Reality... Am I the only one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

So whenever we touch others, we actually touch our minds interpretation of that touch, the same with all sensory perception.

---

• The statement is illogical. You seems to be using the word touch ambiguously. Perhaps a better way to say what you have in mind is...
  
  Quote:

  ---

  Originally Posted by Thomas Aquinas

  Further, whatever is received into "a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver and not of the received." But whatever is seen is, in a way, received into the seer.

  ---

  and "the same with all sensory perception..."

---

The ambiguousness of the statement was due to my choice of words. What I mean is if we chose to interact with something we perceive to be ‘external’ (reality) using tactile sensory organs (touch) – the perception of touch is actually the firing of nerve ends (at the point of contact) sending a raw information along its length to the brain.

---

So is the feeling in the hand which touches or in the brain to which that information is conveyed? You say it is in the hand, the "the point of contact." Others would say it is in the brain. Others would say that it is a mere quality belonging to certain acts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

This information has no reality/meaning other than what the brain gives it – an example apparent in the medical condition called synesthesia (this condition mixes up sensory information for sufferers, so some can ‘feel’ in a tactile sence ‘taste’, or see words and sound in their visual field).

---

I am familiar with the concept. Unfortunately, you are simply assuming what you claim to prove. Certainly some cases of synesthesia may be caused by physical disabilities. But it seems to overstate the empirical evidence to claim that all are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Other experiments of simple nerve induction can break away the boundaries of the body, so one can seemingly feel pain in mid air outside of the perceived body. This pain does not exist in mid air - it's simply the brains model of external reality breaking down slightly.

---

Again, you are assuming what you claim to prove. Until we can agree on a common understanding the properties of mind, body and space, you will have no ground on which to build a proof. How can one prove that the mind is either present or absent in the space outside one's body until we agree on what the mind is? -- what space is? -- what the body is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

This raw information is then processed by the brain into what the conscious awareness (us) perceives as ‘touch’. Our awareness knows the brain generated interpretation of the attempt to touch external reality, rather than the raw nerve firing which triggered it. But even the raw nerve firing is not the thing we touched - it is a reaction to it. So even at the most basic level of sensory perception generation - we never really interact with the object we attempt to.

---

Poppycock! You may not interact with anything, but I do constantly, sitting on a chair, breathing, pressing keys on my computer keyboard, rereading and editing what I have written, etc. etc. etc. What kind of science do they teach now days, anyway? What kind of logic? You need to think clearly if you are going to make sense to anyone else!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

This is the case with all sensory perception.
If I touch, taste, hear, smell and see a solid lucid dream environment – that does not mean that environment has an existence outside of brain/mind just by the nature of me experiencing it.

---

What is a "brain/mind?" As I see it, the brain is part of the body; the mind is a habitual potency for a certain kind of activity. In particular, it is the habitual potency for intellectual activity (or thought). Which is it, body or mind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Sensory perceptions have no existence outside of those generated by the brain/mind – this can be seen in cases of people born blind or deaf – such concepts as sight or sound are beyond them.

---

It is clear that the body does play a part in cognition. Aristotle noted as much. In more recent years, the part which the brain has in cognition has been deeply explored.

True science tends to be very modest in regard to such claims, stating no more than the evidence suggests. You, on the other hand, seem to be enamored of these grandiose statements of absolutes.

As to people who are deaf or blind... It is hard to say whether they can have such concepts or not. Certainly some people who have gone blind have experienced synesthetic vision produced by hearing or touch -- just as people who have had an arm or a leg amputated may continue to feel the missing limb. I see no reason arbitrarily to deny that people born blind or deaf may have synesthetic vision or hearing. The mere fact that they may not acknowledge such an experience for what it is does not disprove its existence. A likely explanation for their silence is that they had no way to learn the significance of such experiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

1. I know you haven't defined your terms. I thought that is what I said.[/*:m:24o8jof0]
2. You say, "It’s known that mind cannot distinguish between imagination and external reality..." But I do it all the time! For example, I can imagine reaching over to pick up an imaginary coffee cup, without actually doing so. Perhaps you are using some terms ambiguously?[/*:m:24o8jof0]

---

There is a difference between a sentient awareness controlling action based upon a lifetime of learnt response (distinguishing between internal and external reality) and base generation of perception from electronic impulses triggered by sensory organs. As you notice you said ‘I do that [all of the time]’ not ‘my mind/brain does that [all of the time]’.

