What Is Mind?

Introducing people of all ages to mythology... in pre-college educational curricula, youth orgs, the media, etc. Share your knowledge, stories, unit and lesson plans, techniques, and more.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

romansh wrote:
Evinnra wrote:
No, I'd ask you to explain why you think that something so counter intuitive is true.
OK, so for this hypothetical me, if I tell you I know that I have free will, you don't believe me. If I were to tell you I don't know whether I have free will, would you believe me?
If I knew you as a trustworthy person, I would believe what you say about your own beliefs.
Evinnra wrote: The Stoics did not claim that spirit is completely separate from physical world, they cliaimed the precise opposite, that the active principle is mixed with passive matter through and through.
So when we exhale do the carbon dioxide and water molecules have spirit? Does a diamond have spirit?
... according to the Stoics from the smallest to the largest everything existing has the active principle in it.
Evinnra wrote: Sorry but I did not see your definition of life. Whilst you're at it, would you direct me to it?
Evinnra I was not claiming that life exists per se. I'm saying it is a just a definition and I was wondering what is your definition.
In other words, if I dare use the term 'life' among my premises for a claim I better provide you with my own definition of what I mean by this term?


So what is your personal definition of life? Because I certainly do not have one.
Other than it is a little bit like pornography - I know it when I see it - Justice Potter Stewart
I'm not sure if I can agree with your definition, Romansh. Little mites on the human skin are very much alive but I am unable to see them without a microscope. Mould on the wall does not look alive to me, though I can see it. Perhaps I should start watching pornography to train my eyes... :shock: :?:
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Evinnra Wrote:
Then you may count me among those people you mention above, because I haven't the faintest how your symbol means that you're 'surprised others can't tell the difference'.
Quote:


Probably comparing a rock and an acorn would be better. However an acorn will grow under the right conditions, ever try planting a rock?

Yes...I couldn't resist.
You've lost me ....
Here's a quote for the record books.
A planted rock doesn't grow. - Neoplato
I think this one can be scientifically proven. :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Evinnra wrote:If I knew you as a trustworthy person, I would believe what you say about your own beliefs.
I asked whether you believed I know there is no free will, not whether I believed that?
Evinnra wrote: ... according to the Stoics from the smallest to the largest everything existing has the active principle in it.
So if I had a bag of chemicals identical to the bulk composition of a person, would that be active in principle? Or is there something else that is separate?
Evinnra wrote: In other words, if I dare use the term 'life' among my premises for a claim I better provide you with my own definition of what I mean by this term?

So am I not allowed to ask how you are using a word? I personally would be happy to explain a word and how I use it. But the question was aimed at making us think about was is life and what is not.
Evinnra wrote:I'm not sure if I can agree with your definition, Romansh. Little mites on the human skin are very much alive but I am unable to see them without a microscope. Mould on the wall does not look alive to me, though I can see it. Perhaps I should start watching pornography to train my eyes... :shock: :?:
Evinnra - I did not profer a definition, quite the opposite. And I think that you are using the word see far too literally.

So when you see mold growing on a wall or a piece of bread you don't think it is life
Fair enough.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

Rom,

I don't know whether you saw my post on the previous page. It got buried by Evinnra's post. I asked you a question, and I'd like to hear your answer.

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

nandu wrote: If 8 = 12, then 12 = ? (no, I've not gone mad: there is reason behind these apparently absurd statements)

Nandu.
If 8=12 and is true, then 12=8.

But there are a whole lot axioms that tell us that this is false.
eg the axiom 1+1 = 2.

But then if I have two rain drops and I add them how many rain drops do I have?

I do have a sense of what life is and is not. But it is society and my evolution that drive this sense. We can define life in terms of biology. But that automatically rules out silicon based life forms, should they exist.

If nothing else my reason tells me to be cautious as to accepting the difference between life and non life as an absolute truth.

People seem to be reticent to give a definition of life. What causes them to be reticent?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

Rom,

If I say that if 8=12 then 12=20, what will you understand?

(No, I am not teasing you: anyway, by now you may understand where I am going with this.)

Come on, play along!

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

I can do this!!

8=20?

:P
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

I doubt, Andreas, that whatever Nandu is getting at is so simple or obvious...well, speaking for myself, anyway. At this point I'm clueless. :?

***

Nandu,

I'm not seeking an answer or an explanation, but would you please share the context of what you asked? If I were to understand the why of your question, my intuition might kick in. Maybe...

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

Oh well, seemed pretty logical to me. :D
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Nandu, if I put my math mind to work this early, I may hurt myself... but 8 in one base system may equal 12 in other. (Base 10 and base 5?)

Ouch. I have to be wrong. Now see what you've done? Brain damage.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

Clemsy, you hit it!

If I have a system with the digits only up to five (i.e. to base 6) - 0,1,2,3,4 and 5 - I have to write like this (see the decimal equivalent in brackets):

0 (0)
1 (1)
2 (2)
3 (3)
4 (4)
5 (5)
10 (6)
11 (7)
12 (8 )
13 (9)
14 (10)
15 (11)
20 (12)

The idea of the question was to raise an interesting point.

For a person familar with the decimal system only, my question is apparent nonsense.

For a person familiar only with my fictitious system, the question is incomprehensible, as he does not recognise the symbol 8.

For a person familiar with both systems, the question makes perfect sense.

It's all in the definition. Of course, most people are familiar with the decimal system, whereas the "nandu system" is a rarity. So we can excuse most people for failing to recognise it.

So also with the definition of life, I feel. The majority define biological life as "life". Rom says a rock is alive according to his definition of life: even though one may not be able to strictly refute it, many will not be able to empathise with it.

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

(Aside: I completed my undergrad math requirements with a course in number systems. I rember wondering why this wasn't included at the elementary level in some manner. It took that course for me to get math. My lack in confidence remains clear, however, in the above post. It is the fault of Mrs. Cook , 3rd grade, Sister Regina ,7th grade, and Brother Ellis, 10th grade. We do remember the teachers who traumatized us, no?)
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Yep I missed that one, though either Neo or JJ did point out 6 x 9 = 42 in base 13. Rarely working outside the bases 10 and e - I missed it. But then that sort of provides evidence for your point. :)
nandu wrote: So also with the definition of life, I feel. The majority define biological life as "life". Rom says a rock is alive according to his definition of life: even though one may not be able to strictly refute it, many will not be able to empathise with it.

Nandu.
To be fair I didn't say a rock is alive (or is life). I just said the distinction between the two is arbitrary or at least arrived at by consensus - with exceptions of course. It's like where does "I" begin and end. For many its the content of our own particular chemicals. Regardless of the exchange of these chemicals with the environment? Regardless of the exchange of information between the environment and the my bag of chemicals.

Consequently we need a nebulous soul or spirit as a possible explanation.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

Where "life" begins or ends is indeed a nebulous question. This dilemma comes to the fore when we talk of killing. If you remember, we had a debate some time ago in my "virtue" thread whether killing a human being was acceptable. Ironically, one person argued that dying was preferable to killing under any circumstance: then the same person argued that killing an innocent animal for food was perfectly acceptable, since one cannot be expected to starve! This argument seemed absurd to me, but it was perfectly logical for the person who made it because he was arguing from the traditional Christian viewpoint that animals had no souls, therefore animal life was "lesser" than human life. Similarly, vegetarians consume plants, which are also "alive" in a sense, but they do not consider this to be "killing".

So also with consciousness. The problem here is mainly that we are unable to define what being "conscious" means - the feeling of self, an entity which creates an imaginary border between "I" and "not I". What is this self made of? The answer to this question is the ultimate aim of all philosophies. All the world religions have made "spiritual models" (somewhat like scientists who make mathematical models of reality) to explain observed phenomena-but the difference here is, there is no one model which fits the observations. You are free to choose the model you want.

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

All the world religions have made "spiritual models" (somewhat like scientists who make mathematical models of reality) to explain observed phenomena-but the difference here is, there is no one model which fits the observations. You are free to choose the model you want. - Nandu
And science is one of the models. Lets see where that one takes us. :D
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

Locked