot be known by a blind man. This is what darrel meant by "red is red," I believe.

Clearly, the word red is the word red. But the word red is not the concept red, and a blind man cannot experience the concept red.

I just thought of something and wanted to get it down as quickly as possible. Even if the Buddhist conception of self is correct, Descartes' cogito still proves that you exist as a "thinking" (in the ordinary sense of the word) subject, even if that subject is just an automaton. To tell you the truth, this doesn't surprise me because the rationalists tended towards determinism anyway. Descartes felt that a choice between two options, neither of which being better than the other, is no real choice at all. Our choices are predetermined by the light of reason, which is true and immutable. Choosing wrong is just the result of not thinking things through clearly enough. It's sounds to me like the Buddhist view can be reconciled with the Cartesian view, which would probably be philosophically disasterious, but an interesting thought experiment nevertheless. Just wanted to hear your thoughts.

Unfortunately ... I don't have any thoughts here. Determinism ... Cartesian view ... these things don't have meaning to me, because I haven't got a clue what they are. =P Sorry.

And ... according to Buddha, there is no "self" that "thinks," it is just a mind that interacts with thoughts. To say "I" exist because a mind that interacts with thoughts exists, presupposes that the mind is part of some construct that can be labelled as "I," in which case, "I" would not be able to include the body, or the other senses. So, that doesn't seem correct to me.

If interaction between mind and thoughts can be called "thinking," where does the "I" come from?

I wouldn't consider the mind an organ or a sense. An organ is tangible; the brain is an organ, but the mind isn't. It's not one of the senses either because it isn't "stimulated" in the way the others are. The mind, in my opinion, is merely the control center for the self.

I disagree. The mind is stimulated, and quite often. It's stimulated whenever you have a thought.

Buddha's reasoning (if I have it right) was that the five tangible sense constructs were capable of sensing tangible changes. Whereas, the mind, an intangible sense consctruct, is capable of sensing intangible changes.

[darrellkitchen]

Mental states aside, the statement "red is red" can be known to be true by anyone, even someone who hasn't experienced the colour red, because its a tautology. You know very well that, "all gnomes are gnombs" even though you've never actually seen a gnome. Likewise, you know that, "all bachelors are unmarried men" even though you've never seen all bachelors. That last statement isn't a tautology but it is analytic, and all tautologies are analytic.CS, this is the second time in my life that I have ever called a human being this, but you are a foolish man (or woman). And a silly one at that ...

Darrell

[darrellkitchen]

...Aye, but red is {experience of red} cannot be known by a blind man. This is what darrel meant by "red is red," I believe.

Clearly, the word red is the word red. But the word red is not the concept red, and a blind man cannot experience the concept red....CS knew this also ... he was just being argumentative for arguments sake ... foolishly silly !!! And just plain humorous ...

Darrell

[know1nozme]

Our conscious minds make us, human beings, aware of five senses, on the average. Some people have access to less (the blind, the deaf, etc.) and some claim access to more. Who is to truely say how many senses we really have. Other animals react to stimuli we cannot percieve. Is this because some of their senses are more acute than ours, or do they have concious access to yet other senses of which we are not aware? Sharks, for instance, have concious access to as many as thirteen senses, depending upon which source you are getting your information from. We as human beings may have yet other senses which we have not developed. Who is to say? I, for instance, can sense diferences in barometric pressure. Whether this is simply a function of my sense of touch (or some combination of my five "standard" senses), or if it is yet a different sense, I cannot say.

The interesting thing is that we each experience the universe differently, in a way that is completely unique to our individual selves. This is most probably due to the influence of our previous experiences - we "tune" our senses according to the input we have previously recieved. We experience the universe through this "lens" of previous experience. Similarly, we interperet the signals we recieve differently for much the same reason. We ARE our past, is a manner of speaking, because each of us constructs our own reality based upon these interperetations of past experience. Who is to say whether there is more to "red" than merely the color that our eyes percieve? It may be that the E.M. wavelength (or, more specifically, the set of wavelengths) which we have termed "red" may have some other effect which one or more of our other senses can percieve, but which we have never bothered to "tune in to," either because we rely so heavily upon our sight, or because we haven't learned to associate that particular stimulus with the word "red," yet. The blind, might have some experience of "red" but never know it because that experience has never been named for them. We have been conditioned to think in words and only rarely do we ever transcend that conditioning to realize that there are many things in our experience which cannot be put into words (which is much of what Art is about, I think).