---

I am the one who acts. The mind is a habitual potency for intellectual action (or thought). The brain is part of my body. I use it, just as I use my hand or my stomach. In particular, the brain seems to be important for producing certain hormones, and in exercising controls over other parts of my body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

There are cases of sentient awareness being able to interact with objects which do not exist in physical reality. Anticholergenics (http://wikipedia.lotsofinformation.c...p?title=Datura) are chemical compounds which can make a user see fully 3d interactive hallucinations in external reality. They can smoke imaginary cigarettes, drink imaginary drinks – actually experiencing the entire group of sensations one would experience if a drink was really consumed, have detailed conversations with people who are really not there. They are very dangerous substances (before people get ideas).
These chemicals show that even on the sentient awareness level one can have their external reality model completely fooled. They also show that our perception of external reality does not have to match what actually might be there - it only matches what our brain generates.

---

There are many things which interfere with the control functions of the brain. Hitting someone on the head has been known to have extraordinary effects. But again, you are just assuming what you claim to prove.

(For what it is worth, that web page you linked to is very, very poorly formatted.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

• Furthermore, the example given would seem to indicate that the body may not distinguish between imagination and experience.

---

I would disagree with that inference; the body is controlled by brain/mind, and so on its own it knows nothing but what the brain/mind informs it of(within the boundaries of its mode of operation).

---

Last time I checked, the brain was part of the body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

• Sensory organs do what they do. My hand, for example, is a sensory organ. But I use it for other purposes, as well.

---

But if you did not have any form of sensory organs, your hand would be useless as you would never even know if you moved it or not – let alone carried out your desired intention.

---

I do not believe I ever denied the existence of sense organs. In fact, I thought I said that the hand is such an organ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

• You write... "Abstract knowledge, by definition can be no more than belief system." By definition abstract knowledge is knowledge drawn from abstraction. For example, a child sees a variety of objects. He discovers that such sensory phantasms can be divided into categories: animal, vegetable, mineral... I would not call such knowledge a belief. To be a belief one must add a predicate. For example, many have accepted as belief that all swans are white.

Please forgive my being tedious. But in philosophy one must be very careful, lest one be drawn into absolute statements where only relative ones are appropriate.

---

A belief system can be shared by more than one human. The categorisation of objects into seemingly related groups has no meaning outside that of human society (and only parts of human society which have learnt such categorisation), such categorisation are based entirely upon human perception and logic. For example – if humans had a narrow sense of visual perception – on par with a dog perhaps (seeing no colour only intensity of light) then It would be arguable that all swans are white. They only seem to be due to the current nature of our brains visual interpretation and the range of light frequencies (and intensities) that our eye organs can generate. I guess an argument could be made that a swams feathers absorbs wavelengths between x micron and x micron - and so classify it as such a colour (wavelength range).

---

Now you switch from beliefs to belief systems, something I hadn't mentioned.

Categories certainly would exist even without my existence or that of any man. Dogs and cats have categorized things well enough to have developed specific behavior patterns toward each other. And so it is with all animals.

But even inanimate matter acts according to fixed categories. Thus electrons tend to be attracted to protons, without any man having to tell them what to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Aquinas

Further, whatever is received into "a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver and not of the received." But whatever is seen is, in a way, received into the seer.

---

Quote:

---

So is the feeling in the hand which touches or in the brain to which that information is conveyed? You say it is in the hand, the "the point of contact." Others would say it is in the brain. Others would say that it is a mere quality belonging to certain acts.

---

I thought I made it clear that the feeling was generated in the brain by the activity of nerve cells in the hand. The only way we know the hand has touched anything is because the brain processes the data of the touch – and we feel that ‘touch’ in the brain.

