GENIUS FORUMS

thought may be looked upon as dynamic,continuously present;we are inescapably in and of it.the process is neither complete nor completing nevertheless it constantly changes our form and degree of consciousness.
Man is a vehicle of thought ,and thought governs the world.
nerves,body,brain,etc.are the media of thought,and when thought becomes dynamic in nerves,body,etc. it is considered 'the mind'.

Actually, no. What you are talking about is automatic free association. True thinking is active mentation, something which requires conscious effort. Needless to say, most of us think very little, and some virtually not at all.

Carl G wrote:Actually, no. What you are talking about is automatic free association. True thinking is active mentation, something which requires conscious effort. Needless to say, most of us think very little, and some virtually not at all.

the wrong motive underlies your righteousness ,and you become to faulting me.

also...the 'profit from it' part is not included in my topicset.I hope to work it out with serious volunteers.

since it has come to my notion that some people think I talk crap,I have took a time to look for some quotes.the source is wikipedia:


Mind refers to the collective aspects of intellect and consciousness which are manifest in some combination of thought, perception, emotion, will and imagination.

There are many theories of what the mind is and how it works, dating back to Plato, Aristotle and other Ancient Greek and Indian philosophers. Pre-scientific theories, which were rooted in theology, concentrated on the relationship between the mind and the soul, the supposed supernatural or divine essence of the human person. Modern theories, based on a scientific understanding of the brain, see the mind as a phenomenon of psychology, and the term is often used more or less synonymously with consciousness.

The question of which human attributes make up the mind is also much debated. Some argue that only the "higher" intellectual functions constitute mind: particularly reason and memory. In this view the emotions - love, hate, fear, joy - are more "primitive" or subjective in nature and should be seen as different in nature or origin to the mind. Others argue that the rational and the emotional sides of the human person cannot be separated, that they are of the same nature and origin, and that they should all be considered as part of the individual mind.


[edit] Thought
In popular usage mind is frequently synonymous with thought: It is that private conversation with ourselves that we carry on "inside our heads" during every waking moment of our lives. Thus we "make up our minds," "change our minds" or are "of two minds" about something. One of the key attributes of the mind in this sense is that it is a private sphere with unlimited power. No-one else can "know our mind." They can only know what we communicate.


Quantum physicist David Bohm had a theory of mind that is most comparable to Neo-Platonic theories. "Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us..."(Thought as a System, D. Bohm, 1992)

Current research
The debate about the nature of the mind is relevant to the development of artificial intelligence. If the mind is indeed a thing separate from or higher than the functioning of the brain, then hypothetically it would be much more difficult to recreate within a machine, if it were possible at all. If, on the other hand, the mind is no more than the aggregated functions of the brain, then it will be possible to create a machine with a recognisable mind (though possibly only with computers much different from today's), by simple virtue of the fact that that such a machine already exists in the form of the human brain.

The Mind/Brain/Behavior Interfaculty Initiative (MBB) at Harvard University aims to elucidate the structure, function, evolution, development, and pathology of the nervous system in relation to human behavior and mental life. It draws on the departments of psychology, neurobiology, neurology, molecular and cellular biology, radiology, psychiatry, organismic and evolutionary biology, history of science, and linguistics.

this 'mind' may have some relationship with the Mind behind it all.if mind has any position ,it is rather in the whole body than a part.because thought is a succeeding impression of feeling. in other words identity exists by identifying.

What do you mean by "profit from it?" I don't suppose you just mean monetary gain, but do you mean advancement of the individual from it, societal advancement, environmental gains, movement towards Ultimate Perfect Reality, what?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:What do you mean by "profit from it?" I don't suppose you just mean monetary gain, but do you mean advancement of the individual from it, societal advancement, environmental gains, movement towards Ultimate Perfect Reality, what?

when you know how to profit,monetary gain might be an option.I let you decide that.

any profit may suffice.

I especially meant what I was refering to in my previous post - that mind may have some relationship with the Mind behind it all.
this connection is the profit ,because it gives us a trueer reflex of what is going on.

there are no conclusions...
or ,reiterated,the final conclusion is that there are no final conclusions.

Well then, of course understanding the workings of both mind and Mind, and aligning mind with Mind is the achievement of wisdom - which would be limitlessly profitable - as all that is, is Us.

It seems to me that is what the theme of this whole board is about. Analyzing all thought processes to achieve mutual Rationality by using logic and reason.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Well then, of course understanding the workings of both mind and Mind, and aligning mind with Mind is the achievement of wisdom - which would be limitlessly profitable - as all that is, is Us.

It seems to me that is what the theme of this whole board is about. Analyzing all thought processes to achieve mutual Rationality by using logic and reason.

well, when I entered this forum some woman asked me to define wisdom,and I said it is the mysterious incomprehensibility of all things.that whoever the designer,he is the generator,and that all the partial disclosures of knowledge prove this.she,Mr Quinn and Mr Solway did not liked it at all.
directly they had this tool,called logic,and said that mystery only exists because you did not make sufficient use of this tool (that seems to be so miraculous in his workings ).
they also asked about the mystic.I said a mystic is someone who experiences more of himself than he can articulate.
they said that things were not clear in my head.
what kind of answer is that?basicly that is ,listen to us ,we see all.

till this point it has never cleared to me why logic (and also reasoning) is so wonderful.
for,existence is alogical to any logic that we know.if existence is logical to any logic that we know.well then tell me...this is what this topic comes to more specific regarding people on this forum:not that we should use logic and reasoning,but why logic and reasoning should be used .why it leads to Enlightenment.which I have understaood from Mr Solway that it is the living in accordance with truth.

I also said that logic refutes its own syllogisms
but no answer came
..."The regular logical form of every argument, consisting of
three propositions, of which the first two are called the
premises, and the last, the conclusion. The conclusion
necessarily follows from the premises; so that, if these are
true, the conclusion must be true, and the argument amounts
to demonstration;
Note: as in the following example: Every virtue is laudable;
Kindness is a virtue; Therefore kindness is laudable.
These propositions are denominated respectively the
major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion.

Note: If the premises are not true and the syllogism is
regular, the reasoning is valid, and the conclusion,
whether true or false, is correctly derived."


I,as one,am convinced that my wisdom preceeds that of the logic-teachers on this board.

and I continue where I lifted of:
So Identity is an obsession,a conceptual whole made up of complicated and related parts of personalities,all assuming the appearance of something...

bert wrote: I,as one,am convinced that my wisdom preceeds that of the logic-teachers on this board.

What I agree with most on this board is that we should all think for ourselves. All are teachers and all are students. Gracefully embodying that duality is a mark of maturity.

Yes, logic is only a tool. The premises are the building materials. The quality of the final product is dependent on the quality of the building materials, the proper tools, and the skills of the builder. With each other, we challenge the quality of the building materials, the tools and the skills of the other builders. If any of it crumbles under examination, then it was of insufficient quality.

You said wisdom

is the mysterious incomprehensibility of all things.

I don't agree with that definition as it is stated, but perhaps that is a language barrier. I see wisdom as the understanding of universal principles. I may agree with you that complete wisdom may be beyond present human capabilities, and I wonder if that was more along the lines of what you mean.

Please expound on your point about what wisdom is.

I'm not sure that Bert can expound any further if wisdom for him is: "the mysterious incomprehensibility of all things". I mean, he could actually be saying that things have no inherent nature; that things are ultimately beyond explanation. It's hard to say what Bert is ever really on about. But to say all things are mysteriously incomprehensible is itself mysteriously incomprehensible. What is it Bert thinks is true of things for him to come to such a conclusion?

Mind is whatever we say it is, whatever we define to be, as with any category of phenomena. Because of the connectedness of all things some say Mind is the Universe itself, which is fair enough except that we already have a word for that - namely, "Universe".

In demarcating reality and creating the notion "mind" all that need be done is to work out what the purpose of the exercise is, what the utility of the definition/demarcation will be. Then we can draw the boundaries as best suits.

Personally I like to say mind begins and ends with me, which conveniently makes everyone else mindless :)

Dan Rowden wrote: Personally I like to say mind begins and ends with me, which conveniently makes everyone else mindless :)

Unless, of course, between the begining in you and the ending in you, all else is encompassed. In that case, you would be the one whose imagination we are all figments of. ;)

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Unless, of course, between the begining in you and the ending in you, all else is encompassed. In that case, you would be the one whose imagination we are all figments of. ;)

And if that's true, you have one heck of a fubar imagination!

Dan Rowden wrote:I'm not sure that Bert can expound any further if wisdom for him is: "the mysterious incomprehensibility of all things". I mean, he could actually be saying that things have no inherent nature; that things are ultimately beyond explanation. It's hard to say what Bert is ever really on about. But to say all things are mysteriously incomprehensible is itself mysteriously incomprehensible. What is it Bert thinks is true of things for him to come to such a conclusion?

I never said that all things are mysteriously incomprehensible.I say that wisdom is the mysterious incomprehensibility of all things.

saying that it is hard to say where I am ever really on about is subjective and a generalisation perspective. your speech equals, a fact about some part/a small part that can be considered seperately from the whole/exacting especially about details/first and foremost..of an expression whose meanings cannot be interferred from the meaning of the words that make it up.

simply put, you might say :for me it is ever really hard to say where Bert is really on about?
an easier understanding.but going in to depth never really equals easy understanding for those who can not go in depth.he that is suitable to go in depth knows less than the surface understanding of the common conscious people today who can not go in depth,but nevertheless thinks he knows what is said as long as it is connective with what he can make up.therefore he who goes in depth knows more because he knows it is that way,but knows less because when he makes a meaning all the other meanings become obsure.and he realises that he lives on guesswork.but not entirely....because he knows.
socrates :I know that I know nothing(or,I know that I do not know).


I admit,the verbalisation of my thing is the difficult part for me,and trough history others too.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote: Personally I like to say mind begins and ends with me, which conveniently makes everyone else mindless :)

Unless, of course, between the begining in you and the ending in you, all else is encompassed. In that case, you would be the one whose imagination we are all figments of. ;)

as I explained in this topic ,identity is by identifying.
consciousness results from feeling.the cognito ergo sum argument more fully expressed results in I feel,therefore I am.and the subconsciousness can be considered as the emotional structure.
consciousness is an outward facet of Mind,so our interactions baffle us,that,unless we accept that we make Ego(conscious entity) from Universal Mind ,everything becomes irrational.

is the answer in the question :why do we feel?

Rory wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Unless, of course, between the begining in you and the ending in you, all else is encompassed. In that case, you would be the one whose imagination we are all figments of. ;)

And if that's true, you have one heck of a fubar imagination!

belief,any belief,by its own workings is limited and only meant for you.
do you know why?

_______

I will be gone for teh rest of the weekend

my feeling for the whole,wisdom,is rendered parabole,whereas knowledge is constantly eating itself.thats the answer to your question elizabeth.

one can only understand me if one can get the whole.not the parts.logic is useless,as neurotic as its creed.

wisdom works from the subconsciousness,everyone has experienced inspiration in some form;that climax to a flash and a new conception births from our own orientation.