Our conciousness extends beyond mere awareness, though. And it's time we came to terms with that. We do much more than simply react to stimuli. We reason. We construct entirely imaginary concepts within our minds that are only vaguely related to the "real" world around us. What is this, then? We anticipate - make plans and attempt to execute them in an effort to affect the world around us. These are more than simple (or even complex) reactions to outside stimulus, I believe. We interperet these thoughts using the "language" we learned through the experience of our senses, this is true - but that is merely the product of our conditioning, the result of our experience. Without access to these senses, we would still think. The blind, for instance, having no point of reference for the word "red" still understand that the word has a meaning different form, say, "blue," do they not? They must create some imaginary contruct within themselves upon which to hang "red," which is to them a sound (i.e. the sound of a person saying the word "red") just as it is to those of us who see. Yet they know that the word is a symbol for something "other." This is because they reason.

It is our ability to create constructs within our minds (like "God" for instance) which transcend the experience of our senses that casts doubt on the idea that "mind" is merely a combination of impulses reacting to stimulus (or a combination of the letters M-I-N-D which are themselves symbols). There is a modern fable written by Stanislaw Lem called "The tale of Mymosh the self-begotten," whic describes such a mind:

“…Apparently, I am! ....Yes I am! And there's no apparently about it! Yet the question remains, who is it who says that I am?.... If only there was something else besides me, any sort of something at all, with which I might juxtapose and compare myself - that would be half the battle. But alas, there's not a thing, for I can plainly see that I see nothing whatsoever! Therefore there's only I that am, and I am everything that is and may be, for I can think in any way I like, but am I then - an empty space for thought, and nothing more?' [his senses had rusted out]......
"In his next attempts at thought creation, he proceeded with greater caution, first thinking up elements, like Brutonium, a noble gas, and elementary particles, like the cogiton, the quantum of intellect, and he created beings, and these were fruitful and multiplied. "From time to time he did make mistakes, but after a century or two he grew quite proficient, and his very own Gozmos, sound and stable, took shape in his mind's eye, and it teemed with a multitude of entities, things, beings, civilizations and phenomena, and existence was most pleasurable there, for he had made the laws of that Gozmos highly liberal, having no fondness for strict, inflexible rules, the sort of prison discipline that Mother Nature imposes(though of course he'd never heard of Mother Nature). Thus the world of Selfbegotten was a place of caprice and miracle; in it something might occur one way once, and at another time be altogether different - and without any special rhyme or reason. If, for example, an individual was supposed to die, there were always ways of getting around it, for Mymosh had firmly decided against irreversible events.....”

The mere fact that Mr. Lem can imagine such a thing is in and of itself enough evidence to at least force us to admit that such a possibility exists. And in an infinite universe, where a thing is possible... well, let's just say that the jury is still out on this one. We do not have the data to say for certain just what "mind" really is. We can theorize and postulate. We may eventually devise ways to test and quantify data so as to prove or disprove, but that capability is beyond us at present. "Mind" is a trancendant concept, beyond our ability to communicate in it's totality, or even to completely understand. We have other words for transcendant concepts: "infinite," "God," and so on. Perhaps some day we will have the means to do more than theorize about these things, but for now we simply have to admit that we don't know.

Well, we don't HAVE to admit anything... we have this other concept called "faith" which we often use to shield us from the need to admit to not knowing a thing - and which is one of those things which keeps me thinking that the mind is more than simply the reaction of our physical selves to the stimulus offered by our senses.

[TrippinBTM]

I wouldn't consider the mind an organ or a sense. An organ is tangible; the brain is an organ, but the mind isn't. It's not one of the senses either because it isn't "stimulated" in the way the others are. The mind, in my opinion, is merely the control center for the self.Well, the brain is not the mind, but then, the eye is not sight. And as DK said, it [the mind] is stimulated by stimuli from the other 5 senses.

