GENIUS FORUMS

read in DQ’s wisdom of the infinite near a year ago, and the idea about the hidden void is not new; so I suspect you might have heard this before, but there's not been any posts about it lately.


First off, let me define ‘mind’ as thoughts, or as what appears. What appears might not be seen as a thought, but it is the acknowledgement that a thing is what it is (A=A), the impression that you see ‘A’ could be said to be a thought. So I don’t think it makes sense to separate thought and appearance from eachother. Appearance is thought, thought is appearance.


The question of the title “Where does the mind dwell?” is akin to asking; where does thoughts come from? The question demands thought so the question is impossible to answer definitively. However, if you go about the question scientifically, you ask yourself “is the brain what creates thoughts? Or is the body?” – Then I say, what makes the brain? Is it not connected to the body? But then, questioning further, what makes the body, is it the temperature, the sun, our parents, our atmosphere, our food supply, fresh water, lack of diseases….further asking, what makes all these things? we could go on and on....

So where does our mind dwell? I would say that the 'thing' responsible for 'mind' can't be limited, the causes spread out like that of any other thing, But saying this is 'mind' and we can't have mind beyond mind. So mind doesn't dwell anywhere, but we can't really say nowhere either, yet, it bugs me...

I know A is logically dependant as a bounded form by not-A. But is the A that is responsible for mind really a thing? or is it better concieved as just an a sea of causes that together makes 'mind'

my momma ate steak and potash

Anders Schlander wrote:read in DQ’s wisdom of the infinite near a year ago, and the idea about the hidden void is not new; so I suspect you might have heard this before, but there's not been any posts about it lately.


First off, let me define ‘mind’ as thoughts, or as what appears. What appears might not be seen as a thought, but it is the acknowledgement that a thing is what it is (A=A), the impression that you see ‘A’ could be said to be a thought. So I don’t think it makes sense to separate thought and appearance from eachother. Appearance is thought, thought is appearance.


The question of the title “Where does the mind dwell?” is akin to asking; where does thoughts come from? The question demands thought so the question is impossible to answer definitively. However, if you go about the question scientifically, you ask yourself “is the brain what creates thoughts? Or is the body?” – Then I say, what makes the brain? Is it not connected to the body? But then, questioning further, what makes the body, is it the temperature, the sun, our parents, our atmosphere, our food supply, fresh water, lack of diseases….further asking, what makes all these things? we could go on and on....

So where does our mind dwell? I would say that the 'thing' responsible for 'mind' can't be limited, the causes spread out like that of any other thing, But saying this is 'mind' and we can't have mind beyond mind. So mind doesn't dwell anywhere, but we can't really say nowhere either, yet, it bugs me...

I know A is logically dependant as a bounded form by not-A. But is the A that is responsible for mind really a thing? or is it better concieved as just an a sea of causes that together makes 'mind'

So.. if I answer all of your questions...

The question demands thought so the question is impossible to answer definitively.

You already seem to be ready not to believe the answers. The answers are so deviant to science that it will take many years to be fully realised, and my answers will be ignored. So if somebody did have all of your answers you would be unable to believe them anyway.

the lollypop throws it down

Steve, seriously, post some substance or piss off. I'm a little over your bullshit.

so scald.

Pincho Paxton wrote:The answers are so deviant to science that it will take many years to be fully realised, and my answers will be ignored

Try us pincho.

chikoka wrote: Try us pincho.

The Universe is made from a tiny grain, that is invisible because it is so small, and because light passes right through it. You can tell that the grain is there however just by looking at magnets attracting material, and nothing is there to pull the material along.

Light passes through it because light is like an ocean wave through the grain.

Think of this material like water, but invisible, and it's called the Aether.

The water in the sea has the power to break a rock. If you could direct that power, like through a hose, you could put a hole through steel.

If you put a hose in a bucket at an angle it will spin around inside the bucket.

If you had a smaller bucket, it would spin around faster.

If you could squeeze the bucket, you could control the speed of the spin.

If you could squeeze the bucket completely without breaking it you would have a super fast spin.

The mind is the ability to squeeze the Aether into various spin speeds and out into hoses that lead to more buckets. This path is the thought.

The final bucket retains the spin, and that is the memory. The spin is held in place by a Black Hole like a plug hole, and as you know, a plug hole retains spin.