Quote:

---

I am familiar with the concept. Unfortunately, you are simply assuming what you claim to prove. Certainly some cases of synesthesia may be caused by physical disabilities. But it seems to overstate the empirical evidence to claim that all are.

---

My use of synesthesia was to show how perception of external reality is affected by the brain.

Quote:

---

you are assuming what you claim to prove. Until we can agree on a common understanding the properties of mind, body and space, you will have no ground on which to build a proof. How can one prove that the mind is either present or absent in the space outside one's body until we agree on what the mind is? -- what space is? -- what the body is?

---

Quote:

---

Poppycock! You may not interact with anything, but I do constantly, sitting on a chair, breathing, pressing keys on my computer keyboard, rereading and editing what I have written, etc. etc. etc. What kind of science do they teach now days, anyway? What kind of logic? You need to think clearly if you are going to make sense to anyone else!

---

I think you are missing my point. The basis of my claim was that the external physical reality which we perceive and interact with is perceived internally. I am not claiming that external reality *only* exists within the brain – but we perceive it through data generated by the brain. I can fully appreciated in this physical universe there seems to be a shared physical reality between separate beings – but that reality is interpreted and presented to an ‘observer’ by the brain through the use of sensory data.
What this means is that yes you can interact with ‘external’ objects, but that interaction is experienced second hand – you experience the results and interactions in the internal generated perception of sensory data.
Such as if I wanted to move a cup:
To perceive the cup visually photons which have bounced off the cup hit the rods and cones on my retina, this generates electrical pulses which travel along the nerve to the vision centre of the brain. These signals are used to create the vision of the cup – i.e. you see the cup in your brain.
To move the cup, pulses are transmitted from the brain to the arm and hand muscles, the hand moves in the desired direction and grasps the cup. Nerves on the hand transmit pulses to the brain which generates the perception of holding the cup (and various qualities like its texture, temperature etc) in the brain. While your hand is holding the cup in reality – you experience these sensations generated by sensory data in the brain.
Do you dispute any of the above?
All sensory data is processed and experienced in the brain (is what I have been saying all along). This is basic biology.

Quote:

---

What is a "brain/mind?" As I see it, the brain is part of the body; the mind is a habitual potency for a certain kind of activity. In particular, it is the habitual potency for intellectual activity (or thought). Which is it, body or mind?

---

I agree with the above. I should perhaps admit I meant brain in previous posts, but due to past experience and consequent arguments on OBE boards regarding mind and brain, I used the term ‘brain/mind’ as I had no idea where you stand on the subject.

Quote:

---

It is clear that the body does play a part in cognition. Aristotle noted as much. In more recent years, the part which the brain has in cognition has been deeply explored.

True science tends to be very modest in regard to such claims, stating no more than the evidence suggests. You, on the other hand, seem to be enamored of these grandiose statements of absolutes.

As to people who are deaf or blind... It is hard to say whether they can have such concepts or not. Certainly some people who have gone blind have experienced synesthetic vision produced by hearing or touch -- just as people who have had an arm or a leg amputated may continue to feel the missing limb. I see no reason arbitrarily to deny that people born blind or deaf may have synesthetic vision or hearing. The mere fact that they may not acknowledge such an experience for what it is does not disprove its existence. A likely explanation for their silence is that they had no way to learn the significance of such experiences.

---

Please show which grandiose claims of absolutes I have used. I have quoted nothing which isn’t already in the scientific domain – perhaps you misinterpreted my intentions which lead to this assumption.
My assumption of blind since birth people having no concept of visual data was based on research. One piece of research found the visual cortex in people blind from birth was reassigned to processing verbal data. Interestingly, people who went blind after birth (so the visual cortex formed somewhat) were outperformed in verbal communication tests by blind since birth people who had a greater area of brain given over to such tasks.
I have also had a lot of contact with deaf and blind people, and conversations with blind/deaf since birth lead to my previous assumptions. I fully admit that this is purely circumstantial.

