That would describe a map. Google Maps is much more than that.

That would describe a map. Google Maps is much more than that. — Akanthinos

Of course. All created by Mind. As the Mind evolves so does the patterns it creates, hence Google Maps.

The phrase “you are what you eat” comes to mind when I hear about your physical being, however, in this case, I will delve into a more general description as to stimulate discussion. Your physical being can be welled down to one organ: your brain, which on its own can store over eight libraries of congress worth of information. It also allows you to enjoy the tastes, smells, sights, sounds, and feelings of food and sex (intimacy). (The only important things in life). Then comes your emotional being, which informs and helps shape your emotions, empathy, and sympathy, allowing for the development of social life, building relationships/destroying them and all that entails. Whether it be God, hope, or faith, your spiritual being is where your intangible thoughts lie, those underlining understandings that don't fit in this world. Then on top of your ability to live a physical life, socioemotional life, and a spiritual life, you also have the ability of logic. I can label another operation of the brain: understanding or the wisdom of experience and knowing what to do with it. Learning: the ability to capture knowledge and experiences. And Reason: the ability to critically think, as well as communicate your knowledge and wisdom. These three tools are leading to a single meaningful ability: perspective, and or the ability to create an opinion. This is an intrinsic theory, but it is what makes us, humans, who we are: The ability to experience life physically, to live life socially, to seek God, and to have an opinion about it. It is the basis of who we are as a species. Directed and organized by some pounds of gray matter and electricity. (No wonder Frankenstein and his monster was a “tangible” thought)
Obviously, the mind and the brain are similar, but their differences are worlds away.

I'm sorry. I tried, but this sort of half-assed mysticism gives me nausea. :s

I was simply suggesting you pick up a metaphysics with a school name you prefer to discuss such a big topic as about mind, soul...etc but it's up to you.

Well, it is difficult to draw a hard line between what the Mind creates and the Mind itself. — Rich

Perhaps it's difficult because the mind directly observing itself didn't create any of the examples you offered? What does a football game have to do with meditation or with direct observation of mind? If you directly observe your mind while playing football you'll miss the ball!

What is silly is denying one's own mind in favor of some mystical Laws of Nature that determine our lives. Totally absurd on so many levels.

Perhaps it's difficult because the mind directly observing itself didn't create any of the examples you offered? — bloodninja

I suppose c one can go through life pretending one doesn't have a mind. It must feel rather wired though.

hat does a football game have to do with meditation or with direct observation of mind? — bloodninja

Minds playing a game, just like the game that one doesn't have a mind. One's mind usually is on the game. Your game is to pretend you don't have a mind. Interesting.

I don't pretend I don't have a mind at all. All I'm saying is that the football game is primarily a shared, engaged and circumspective activity, not mind. There is never anything like a direct observation of the mind observing the mind in a game of football. If players started doing that the game would totally collapse.

I think you need to stop twisting everything into the mind directly observing the mind. You force phenomena to conform to your conception of it rather than directly observing the phenomena itself. If you could actually try to focus on what is happening in your daily experience of the world then you would see that for the most part the mind is secondary and for the most part only comes on the scene when our engaged circumspective activity breaks down. Instead you play games. And you have no phenomenological descriptions to back up your claims, only dogmatic statements. You offer no philosophy only dogma.

I don't pretend I don't have a mind at all. All I'm saying is that the football game is primarily engaged circumspective coping activity, not mind. — bloodninja

The Move is always involved, with some players more or less. It is a game of patterns and inches. One person's movements perceived by another. The Mind is always engaged and observing.

I think you need to stop twisting everything into the mind directly observing the mind — bloodninja

That is what it is. It is impossible to avoid it. Even in mediation, one is observing one's own Mind. The sole exception in my experiences is when one is unconscious it's in a non-dreaming, sleep state (if such a state exists)?

This is my life and the lives I've overfed. Maybe you are walking through life in a comatose state? I don't know. Others on this forum claim they are robots and computers. Possibly they are.

What is silly is denying one's own mind in favor of some mystical Laws of Nature that determine our lives. Totally absurd on so many levels. — Rich

No one is denying the existence of minds. What is being denied is your explanation of what mind is and how it comes to be.

If the laws of nature are mystical, then doesn't that make it compatible with religion as religious laws are mystical too. Is philosophy mystical? What is the difference between a mystical explanation and a non-mystical explanation?

That is what it is. It is impossible to avoid it. Even in mediation, one is observing one's own Mind. The sole exception in my experiences is when one is unconscious it's in a non-dreaming, sleep state (if such a state exists)? — Rich

What do you mean by, "observe"? How does a mind observe a mind? What keeps us from observing other minds?

No one is denying the existence of minds. What is being denied is your explanation of what mind is and how it comes to be. — Harry Hindu

Great. I'm glad nobody is going to call it an illusion anymore. Very happy to hear about this new development.

If the laws of nature are mystical, then doesn't that make it compatible with religion as religious laws are mystical too. — Harry Hindu

Yes. Both phrases/terms refer to some outside mystical force of some type that has determined everything.

Is philosophy mystical? — Harry Hindu

Philosophy is a practice. One does what one wishes. If one wishes to appeal to mystical forces then I've does. As for me, I am most interested in patterns. Observing them, creating them, understanding them. This type of philosophy had ancient origins. Stonehenge would be but one example.

Mystical would be appeal to some outside forces that are omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, e.g. God and the Laws of Nature.

What do you mean by, "observe"? How does a mind observe a mind? What keeps us from observing other minds? — Harry Hindu

One can observe one's own mind by mediation. One just observes oneself. Other minds after overbearing by the patterns they create, e.g. an artist's painting or a written posting. All are manifestations of mind.

Rich you are a madman!

Rich you are a madman — bloodninja

You (your mind) inquiring?

This is what it is life is all about. Inquiry, creativity, learning, evolving. Life evolves by learning in memory.

Great. I'm glad nobody is going to call it an illusion anymore. Very happy to hear about this new development. — Rich

Even if it were an illusion, it would still be something that exists. A mirage is the effect of real processes that are explained in a consistent way.

Yes. Both phrases/terms refer to some outside mystical force of some type that has determined everything. — Rich

It's not just "outside" forces that determine everything. I have an effect on reality as well. You do too. Everyone does. Look at what groups of humans have done in changing the surface of the Earth. Natural Selection is a process of environmental feedback and we are all part of the environment. Natural.

What is the difference between a mystical explanation and a non-mystical explanation? — Harry Hindu

Mystical would be appeal to some outside forces that are omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, e.g. God and the Laws of Nature. — Rich

What would be non-mystical then?

The Laws of Nature are not omniscient, nor omnipotent. Those are attributes of gods only. It doesn't even make any sense to say that. Laws are explanations by humans of the way things are. There is just the way things are, and then human explanations of the way things are - laws being explanations with a high degree of certainty.

What do you mean by, "observe"? How does a mind observe a mind? What keeps us from observing other minds? — Harry Hindu

One can observe one's own mind by mediation. One just observes oneself. Other minds after overbearing by the patterns they create, e.g. an artist's painting or a written posting. All are manifestations of mind. — Rich

That doesn't explain what you mean by "observe", nor how a mind observes itself. You're just going in circles.
We don't observe other minds - only their manifestations (supposedly). So, where are, and what are minds and how can they be observed?

I have an effect on reality as well. — Harry Hindu

What do you mean by an "I" having an effect? This is the question. Determinists stubbornly insist on a rather schizophrenic description of life, using concepts such as "I" and then turning around and denying it as an illusion. I have no problems with anyone choosing to adopt such a position, but why the heck do they insist that others have no choice to adopt a different position? We all have choices on the way we wish to live our lives. That is what life is all about.

No, what is silly is using poetry and heavy mysticism and pass it as rational discourse.

'Creativity', 'imagination', 'patterns', 'Bergson'. There you go : that's the extension of your grasp on the subject, and it is entirely defective.

The so-called "mystical' Laws of Nature are those of medicine, of cognitive science, of applied psychology. Pray tell, what the fuck can you say about aphantasia? About Face Blindness Syndrome? About Exploding Head Syndrome? Nothing useful.

The so-called "mystical' Laws of Nature are those of medicine, of cognitive science, of applied psychology. — Akanthinos

Enumerate them.

The First Law of Biology: all living organisms obey the laws of thermodynamics. A corollary of the First Law is that life requires the temporary creation of order in apparent contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics. A second corollary of the First Law is that an organism at biochemical equilibrium is dead.

The Second Law of Biology: all living organisms consist of membrane-encased cells. A corollary of the Second Law is that the cell is the only structure that can grow and divide independently of another life form. A second corollary of the Second Law is that all life is programmed by genetic instructions.

The Third Law of Biology: all living organisms arose in an evolutionary process. Two corollaries of the Third Law are that (1) all living organisms contain homologous macromolecules (DNA, RNA, and proteins) that derived from a common ancestor, and (2) the genetic code is universal.

- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-008-9925-3

thermodynamics — Akanthinos

So we have life that works opposite of entropy to create. It's that a Law?

And everything is on constant motion.

The Second Law of Biology: all living organisms consist of membrane-encased cells. — Akanthinos

That's not a Law. It's a simple observation and becomes totally meaningless once one looks deeper for boundaries.

The Third Law of Biology: all living organisms arose in an evolutionary process. — Akanthinos

In have idea what this means. It's not a Law, just some ambiguous statement about things happening and changing.

The rest is utter speculation. A good story. And in total explain practically nothing about the nature of life. You are, shall we say, getting over-enthusiastic about some simple observations. In other words, you are just making things up. Nothing that you call a Law (other than thermodynamics) is considered a Law in any literature. That you should choose to claim that they are is your privilege because it is your story. You are free to make up stories. The choice is always yours. No one else has chosen to do this. (Just illustrating the nature of Choice).

Please try to me more rational. Your over-exuberance about some some observations tends toward the irrational and quite emotional. Rather religious-like in my estimation.

What do you mean by an "I" having an effect? This is the question. Determinists stubbornly insist on a rather schizophrenic description of life, using concepts such as "I" and then turning around and denying it as an illusion. I have no problems with anyone choosing to adopt such a position, but why the heck do they insist that others have no choice to adopt a different position? We all have choices on the way we wish to live our lives. That is what life is all about. — Rich

:-} I never said "I" was an illusion. You're going on about something I never said, and decided to ignore 99% of my post, where I asked you a question that you keep avoiding. You really need some help in staying focused.

You entirely missed the point of my responded. Until you get your arms around your schizophrenic use of "I", everything else you described is nonsense. Do you really believe in the myth of Determinism? If so, then fully embrace its implications. Or, is this just a game of pretend?

Then why are you referring to me as, "you", and refering to your post as, "my"? It seems like you don't even understand yourself. Dumb, dumb, stupid-dumb. Stop avoiding my questions.

There is a You and I. It v is the Observer/Mind. It is it very, very real. It is creating and exploring and evolving. This is how everything evolves through duration.

Uh huh.... :-d

That's not a Law. — Rich

Yup it is. A contrario, it means that no living being are not composed of membraned-incased cells. I mean, you are free to fret about weither or not its a Law, but you might want to reserve that argument to someone who doesn't his Law degree :P