Where does the mind dwell? is a trick question. Defining mind as thought is absurb because one has to define thought's dwelling place, which is to define where thought comes from which would give one the answer to the opening question.

From my comprehension, the question should not be as stated, but Where does the mind not dwell?

If one can think of a place where mind is not, they will have done the impossible, for if it is thought of, there the mind is. If one does not think of it, there the mind is not.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

jufa wrote:Where does the mind dwell? is a trick question. Defining mind as thought is absurb because one has to define thought's dwelling place, which is to define where thought comes from which would give one the answer to the opening question.

From my comprehension, the question should not be as stated, but Where does the mind not dwell?

If one can think of a place where mind is not, they will have done the impossible, for if it is thought of, there the mind is. If one does not think of it, there the mind is not.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

It's not really a trick question. It's the same question as.. I want to see my eyes.. well you can see your eyes.

It's not really a trick question. It's the same question as.. I want to see my eyes.. well you can see your eyes.

If it is not a trick question, and is the same as I want to see my eyes [which is not a question] tell me how then: can I see my mind?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

jufa wrote:

It's not really a trick question. It's the same question as.. I want to see my eyes.. well you can see your eyes.

If it is not a trick question, and is the same as I want to see my eyes [which is not a question] tell me how then: can I see my mind?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Well seeing your mind, or rather the original post that you made....

Where does the mind dwell? is a trick question.

Is only asking for a location for your thoughts. Well that's a muscle in the brain, so question answered. Wasn't much of a trick was it?

PP you just wont answer the question will you?

The question is:

tell me how then: can I see my mind?

not the effect.

Quote:
Where does the mind dwell? is a trick question.


Is only asking for a location for your thoughts. Well that's a muscle in the brain, so question answered. Wasn't much of a trick was it?

What muscle is that which specifically is the holder of thought. Give me that location please No generalization.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

let me try explain, maybe it will help , maybe it won't.

my point is, that the appearances we see, that which we call consciousness, is literally caused by the rest of the universe. Because a physical brain would need causes to function, and those causes would also have causes, we say that whatever causes mind must also have a cause and so on, this extends indefinitely, thus i say, the culprit of consciousness is not just brain but is the rest of the Universe.

Appearance is caused by non-appearance. Our sensory world is created by this non-appearance, and our senses world, like any other thing, extends to its causes, having no real beginning nor end, hence, appearance(effect) IS really just it's causes also, it is also non-appearance.

jufa wrote:PP you just wont answer the question will you?

The question is:

tell me how then: can I see my mind?

not the effect.

Quote:
Where does the mind dwell? is a trick question.


Is only asking for a location for your thoughts. Well that's a muscle in the brain, so question answered. Wasn't much of a trick was it?

What muscle is that which specifically is the holder of thought. Give me that location please No generalization.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Here is one of the muscles the neuron. If I'm right, it squeezes that nucleus, and causes a flow into the synapse, which is emptied to accept the signal, and hold it there. Current theories are that the emptied chemicals are the signal. My theory is that the signal occurs in the holes, and the released chemicals are just a way to make space for the signal.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... ram_de.svg

Pincho, thanks, the scientific part of how our brain works is also is an interesting idea, given what we might be able to manipulate and such.

Just know that my question in particular was a philosophical question. No worries, i think i've got an understanding now though. It is in my post one-up.

feel free to post scientific ideas if you want. Im personally not really interested in 'brain science'.

Anders Schlander wrote:Pincho, thanks, the scientific part of how our brain works is also is an interesting idea, given what we might be able to manipulate and such.

Just know that my question in particular was a philosophical question. No worries, i think i've got an understanding now though. It is in my post one-up.

feel free to post scientific ideas if you want. Im personally not really interested in 'brain science'.

Philosophically a thought starts with movement like a heartbeat. we don't actually control the movement by ourselves, it is automatic.. like a heartbeat. Therefore we have no knowledge of this first creation of a thought, we only have knowledge of the thought after several things have automatically happened. Like a train on a track, the thought is already moving, and we can just control the points on the track that switch it from one track to the next. Point the train in a random direction, and start it moving, and we can get it to go where we went it to go. Random leads to the right station in the end.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Anders Schlander wrote:Pincho, thanks, the scientific part of how our brain works is also is an interesting idea, given what we might be able to manipulate and such.