Quote:

---

I am the one who acts. The mind is a habitual potency for intellectual action (or thought). The brain is part of my body. I use it, just as I use my hand or my stomach. In particular, the brain seems to be important for producing certain hormones, and in exercising controls over other parts of my body.

---

I have never claimed you were not the one who acts, but each act is processed by the brain, and the result of that action is also processed by the brain. That was my original meaning.

Quote:

---

(For what it is worth, that web page you linked to is very, very poorly formatted.)

---

Agreed. I was in a rush when writing my previous post. A google search of Datura will provide all the information you could need.

Quote:

---

[quote:3esn4ksp]
Furthermore, the example given would seem to indicate that the body may not distinguish between imagination and experience.

---

Last time I checked, the brain was part of the body.
[/quote:3esn4ksp]

And that is just arguing semantics. Body is completely controlled through brain – so your ascertation that body might not be able to distinguish between imagination and experiences made no sense (unless you claim the body processes information independently of the brain). I was just clearing that up.

Quote:

---

Now you switch from beliefs to belief systems, something I hadn't mentioned.

Categories certainly would exist even without my existence or that of any man. Dogs and cats have categorized things well enough to have developed specific behavior patterns toward each other. And so it is with all animals.

But even inanimate matter acts according to fixed categories. Thus electrons tend to be attracted to protons, without any man having to tell them what to do.

---

A belief system is simply a number of beliefs. Such as a category is a number of objects or references.
A category is a structure which usually contains objects that logic dictates have sufficient similarity to be placed at a certain position in a hierarchy or list in regards to other objects. It has no control over the objects it contains (apart from organising them). Electrons might be attracted to protons through the action of the electromagnetic force but that does automatically create a category (without man to catagorise, by what and where would the category be stored?)
The example you give actually backs up my point, that is “dogs and cats have categorised” i.e. the categories are generated by the dogs and cats – they have no reality outside of that.
A great example of this is research done on the Mundurukú tribe (from central Brazil) which found they can only conceive of the numbers 1 to 5, anything above 5 was categorised as a ‘handful’ (be it 6,7,8, or 100). Such a basic category such as numbers is not even universal.


If needed I’ll quote any sources of scientific data I have written about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

So is the feeling in the hand which touches or in the brain to which that information is conveyed? You say it is in the hand, the "the point of contact." Others would say it is in the brain. Others would say that it is a mere quality belonging to certain acts.

---

I thought I made it clear that the feeling was generated in the brain by the activity of nerve cells in the hand. The only way we know the hand has touched anything is because the brain processes the data of the touch – and we feel that ‘touch’ in the brain.

---

According to your own principles, I cannot read your mind... (I would agree, but not for the same reason -- I imagine -- that you believe it.) As such, I have to take what you wrote as literally what you meant -- even when it seems to contradict something else you wrote. For men often do contradict themselves. Thus you cannot make yourself clear as long as you contradict yourself.

Going back to your response... I would argue that the feeling you refer to is in the mind, not the brain. That is to say, it is intellectual, not material. For as...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Aquinas

Further, whatever is received into "a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver and not of the received." But whatever is seen is, in a way, received into the seer.

---

and "the same with all sensory perception..." Thus the feeling of touch is received intellectually. For the mind is intellectual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

I am familiar with the concept. Unfortunately, you are simply assuming what you claim to prove. Certainly some cases of synesthesia may be caused by physical disabilities. But it seems to overstate the empirical evidence to claim that all are.

---

My use of synesthesia was to show how perception of external reality is affected by the brain.

---

What synesthesia shows is that men are often mistaken. It doesn't particularly show how such mistakes occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

you are assuming what you claim to prove. Until we can agree on a common understanding the properties of mind, body and space, you will have no ground on which to build a proof. How can one prove that the mind is either present or absent in the space outside one's body until we agree on what the mind is? -- what space is? -- what the body is?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

Poppycock! You may not interact with anything, but I do constantly, sitting on a chair, breathing, pressing keys on my computer keyboard, rereading and editing what I have written, etc. etc. etc. What kind of science do they teach now days, anyway? What kind of logic? You need to think clearly if you are going to make sense to anyone else!

