Nate,

It looks like you are trying to contruct something which might prove very helpful to all concerned.Why not include the fact that we are multicellular organisms and that the mind is a secondary organ in serves to the community of the body.Just a thought perhaps you can use.

Hi Boagie,

Sorry for late reply. I saw it just a moment ago.
I agree with you that the mind is a SECONDARY part of a creature. Its function is to serve to the body. Such point can be found in this article .

Nate

Nate,very interesting material but a little overwhelming for someone just popping in.Is it the purpose of your thread to gather insights from the broad spectrum of people in this forum.I suggest,no offense intended,that you pose focused questions and see what creativity is out there.It is a delightful enterprize however and I wish you luck.I shall be watching and perhaps contributing as this topic moves along.All the best!!

Just an after thought which arose for me in thinking about another thread which pose the problem of,What is thought.It seems to me that inorder to answer these questions the mind has to always be considered within its context,be that the modern context of today or it historical past------------probably not to enlightening for you but in researching this you will get the chaff along with the wheat.

boagie,

My researching method:

object <------ the set of the phenomena of the object <------ a model which can represent the principles of all of the phenomena <---------apply the model to the object to test whether it will still be true when new phenomena of the object found <----------adjust the model if necessary <------repeat the last two steps

The purpose of the thread is to find how others think in this field. My experience will limit the set of the phenomena. If others can contribute more phenomena of the same object, I get rewards from this thread.

Nate

Nate,

How does the unity of subject and object play into this? What I mean is they stand or fall together do they not. Have you thought in terms of general systems theory for some of your conclusions.I apologize if it seems an ignorant inquiry,I shall read more of your material and try to get a proper handle on it.I appreciate you are busy,I shall check in on your progress from time to time. May The Force Be With You!

boagie,

I think the researching work is to gain true knowledge. Therefore, there are two questions,
one is what is true knowledge and how to gain true knowledge,
the other is what is the true knowledge of some object, and how to gain it.

The two questions cannot be answered separately, for the method itself is the knowledge of the object. But despite it, there is a general method of gaining theoretical knowledge of all of objects. i.e., we have to "match" the models and all of the realities. That's the reason why I posted this thread.

Nate,

I believe you will run into frustration here.It all seems rather overwhelming and I don't know that it is not your presentation.I think you might have better luck if you address verious aspects singularly,at first at any rate.Few people I think will put in the dedicated effort to sort this material out.This forum seems to have a lot of every bright people,give them a proper chance to respond to you, perhaps by dealing in specifics,discussing one aspect at a time.

Your original post leaves a lot of interpretation to the reader to assume you are harboring a lot of doubt about us as and our existence.

What lies behind my eyes is what I am, and that is what matters to me.

I research mind from the following 4 tracks,
1. Engineering. When I study nature and do engineering design, I ask questions, Why can mind perceive nature? Are mind and nature two different things, or having some interaction between them? Why can our engineering designs from our mind react on nature? How can our engineering designs react on nature more effectively? And why?
2. The development of mind. I look through the entire history of mind, from atom to rock, from rock to bacteria, from bacteria to single cells, from single cells to flagellate or paramecium, to grass, to locust, to birds, to animals, to monkey, to human. What I find is that we man is not totally different from those existing before us, but only partly different. It gives me clues of the functions and the values of mind.
3. To convert a mind. If I can successfully convert me from a personality to another one, I can know more about the essenses and principles of mind. This criteria comes from my engineering experience, that if the theory can be applied to the object more successfully, the theory is more truer.
4. Military. Anyone can believe in his/her perception of the world. But if anybody dares not to be seriously in reality, what he/she gets will not be an argument, but to lose something in the battle field, even to lose his/her life. For this very reason, I read more military history than philosophical literature, and to believe in any "phenomenon" or perception very carefully. I don't want to be cheated by my own judgment. For the reality is more powerful than our belief or imagination. (I posted the thread of "the functional structure of mind". It's most valuable application is in military. To distinguish true or false, and to know how men draw any conclusion, both true and false, and how to fight against the opponents.)