[Common Sense]

CS, this is the second time in my life that I have ever called a human being this, but you are a foolish man (or woman). And a silly one at that ... Well, Darrell, to be completely honest, I think that Buddhism as a system of beliefs is foolish, but I'd never call a particular, practicing Buddhist foolish. And to tell you the truth, I don't know where you get off. I'm not arguing for arguments' sake, I'm raising a problem that I think is pretty interesting. I disagree with you. Deal with it. There's no need for ad hominems. I'd imagine that a moderator wouldn't have to be told that.

Now, back to the point. When I said, "mental states aside," I meant just that, including perception of colour. So, there is nothing objectionable about saying that "red is red" can be known to be true by someone who has never actually seen red. Now, whether someone can "know" red as we normally think of it without having even seen red, is another question entirely. It's a problem of the philosophy of mind, which, as I've said, I don't know a lot about. It certainly seems like a person could have at least some knowledge of red without actually seeing it. That person, who, say, is colour blind, could conclude, for example, that "red is not blue," "red is not green," and so on until he concluded that red isn't like any other colour he's ever seen. He could also ask people to describe red to him, which would be a bit of challenge, but could at least give him some idea of what red is. Also, say the person is neuroscientist. If he knew the way a person's brain works when that person perceived red, then the neuroscientist must have a pretty good idea of what red is. Now, all three of these ways of knowing red are all very abstract. It just depends on if any of these three scenarios satisfies the condition of knowing red, which we haven't yet clarified. So, Darrell, this would be a grand opportunity to expand on your theory of thought, which, as you admitted, you just pulled out of you ass before clicking the "post" button. And believe me, I may not know a lot about philosophy of mind, but I could tell.

Now, is the mind an organ, a sense, or something else? First, let's look at why it can't be a sense. A few posts ago, Hakiru said something about the mind being stimulated whenever it has a thought, the same way a sense organ is. I think the reason we've been running into so many problems is that we haven't yet distinguished the mind from the brain. Colours, I think, is quite right in saying that the mind is different from the brain in that the mind is intangible, or "unextended" to use Cartesian terminology. So, simply because the brain is stimulated in the way that sense organs are, doesn't necessarily mean that the mind is stimulated in the same way. "Stimulation" is a pretty sketchy term to use anyway since it can mean a lot of things. Is the brain really "stimulated" in the same way the sense organs are? I'm not too sure. I'm really not trying to arrive at any specific conclusions right here. I'm just throwing things out for discussion. But I am leaning towards the idea that the mind is something entirely different than the brain or the senses.

[Meagain]

This is addressed in the Surangama Sutra of the Buddha, which takes up the problem of sense perception and the location of the mind.

My limited understanding of it is that the senses (including the mind) are composed of incorrect conceptions of the true nature of ultimate reality. All is Essential Mind but through ignorance we assign labels to interdependent objects and impart to them a separate reality.

If we use the perception of sight as an example: Sight consists at least 6 components: an object, an eye organ, space between the two, light, the activity of the brain, and the actual perception of sight itself. Now, without getting into the first 5 components to deeply, let me just say that according to Buddhism, due to the interdependent relationship of all things, they have no independent existence and rely on each other for reality.

Let us concentrate on the act of perception. What is it that perceives? Where does perception occur? Does the perception of sight occur in one of the first 5 components? If this was true we should be able to isolate that component and it would still exhibit the process of sight perception. But, we find that if any of the 5 components is removed, the perception of sight ends. If we remove the object, there is nothing to perceive. Remove the eye and nothing is left to receive the light from the object, when space is removed the object and the eye become one (and the eye cannot perceive itself), light carries the form of the object to the eye, and if the brain is removed nothing is left to process the message from the eye. Each step has a function and yet no one part contains the act of sight perception on its own.

Sight perception does not occur in the object, space, light, eye, or even brain alone.

So where does the perception of sight abide?