---

I think you are missing my point. The basis of my claim was that the external physical reality which we perceive and interact with is perceived internally. I am not claiming that external reality *only* exists within the brain – but we perceive it through data generated by the brain. I can fully appreciated in this physical universe there seems to be a shared physical reality between separate beings – but that reality is interpreted and presented to an ‘observer’ by the brain through the use of sensory data.
What this means is that yes you can interact with ‘external’ objects, but that interaction is experienced second hand – you experience the results and interactions in the internal generated perception of sensory data.
Such as if I wanted to move a cup:
To perceive the cup visually photons which have bounced off the cup hit the rods and cones on my retina, this generates electrical pulses which travel along the nerve to the vision centre of the brain. These signals are used to create the vision of the cup – i.e. you see the cup in your brain.
To move the cup, pulses are transmitted from the brain to the arm and hand muscles, the hand moves in the desired direction and grasps the cup. Nerves on the hand transmit pulses to the brain which generates the perception of holding the cup (and various qualities like its texture, temperature etc) in the brain. While your hand is holding the cup in reality – you experience these sensations generated by sensory data in the brain.
Do you dispute any of the above?
All sensory data is processed and experienced in the brain (is what I have been saying all along). This is basic biology.

---

I have never seen a cup in my brain. Sight is intellectual, not physical, as I have shown. This is basic logic!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

What is a "brain/mind?" As I see it, the brain is part of the body; the mind is a habitual potency for a certain kind of activity. In particular, it is the habitual potency for intellectual activity (or thought). Which is it, body or mind?

---

I agree with the above. I should perhaps admit I meant brain in previous posts, but due to past experience and consequent arguments on OBE boards regarding mind and brain, I used the term ‘brain/mind’ as I had no idea where you stand on the subject.

---

Fantastic! We agree on something, at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

It is clear that the body does play a part in cognition. Aristotle noted as much. In more recent years, the part which the brain has in cognition has been deeply explored.

True science tends to be very modest in regard to such claims, stating no more than the evidence suggests. You, on the other hand, seem to be enamored of these grandiose statements of absolutes.

As to people who are deaf or blind... It is hard to say whether they can have such concepts or not. Certainly some people who have gone blind have experienced synesthetic vision produced by hearing or touch -- just as people who have had an arm or a leg amputated may continue to feel the missing limb. I see no reason arbitrarily to deny that people born blind or deaf may have synesthetic vision or hearing. The mere fact that they may not acknowledge such an experience for what it is does not disprove its existence. A likely explanation for their silence is that they had no way to learn the significance of such experiences.

---

Please show which grandiose claims of absolutes I have used. I have quoted nothing which isn’t already in the scientific domain – perhaps you misinterpreted my intentions which lead to this assumption.

---

I only meant to refer to your absolute denial of simple logic, as absolute statements of fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

My assumption of blind since birth people having no concept of visual data was based on research. One piece of research found the visual cortex in people blind from birth was reassigned to processing verbal data. Interestingly, people who went blind after birth (so the visual cortex formed somewhat) were outperformed in verbal communication tests by blind since birth people who had a greater area of brain given over to such tasks.
I have also had a lot of contact with deaf and blind people, and conversations with blind/deaf since birth lead to my previous assumptions. I fully admit that this is purely circumstantial.

---

I am simply pointing out the possibility of synesthetic vision in a blind person -- or synesthetic hearing in a deaf person.

I have limited experience of blind people. I have however, spent many hours using sign language with a deaf friend...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

I am the one who acts. The mind is a habitual potency for intellectual action (or thought). The brain is part of my body. I use it, just as I use my hand or my stomach. In particular, the brain seems to be important for producing certain hormones, and in exercising controls over other parts of my body.

---

I have never claimed you were not the one who acts, but each act is processed by the brain, and the result of that action is also processed by the brain. That was my original meaning.

---

My brain acts in the sense that a part of me may participate in my act. Thus when I pick up a coffee cup it is I who acts. My hand, however, participates in my act. And so it is with the brain, as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

I would disagree with that inference; the body is controlled by brain/mind, and so on its own it knows nothing but what the brain/mind informs it of(within the boundaries of its mode of operation).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

Last time I checked, the brain was part of the body.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

And that is just arguing semantics. Body is completely controlled through brain – so your ascertation that body might not be able to distinguish between imagination and experiences made no sense (unless you claim the body processes information independently of the brain). I was just clearing that up.

---

I control my body. When I act, my body and all of its parts including the brain participate in that act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

Now you switch from beliefs to belief systems, something I hadn't mentioned.

Categories certainly would exist even without my existence or that of any man. Dogs and cats have categorized things well enough to have developed specific behavior patterns toward each other. And so it is with all animals.

But even inanimate matter acts according to fixed categories. Thus electrons tend to be attracted to protons, without any man having to tell them what to do.

---

A belief system is simply a number of beliefs. Such as a category is a number of objects or references.
A category is a structure which usually contains objects that logic dictates have sufficient similarity to be placed at a certain position in a hierarchy or list in regards to other objects. It has no control over the objects it contains (apart from organising them). Electrons might be attracted to protons through the action of the electromagnetic force but that does automatically create a category (without man to catagorise, by what and where would the category be stored?)
The example you give actually backs up my point, that is “dogs and cats have categorised” i.e. the categories are generated by the dogs and cats – they have no reality outside of that.
A great example of this is research done on the Mundurukú tribe (from central Brazil) which found they can only conceive of the numbers 1 to 5, anything above 5 was categorised as a ‘handful’ (be it 6,7,8, or 100). Such a basic category such as numbers is not even universal.

---

Categories have no structure...

Electrons are a category. They do not create one. Categories exist intellectually. There is no need for them to be stored anywhere, for they are not matter. In a similar way, cats and dogs are categories. The do not create categories -- they merely recognize them.

If you line up ten Mundurukú, there will be ten of them regardless of whether they can enumerate themselves. Thus, they too prove my point, which is that thought is intellectual, not physical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

If needed I’ll quote any sources of scientific data I have written about.

---

There is no need to produce citations. If a need comes up, I will ask.

In my humble opinion, I think the basic difference between us is that you are seem to recognize only the efficient cause of being, while I recognize all four causes.

Quote:

---

Going back to your response... I would argue that the feeling you refer to is in the mind, not the brain. That is to say, it is intellectual, not material. For as...

---

I disagree with this. The mind might conceptualise such a thing, or add meaning to it, but the origin of touch is purely on the brain level. Pain, which is a form of tactile sensation can be felt by a new born which at the moment of birth has no intellect (intellect being formed over time based upon experience). So this seems to suggest touch is felt/interpreted at the brain level. Some argue now that even foetuses above a certain age threshold can feel pain – will you argue that foetuses have a noticeable mind and intellect?

Quote:

---

and "the same with all sensory perception..." Thus the feeling of touch is received intellectually. For the mind is intellectual.

---

Please state what you mean by intellectual – because if you maintain touch is received intellectually, that means every animal with a nervous system, down to the smallest fly and below (I’m not sure personally what animal/object contains the smallest nervous system) has the ability to intellectualise else it would not react to recieved sensory perceptions.

Quote:

---

I have never seen a cup in my brain. Sight is intellectual, not physical, as I have shown. This is basic logic!

---

You have not shown this at all. Let’s take a dictionary definition of intellect:

Quote:

---

in•tel•lect ( n tl- kt )
n.
1.
a. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding.
b. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. See Synonyms at mind.
2. A person of great intellectual ability.

---

Are you seriously saying only biological beings with the ability to think abstractly or profoundly, and have the capacity for knowledge and understanding can see? With such a statement, you either say every animal with sight organs (right down to the amoeba level) has the ability to intellectualise – or such a statement is wrong, and sight (along with every sensory perception) is experienced on a purely brain level first.
http://articles.animalconcerns.org/a...hive/pain.html
I certainly know that when I take painkillers, which do nothing more then act on certain receptor of the nervous system (not on an intellectual level of the mind!), they do cure the pain.

Another example.

Quote:

---

even people in a persistent vegetative state are able to make complex responses to painful stimuli. They can cry out or screw up their faces without ever being conscious of their surroundings.

---

Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3673
So a human with no intellectual capability still experiences sensory perception? It definitely seems to suggest so.

Quote:

---

Electrons are a category. They do not create one. Categories exist intellectually. There is no need for them to be stored anywhere, for they are not matter. In a similar way, cats and dogs are categories. The do not create categories -- they merely recognize them.

If you line up ten Mundurukú, there will be ten of them regardless of whether they can enumerate themselves. Thus, they too prove my point, which is that thought is intellectual, not physical.

---

This is what I was originally saying! That is abstraction has no reality outside of the mind – it is a purely subjective entity. I think we are getting our wires crossed in some places here ;)

Quote:

---

In my humble opinion, I think the basic difference between us is that you are seem to recognize only the efficient cause of being, while I recognize all four causes.

---

Out of curiosity, what would you say the four causes are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

Going back to your response... I would argue that the feeling you refer to is in the mind, not the brain. That is to say, it is intellectual, not material. For as...

---

I disagree with this. The mind might conceptualise such a thing, or add meaning to it, but the origin of touch is purely on the brain level. Pain, which is a form of tactile sensation can be felt by a new born which at the moment of birth has no intellect (intellect being formed over time based upon experience). So this seems to suggest touch is felt/interpreted at the brain level. Some argue now that even foetuses above a certain age threshold can feel pain – will you argue that foetuses have a noticeable mind and intellect?

---

I do not particularly distinguish between the intellectual soul and the sensitive soul. I do distinguish between sense and logos. They are different transcendental predicates.

As Aristotle noted, even animals have a sort of prudence. Modern Science has generally confirmed this. Studies with animals have shown little fundamental difference between their minds and human minds.

The difference between different animals is in the degree to which imagination is active. Dogs have little. Men have much. Even among men there are times when imagination is inactive. For example, when a man is deeply asleep. But since we have defined the mind to be a habitual potency, we must acknowledge it even when he is deeply asleep. It is much same in a foetus -- the imagination is undeveloped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

and "the same with all sensory perception..." Thus the feeling of touch is received intellectually. For the mind is intellectual.

---

Please state what you mean by intellectual – because if you maintain touch is received intellectually, that means every animal with a nervous system, down to the smallest fly and below (I’m not sure personally what animal/object contains the smallest nervous system) has the ability to intellectualise else it would not react to recieved sensory perceptions.

---

Nothing fancy... I simply meant that sense objects are received into the mind. It's fairly obvious if you think about it. One can think about sense objects only because the mind perceives them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

I have never seen a cup in my brain. Sight is intellectual, not physical, as I have shown. This is basic logic!

---

You have not shown this at all. Let’s take a dictionary definition of intellect:

Quote:

---

in•tel•lect ( n tl- kt )
n.
1.
a. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding.
b. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. See Synonyms at mind.
2. A person of great intellectual ability.

---

Are you seriously saying only biological beings with the ability to think abstractly or profoundly, and have the capacity for knowledge and understanding can see? With such a statement, you either say every animal with sight organs (right down to the amoeba level) has the ability to intellectualise – or such a statement is wrong, and sight (along with every sensory perception) is experienced on a purely brain level first.
http://articles.animalconcerns.org/a...hive/pain.html
I certainly know that when I take painkillers, which do nothing more then act on certain receptor of the nervous system (not on an intellectual level of the mind!), they do cure the pain.

Another example.

---

What I meant is that there is not room inside my skull for there to be a coffee cup in there, as you had indicated. I think it would kill one if somehow a coffee cup became embedded in his brain. How would it get in there without cracking his skull?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

even people in a persistent vegetative state are able to make complex responses to painful stimuli. They can cry out or screw up their faces without ever being conscious of their surroundings.

---

Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3673
So a human with no intellectual capability still experiences sensory perception? It definitely seems to suggest so.