Just know that my question in particular was a philosophical question. No worries, i think i've got an understanding now though. It is in my post one-up.

feel free to post scientific ideas if you want. Im personally not really interested in 'brain science'.

Philosophically a thought starts with movement like a heartbeat. we don't actually control the movement by ourselves, it is automatic.. like a heartbeat. Therefore we have no knowledge of this first creation of a thought, we only have knowledge of the thought after several things have automatically happened. Like a train on a track, the thought is already moving, and we can just control the points on the track that switch it from one track to the next. Point the train in a random direction, and start it moving, and we can get it to go where we went it to go. Random leads to the right station in the end.

the right station is what it is, no matter what station it ends up being. but we don't know where it begins or where it ends )

Anders Schlander wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Anders Schlander wrote:Pincho, thanks, the scientific part of how our brain works is also is an interesting idea, given what we might be able to manipulate and such.

Just know that my question in particular was a philosophical question. No worries, i think i've got an understanding now though. It is in my post one-up.

feel free to post scientific ideas if you want. Im personally not really interested in 'brain science'.

Philosophically a thought starts with movement like a heartbeat. we don't actually control the movement by ourselves, it is automatic.. like a heartbeat. Therefore we have no knowledge of this first creation of a thought, we only have knowledge of the thought after several things have automatically happened. Like a train on a track, the thought is already moving, and we can just control the points on the track that switch it from one track to the next. Point the train in a random direction, and start it moving, and we can get it to go where we went it to go. Random leads to the right station in the end.

the right station is what it is, no matter what station it ends up being. but we don't know where it begins or where it ends )

We know where it ends, and we know where it is happens. Do you know where your heartbeat begins? Most of our physics appear to have no beginning. I can say to myself.. "Move the big toe." but I don't have to move my big toe. I can hear myself say it, and not do it. Muscles are separate to thoughts, so when we think it starts with a muscle, and we don't have to know when it happened.

a muscle is a thing, right? can you have thoughts without things? and where do you suppose a muscle begins or ends anyway...

Anders Schlander wrote:a muscle is a thing, right? can you have thoughts without things? and where do you suppose a muscle begins or ends anyway...

The above statement is right on for how can the true mind of man be physiological and the seat of thought originate therein, when thought came before the physical body? To be exact, how can the physical produce thought, when the physical body only distrubutes the messages which enter the brain from a source unknown?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

The scientific question is: how do you manipulate problems in the brain etc.

the philosophic answer to a thing is that it has no real beginning nor end, neither does consciousness

Anders Schlander wrote:The scientific question is: how do you manipulate problems in the brain etc.

the philosophic answer to a thing is that it has no real beginning nor end, neither does consciousness

The brain does not manipulate, the brain respond to chemical signals specifically designate to cause a certain organ[s] to react. Before the brain send such a signal, conscious impulse has already cause a reaction.

Philosophhically it is not true that a things has no beginning or end. A thought itself which one becomes aware of verifies this to be true. The beginning is one becomes awareness, the end when one is no longer aware of it. The same applies to consciousness.

To say there is no real beginning nor end to anything cannot even be metaphorically adaptable to logic on assumed.

Never gove power teo anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

jufa wrote:

Anders Schlander wrote:The scientific question is: how do you manipulate problems in the brain etc.

the philosophic answer to a thing is that it has no real beginning nor end, neither does consciousness

The brain does not manipulate, the brain respond to chemical signals specifically designate to cause a certain organ[s] to react. Before the brain send such a signal, conscious impulse has already cause a reaction.

Philosophhically it is not true that a things has no beginning or end. A thought itself which one becomes aware of verifies this to be true. The beginning is one becomes awareness, the end when one is no longer aware of it. The same applies to consciousness.

To say there is no real beginning nor end to anything cannot even be metaphorically adaptable to logic on assumed.

Never gove power teo anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

since all things are only things because of what they are not, they are not seperate but depend on eachother, that is metaphysical and logical is it not?

Anders Schlander wrote: since all things are only things because of what they are not, they are not seperate but depend on eachother, that is metaphysical and logical is it not?

How can things be if they are not? And being they are not, what can they be interdependent dependent to that also is not?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa