The Removal of "Mind" from Human Inquiry

The Removal of "Mind" from Human Inquiry

1.

The mind (another word for soul, psyche, ego, consciousness etc.) as a concept is a hurdle to further human understanding. It confuses more than it enlightens. It has zero explanatory power. It is without scope. It cannot be empirically validated. On top of that, it is dangerous to believe in, for it risks giving primacy to a fiction rather than the reality it is meant to explain, leading one to solipsism.

2.

Minds do not exist, due to the simple fact that such an entity or substance is absent from biology. In this case, since we have the domain and finite system in which to look and study, namely, the body, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is easy to prove this negative, like it is easy to prove there is not a monster under the bed. Turn on a light and look. To prove mind doesn't exist is a simple matter of looking to see if it is there or not. We've looked; it isn't there.

3.

If minds do not exist, what exactly are we speaking about when using the term?

As previously illustrated, the concept of mind is without objective and concrete basis and is a purely subjective and abstract notion. In other words – like all subjective notions – "mind" is a concept deduced from a severely limited point of view, a blindspot if you will, of the body, of oneself. From a body with senses pointed outwards, unable to survey what is occurring throughout the majority of its being, he relies instead on fleeting and inconclusive sensations to force himself to conclusive results.

Thus the concept of mind is an irrational, fallacious and fruitless pursuit.

4.

The concept of mind is a hinderance to human inquiry and philosophy, leading us to accept strange pseudoscience and religions to perpetuate its acceptance.

For some reason, despite its lack of properties and intrinsic value, it is highly valued in culture, perhaps because such a notion allows for a belief in persistence beyond death. However, as noted, what might persist beyond death in this instance is lacking even in life. How can something persist in death if it does not even persist in life?

5.

Though we all think in a similar fashion we also think differently than one another. With the notion of mind, this is impossible, for without a thing or substance that has properties, and thus without a mechanism through which to capture individual experience, all minds would be the same. Without any demonstrative physical differences, it is impossible to have a different mind at all.

Luckily, however, there is no mind, and the reason for our individuality is our individual bodies, none of which are exactly alike, and none of which occupy the same place and time. Though similar in form and makeup, the body is only similar to other bodies, but never the same. Each body, each "mind", is different. Naturally, a different body will generate different thoughts and different behaviour, by virtue of the fact that the body has not lived the same life as another body.

6.

The "mind" of any other animal is different due only to its different body. The bat's consciousness involves echo-location, which its body allows. The owl's hearing and sight is profoundly greater than the human being's due to the shape and constitution of its body. The body of every animal is the force, foundation and reality of its own cognition.

The question whether an animal possesses or lacks something like a human mind or soul is untenable, and leads the incredulous to believe that animals are lesser in value. The only fact of the matter, and the reason animals do not possess a cognition like humans, is because they aren't human bodies. The mental capacity of any animal, any being, any thing, is the capacity of its body.

7.

No one can think like you for the simple fact no one is you – they do not occupy the exact same place and time, and are each their own unique body. Throw your mind in the pile of ancient ideas that have impeded human knowledge.

Thinking, emotions etc are processes involving neurones, synapses etc. it is physical, electrical and possibly influenced by XYZ other Universal aspects.

Rather than a hurdle, it is a name for describing tangible processes that are essentially the primary motivating focus of humanity, as individuals and collectively.

Such names are essential for functioning civilizations and perfectly relevant, valid and useful.

There is no sense or value in suggesting it not being named due to 'mind' referring to cognitive processes rather than being an actual physical object.

The Oxford dictionary sums it up rather succinctly IMO.

www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Definition of mind in English:
noun

1The element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought:
a lot of thoughts ran through my mind


MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS

2A person’s ability to think and reason; the intellect:
his keen mind
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES

2.1A person’s memory:
the company’s name slips my mind
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS

2.2A particular way of thinking, influenced by a person’s profession or environment:
he had a deep contempt for the bureaucratic mind
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS

2.3A person identified with their intellectual faculties:
he was one of the greatest minds of his time
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS

3A person’s attention:
employees should keep their minds on the job
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS

3.1A person’s will or determination to achieve something:
anyone can slim if they set their mind to it
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought:

I agree with the dictionary. That element of a person is their body.

Perhaps COGNITION as a more cerebral term is more apt when talking of 'mind' and cognitive functions in such depth.

en.wikipedia.org...

In science, cognition is the set of all mental abilities and processes related to knowledge: attention, memory and working memory, judgement and evaluation, reasoning and "computation", problem solving and decision making, comprehension and production of language, etc. Human cognition is conscious and unconscious, concrete or abstract, as well as intuitive (like knowledge of a language) and conceptual (like a model of a language). Cognitive processes use existing knowledge and generate new knowledge.

These processes are analyzed from different perspectives within different contexts, notably in the fields of linguistics, anesthesia, neuroscience, psychiatry, psychology, education, philosophy, anthropology, biology, systemics, and computer science.[1][page needed] These and other different approaches to the analysis of cognition are synthesised in the developing field of cognitive science, a progressively autonomous academic discipline. Within psychology and philosophy, the concept of cognition is closely related to abstract concepts such as mind and intelligence. It encompasses the mental functions, mental processes (thoughts), and states of intelligent entities (humans, collaborative groups, human organizations, highly autonomous machines, and artificial intelligences).[2]

Thus, the term's usage varies across disciplines; for example, in psychology and cognitive science, "cognition" usually refers to an information processing view of an individual's psychological functions. It is also used in a branch of social psychology called social cognition to explain attitudes, attribution, and group dynamics.[3] In cognitive psychology and cognitive engineering, cognition is typically assumed to be information processing in a participant’s or operator’s mind or brain.[2]

Cognition can in some specific and abstract sense also be artificial.[4]

originally posted by: Aphorism

The mind (another word for soul, psyche, ego, consciousness etc.) as a concept is a hurdle to further human understanding.

But Clark, how can that be, when understanding itself is defined as a mental process, and in turn mental processes are defined as all the things an individual can do with his or her mind?

👣

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Perhaps COGNITION as a more cerebral term is more apt when talking of 'mind' and cognitive functions in such depth.

All of which are bodily functions. The question is: where do we draw the line between cognitive and other functions. Can there be a rational separation between these two opposing notions?

a reply to: BlueMule

But Clark, how can that be, when understanding itself is defined as a mental process, and in turn mental processes are defined as all the things an individual can do with his or her mind?

It is an error. Simple.

a reply to: Aphorism

First we are programmed by our DNA.

Second, we can use our mind to program ourselves with
our own symbols which we create for ourselves (and to
communicate with others).

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule

But Clark, how can that be, when understanding itself is defined as a mental process, and in turn mental processes are defined as all the things an individual can do with his or her mind?

It is an error. Simple.

Doubtful.

Is this an error too, in your opinion?

Effect of mind on brain activity: evidence from neuroimaging studies of psychotherapy and placebo effect

Abstract

'Mentalistic variables must be considered to reach a correct understanding of the neurophysiological basis of behavior in humans. Confusion regarding the relative importance of neurophysiological and mentalistic variables can lead to important misconceptions about causes and effects in the study of human behavior. In this article, we review neuroimaging studies of the effect of psychotherapy in patients suffering from diverse forms of psychopathology (obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, unipolar major depressive disorder, spider phobia). We also review neuroimaging studies of the placebo effect in healthy individuals (placebo analgesia, psychostimulant expectation) and patients with Parkinson's disease or unipolar major depressive disorder.

Mental functions and processes involved in diverse forms of psychotherapy exert a significant influence on brain activity. With regard to the placebo effect, beliefs and expectations can markedly modulate neurophysiological and neurochemical activity in brain regions involved in perception, movement, pain and various aspects of emotion processing. The findings of the neuroimaging studies reviewed here strongly support the view that the subjective nature and the intentional content of mental processes significantly influence the various levels of brain functioning (e.g. molecular, cellular, neural circuit) and brain plasticity.'

👣

a reply to: Aphorism

Cognition refers to non physical also.

Cognitive functions are cognitive functions and other functions are other functions it is probably that simple.

If you are referring to specific ''other function'' perhaps you should refer to them specifically.

en.wikipedia.org...

In science, cognition is the set of all mental abilities and processes related to knowledge: attention, memory and working memory, judgement and evaluation, reasoning and "computation", problem solving and decision making, comprehension and production of language, etc. Human cognition is conscious and unconscious, concrete or abstract, as well as intuitive (like knowledge of a language) and conceptual (like a model of a language). Cognitive processes use existing knowledge and generate new knowledge.

These processes are analyzed from different perspectives within different contexts, notably in the fields of linguistics, anesthesia, neuroscience, psychiatry, psychology, education, philosophy, anthropology, biology, systemics, and computer science.[1][page needed] These and other different approaches to the analysis of cognition are synthesised in the developing field of cognitive science, a progressively autonomous academic discipline. Within psychology and philosophy, the concept of cognition is closely related to abstract concepts such as mind and intelligence. It encompasses the mental functions, mental processes (thoughts), and states of intelligent entities (humans, collaborative groups, human organizations, highly autonomous machines, and artificial intelligences).[2]

Thus, the term's usage varies across disciplines; for example, in psychology and cognitive science, "cognition" usually refers to an information processing view of an individual's psychological functions. It is also used in a branch of social psychology called social cognition to explain attitudes, attribution, and group dynamics.[3] In cognitive psychology and cognitive engineering, cognition is typically assumed to be information processing in a participant’s or operator’s mind or brain.[2]

Cognition can in some specific and abstract sense also be artificial.[4]

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Cognition refers to non physical also.

Cognitive functions are cognitive functions and other functions are other functions it is probably that simple.

If you are referring to specific ''other function'' perhaps you should refer to them specifically.

Cognition does not refer to non-physical. Any function, no matter if it is cognitive or something else, is an activity. An activity requires something physical to perform it. I'm not sure where you're getting this, but you are nonetheless elucidating my point – such notions lead to strange conclusions.

a reply to: BlueMule

Is what an error?

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule

Is what an error?

The empirical claims in the abstract.

👣

a reply to: BlueMule

One would hope not.

a reply to: Aphorism

In many faculties and contexts, it does.

As I have seen on another thread of yours, it appears that you argued the existence of nouns naming processes as they aren't physical.

Cognition and Mind refer to processes.

en.wikipedia.org...

Human cognition is conscious and unconscious, concrete or abstract, as well as intuitive (like knowledge of a language) and conceptual (like a model of a language). Cognitive processes use existing knowledge and generate new knowledge.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule

One would hope not.

Well, either you are in error about mind, or the paper is. I bet it's you who are in error. At least the claims in the paper are based on evidence.

👣

a reply to: BlueMule

Well, either you are in error about mind, or the paper is. I bet it's you who are in error. At least the claims in the paper are based on evidence.

And what does the paper say about the nature of the mind?

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

In many faculties and contexts, it does.

As I have seen on another thread of yours, it appears that you argued the existence of nouns naming processes as they aren't physical.

Cognition and Mind refer to processes.

Processes of the body. Yes I can agree with that. The word process describes what something does, not what something is.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule

Well, either you are in error about mind, or the paper is. I bet it's you who are in error. At least the claims in the paper are based on evidence.

And what does the paper say about the nature of the mind?

Irrelevant. The evidence is what matters, not your philosophical preferences.

👣

a reply to: BlueMule

Irrelevant. The evidence is what matters, not your philosophical preferences.

Then show me any empirical evidence of the existence of mind. It seems to me they are observing brain activity as per the abstract. The brain exists. Can you say the same for mind? Unless you concede they are both the same...