---

I suspect that such a person's imagination would not function normally in such circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

Electrons are a category. They do not create one. Categories exist intellectually. There is no need for them to be stored anywhere, for they are not matter. In a similar way, cats and dogs are categories. The do not create categories -- they merely recognize them.

If you line up ten Mundurukú, there will be ten of them regardless of whether they can enumerate themselves. Thus, they too prove my point, which is that thought is intellectual, not physical.

---

This is what I was originally saying! That is abstraction has no reality outside of the mind – it is a purely subjective entity. I think we are getting our wires crossed in some places here ;)

---

I have no idea how you could get that from what I said. Clearly the abstract number 10 exists regardless of whether a Mundurukú recognizes it. The same would be true if one put ten babies in a room. There would be exactly ten of them regardless of the fact that they cannot count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophroniscus

In my humble opinion, I think the basic difference between us is that you are seem to recognize only the efficient cause of being, while I recognize all four causes.

---

Out of curiosity, what would you say the four causes are?

---

I have written of that elsewhere...

http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?t=1322

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hroom

:idea: Hi again ppl, what do you advice me to do? How to overcome this problem?? I am going on a psychic doctor this week, but I it will be nice if you give some advices or proofs of that problem - how to live normal again?

---

It looks like the dialog between Chris and myself has come to a stopping point. I am not sure that we have said anything of any value in solving your problem.

As I see it, one reason for our apparent failure is that we were working with a small part of the big picture -- dealing only with words. And, as I said, before, words often tend to separate -- exactly the thing you don't need -- while pictures and the body tend to unite.

As a father, I have to ask myself, whether it makes sense to suppose that my children are a figment of the imagination. I think not. Fatherhood, coming from the body, certainly gives one an anchor in such matters.

At times, one must simply suffer through the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Suffering, too, is of the body. I believe Dostoyevski wrote, "suffering is the beginning of consciousness." (If he didn't, he should have.) The good thing about suffering is that suffering will pass.

I think you should ignore the words, swirling around and concentrate on activity (which, of course, is of the body). If you must think, think as much as you can in terms of pictures. That may be difficult, of course. We are often so bogged down in words.

Here is a good exercise... Every night, take a picture and write down ten things about it. That can be harder than it sounds. The mind can only keep five or six things together at the same time. Pictures, on the other hand, can present one with thousands of different things. Yet the mind will only let us see five or six of them.

And, of course, find yourself a good friend. One friend can save one in times of difficulty. If you can, find one of the opposite sex... (Sex, of course, is from the body.) Your body is your friend. It will never lie to you. But you need to know how to listen to what it says...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I, Sophroniscus

At times, one must simply suffer through the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Suffering, too, is of the body. I believe Dostoyevski wrote, "suffering is the beginning of consciousness." (If he didn't, he should have.) The good thing about suffering is that suffering will pass.

---

I found the quote: "Why, suffering is the sole origin of consciousness." It comes from Notes from the Underground.

http://www.ccel.org/d/dostoevsky/und...erground11.txt

One other thing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I, Sophroniscus

Your body is your friend. It will never lie to you. But you need to know how to listen to what it says...

---

It might help to spend a few minutes every day doing some rhythmic movement. Call it dancing if you like. Put on some music and move to the rhythm. Five minutes a day should be enough...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hroom

Hey all ,

So here's a thought, What if " I " am the only real person in the world and God is projecting everything around me so he can test me being human ? ...I mean it's an interesting thought ..I am not reffering to ME specificaly, but to anyone who might ask this question .... just think ... what if YOU are the only one real and God is projecting everything around YOU just to test you ? ..any ideas ? ..

Question: 'Lets say I think that I am the only one real around and I think everyone is just a projection - illusion - (no offence) ...how could you prove me wrong?"

---

Well this is a very long thread and I am not into reading the whole thing, but I do want to comment on this and to give my opinion.

I think it is interesting that you would ask this because I once had a theory that we are all dreaming and that these lives we have are our dream lives and the characters around us including our own bodies are dream bodies. It is not at all impossible for this to be true. The existence of one thing never negates the existence of something else, thus anything is possible. Anything is possible.