Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Hello

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hello All,
I am a researcher interested in Mind.
I was a college student when I became interested in Mind in 1991.
Both of my majorities of bachelor and master degrees are engineering.
I converted to Mind cause I wanted to answer such a question how many differences between facts and our thoughts or knowledge. I can't answer this question if I don't know Mind completely or if I don't know it's working mechanism.
I gained the first achievement in 1996. It's a model of Mind or a theory of Mind which can make me to understand or illuminate the structure and the process of the functions of Mind in reality.
I have spent 10 years since then to test the model or the theory in reality.
What I gained now is far beyond the initial purpose of answering that question I mentioned above.
I want to introduce my theory to those who are interested in Mind too.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Nate

@Nates Mind,

Nate's Mind wrote:

...I wanted to answer such a question how many differences between facts and our thoughts or knowledge.

So, unless an attempt to answer would beg the original question, according to what is there a difference; how would a fact not be a thought or knowledge?

As I wrote here recently:

The trouble with science is the tendency to esteem that which is easy above that which is difficult, a scientific "truth" being that which is easiest to prove, but proved only by virtue of this or that religious belief cunningly disguised as an axiom.

-- RH

@Nates Mind,

Welcome to the Philosophy Forum Nate, pleased to have you as part of our forum. Feel free to talk about the stuff you have learned in your research and any other topics you feel would be of value to all of us here.

@Justin,

Hi Perplexity,
Thank you for your asking me a good question.
I can never know whether what I know are truth according to the structure assumption of the mind (please find the picture in "philosophy of mind/The Phenomena, Structure and Principles of Mind"). I acturally live in a world its range does not beyond the mind and the mapping world. even if I know moon, the cause is that information from moon enters into my mapping world, then into my mind. if there are errors in the process, I will get wrong information. Are there any guarantee for the process? No one knows. I can only know whether what I know can work or can be useful in reality. But this standard still leads to another question, whether knowledge from religion is true or false, for it it can not work in material world but is useful to mind. My answer is that religion can work in mind is true but the knowledge from religion is false.

Hi Justin
Thank you for your welcome. I am happy to be one of you. There is real discussion here .

@Nates Mind,

Nate's Mind wrote:

... I can never know whether what I know are truth....

In which case you have to believe, or make assumptions of one sort or another.

Logical propositions are otherwise futile, so what then do you begin with, and how do you decide that?

You seem to assume for instance that our thoughts are passive, subject to a reality, while others prefer to think of reality as something subject to us, the creation of what we do.

Either way I would call the assumption a religious belief, to be relied upon but beyond absolute proof, so it would just be as well to know what your belief is, before we start.

--- Ron.

@Nates Mind,

It all sounds good gentlemen, but please....lets not waste time debating those of you who comprehend Mind, please define it for those who have little comprehension of Mind. It may help if we all could come into agreement about and then move forward from the following:

1. What Mind is.
2. What Mind is not.

@Nates Mind,

What immediately comes to mind is the first two verses of the Dhammapada:

1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow

"Mind" in this sense may be translated as "heart":

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.01.than.html

The everyday use of the word has more to do with a defensive, reactive connotation, but to my mind that is precisely because of the chosen use of the mind, the said "mental state", what you might otherwise call being stuck.

--- RH.

P.S.

To be a bit clearer: "mind" is akin to "self", defined in terms of what might be called reverse causality, known by what it does.

@Nates Mind,

Well put.. You are well informed. Now tell me what this all means to you. From your studies to what conclusion have you come? What is the nature of Mind? You say "Mind" is akin to self. I was not aware of any difference.

We are all but ideas of Mind. The true self.

@Nates Mind,

For the time being I had merely meant to allude to the usual use of "self" to infer the supposed ownership of a consciousness, hence the difficulty experienced when a proponent of such an ownership is challenged to prove the validity of the claim, the existence of what is supposed to be owned, as opposed to the probablity of a philosophical zombie.

In my experience there is nothing better to prove or disprove the existence of the conscious self than the sense of the loss of it in the instance of a mutually achieved sexual orgasm, though that is perhaps, beyond the present point.

To be unashamedly poetic about it, I think of the self as the pebble that hit the calm surface of the pond to cause the ripples of experience, those which we affectionately name "life", the self thus being the very cause of all the trouble, for the harder the pebble hits the pond, the greater the waves that rock the boat.

Buddhism, by the way, is notoriously paradoxical with regard to the self.

On the one hand we see this:

103. Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself.

plus an entire "Attavagga" section of the Dhammapada, devoted to the self,

and on the other hand the proposition of the concept of Anatta, usually translated as "no self".

-- RH.

@Nates Mind,

Once again well put, however I still await the words which will convey to my person your comprehension of all that you have studied thus far.... Only few men and women on this planet have met or encountered the Masters of our race, or afforded the opportunity to appreciate the works of a Master. Many of the individuals you have mentioned and their works are the works of genius, and super genius not Master. When I say "Masters" I mean those who have excelled beyond all that we are presently capable of understanding and comprehending. The difference between the two. A Master is perfect in all undertakings, infinite in potential because of a perfect knowledge of the Infinite. The genius is inspired by the infinite to a limited degree, that being said we are all genius to a limited degree, and that limit is simply corrected by increasing our understanding and thereby our comprehension of the Infinite. (simple does not mean easy, anything of worth requires extreme discipline this implies hard work and effort.)

@Nates Mind,

Quote:

Once again well put, however I still await the words which will convey to my person your comprehension of all that you have studied thus far.

Ahaaaa! Now we have some sport.

To meet with the perfect master one must first be willing to perfectly surrender to the will of the master, to be fully prepared for the event, for the mastery is never more perfect than the submission to it.

The shock of the truth would otherwise kill. The perfect master is ruthless, cruel not pretty. He would play you like a reed in the Pipes of Pan. The sword of is sharp; it would swipe your branches from you, transformed to a tree like Daphne, just for the fun to fashion a crown for himself.

To dare as much as to be worthy to approach the master the problem is the one described by this old eastern proverb:

When the pickpocket meets the saint, he sees only his pockets.

-- RH.

@Nates Mind,

For a while time now I have been searching for truth. It wasn't until recently that I realized that it is hidden in plain sight. Those who choose to recognize it comprehend, and know while those who can't theorize about it. As far as surrendering your will, it is not until we have learned to surrender all that we gain everything. The Master has no will to which the student must surrender. The student must surrender what he/she thinks they knows to the Master's superior comprehension of all. We are talking about Masters, not the genius or the super genius who lead and we follow today.

And as I requested in my last post. It is my desire to experience what you have comprehended thus far in your studies. It means little to me that we can record information and recite it. As far as I am concerned as far as being informed goes I am still in grade school when compared to you.

@RemberingIAM,

RemberingIAM wrote:

It all sounds good gentlemen, but please....lets not waste time debating those of you who comprehend Mind, please define it for those who have little comprehension of Mind. It may help if we all could come into agreement about and then move forward from the following:

1. What Mind is.
2. What Mind is not.

Hi RemberingIAM,

I tend toward thinking that Mind is an accessory of body life. This accessory can be under the needs of body life and can accept the mapping of real world to get a way in mind to solve the problem, and can react on body to control body to realize the needs of body in real world in the way gotten in mind.

@Nates Mind,

So what happend to Mind over matter. Meaning the body is a tool to be used by Mind.

@Nates Mind,

I am of the opinion that Mind centers body, regulates and directs the flow of thoughts and ideas through the brain, and orchestrates body functions.

@Nates Mind,

Please imagine life from single cell to animals to man, imagine mind from non existing to existing to advanced, and imagine no mind existing without some state of brain, and discover that mind can only use matter power to get over matter power, then find that if suppose mind is an accessory of body life which can react on body, we can comprehend mind much closer to real mind. body is not a tool of mind, but mind is more like a tool of body, though mind can use matter power to control matter, the body.

@RemberingIAM,

RemberingIAM wrote:

For a while time now I have been searching for truth. It wasn't until recently that I realized that it is hidden in plain sight. Those who choose to recognize it comprehend, and know while those who can't theorize about it.

If already you know where the truth is hidden, where then is the need for the master?
If you already know what it looks like in order know it when you see it, then the truth is already yours for the mind to tool with.

RemberingIAM wrote:

As far as surrendering your will, it is not until we have learned to surrender all that we gain everything. The Master has no will to which the student must surrender. The student must surrender what he/she thinks they knows to the Master's superior comprehension of all.

What then if the master will not comply?
An alternative may be to master your own comprehension of your own plain sight.
The truth is in the narrative.
The find is in the search.

RemberingIAM wrote:

And as I requested in my last post. It is my desire to experience what you have comprehended thus far in your studies. It means little to me that we can record information and recite it. As far as I am concerned as far as being informed goes I am still in grade school when compared to you.

Your place or mine?

Seriously, except to record and recite, what are we up to here?

-- RH.

@Nates Mind,

Nate's Mind wrote:

... body is not a tool of mind, but mind is more like a tool of body, though mind can use matter power to control matter, the body.

As if the carpenter were the tool of the chisel?

I wonder why you see it like that.

It seems to say a lot more about Nate's Mind than it does about mine.

-- RH.

@Nates Mind,

Perplexity

I am one who has chosen to recognize the truth. Comprehension is gained through understanding. Our assumptions and presumptions are not understanding and therefore do not lead us to comprehending. A Master is necessary for none can no they are on the path to truth except they have surrenderd what they think they know and allow Mind to comprehend Mind through the guidance of one who Knows Mind. The Master.

@RemberingIAM,

RemberingIAM wrote:

Perplexity

I am one who has chosen to recognize the truth. Comprehension is gained through understanding. Our assumptions and presumptions are not understanding and therefore do not lead us to comprehending. A Master is necessary for none can no they are on the path to truth except they have surrenderd what they think they know and allow Mind to comprehend Mind through the guidance of one who Knows Mind. The Master.

In which case you are the master of your self.

How else indeed do you know who knows mind, except to presume to recognise the truth of that already?

Perception is a process of recognition. Events are compared to expectations, so except to the extent that something is expected to be seen, and recognised as such, it is never seen.

--- RH.

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Hello

Quick Links

My Account

able2know