Inanimate objects are debris of the mind — Rich

Yes I can agree with that, also is it not due to the fact that the mind is what conceives of existence to be? And if it is conceived within the mind then it is has the same properties of mind.

Couldn't have said it better.

Yes I can agree with that, also is it not due to the fact that the mind is what conceives of existence to be? And if it is conceived within the mind then it is has the same properties of mind. — Fumani

Yes, I agree that it is of the same stuff.

I'm just giving up on this thread.
Philosophy is supposed to be based on logic, not mysticism.
Enjoy your speculations.

Philosophy is supposed to be based on logic — bioazer

Who says? Your Logic course professor? Logic is a game, not philosophy.

In any case, Mind is infinitely more real than "The Laws of Nature" or "Emergent Illusions".

What is the mind without its contents? What is the mind when it is vacant of thought, perceptions, ideas and concepts? Is it still in existence or is non existent without these properties? — Fumani

On my view a mind without contents would cease to be a mind. A mind is not a container for thoughts; it IS the thoughts.

Philosophy is supposed to be based on logic
— bioazer

Who says? Your Logic course professor? Logic is a game, not philosophy. — Rich

You don't have to agree, but there's a pretty longstanding tradition going back to folks like Socrates, Plato, and Artistole that philosophy is supposed to be based on logic.

What is philosophy to you?

As some sort of pedogogical training tool, logic is OK. But the longest standing tradition is direct observation of patterns in nature which goes back eons, to pre-historical times, across all cultures, and continues through modern philosophical thought. It is the only method that allows philosophy to move forward. Logic goes round and round.

I agree, direct observation is more useful than logic. We can utilize logic to explain the appearance of the sun but nothing will come close to directly observing the sun with your own two eyes.

Some of the greatest scientific and philosophical discoveries came from illogical premises. Logic is not an absolute its a methodology that in its conclusion points towards truth but as Rich said direct observation is another way, which can cancel out the need for any methodology.

I dont understand philosophers that refuse to argue or challenge anything outside the terrains of logic.

Socrates, Plato, and Artistole that philosophy is supposed to be based on logic. — Brian

We value logic yes but inquiry is the basis of philosophy.

Interesting, you are correct in waiving the distinction between thoughts and the mind. But is thought the only trait or expression of the mind?

If you said it has a yard in the quantum physics ground then I would have been in agreement. With only that spot it doesn't sound the best choice to stand on physics and talk about mind.

"Illogical premises" sure.
Give me one single example, pal.
I never denied that observation is useful-- it is, in fact, necessary.
But I would argue that observations are more or less useless without the application of logical reasoning.
From direct observation, the Earth appears to be flat. So I guess the Earth is flat.
You can make literally any claim and justify it as a "direct observation."
"Last night I had a dream in which I flew out of my bedroom window. I must be able to fly when I'm asleep!"
"All of my crops are failing. Witchcraft!"
Without some kind of methodology, discussing philosophy becomes pretty meaningless, because there is no real way to debate or compare ideas. Some kind of structure is required.
We use logic because it is a tool that can be employed to describe the world with a fairly high degree of accuracy. Simple observations are not enough.
I refuse to argue or challenge anything outside of logic because it is pointless and silly! If you postulate anything outside the realm of logic, it is entirely subjective speculation and I could postulate something completely the opposite and neither of us have any way of proving our point to the other. If nothing you say is provably true or false, then why should I bother even engaging with you, or you with me? Both of us have to be logical if we want to have any kind of meaningful discussion.

"Some kind of pedagogical training tool," indeed.
Do you understand what logic is?
How does information have any meaning if some kind of structured and consistent system of thought is not applied?

We can utilize logic to explain the appearance of the sun but nothing will come close to directly observing the sun with your own two eyes.

I thought that the point of philosophy was to explain why the sun comes up, not to fry your retinas.

How does information have any meaning if some kind of structured and consistent system of thought is not applied? — bioazer

Formulating a new idea requires building new patterns. Language it images are forms of communication if these new ideas. Logic is can straight-jacket. A philosopher who relies on logic will get no where except right back where s/he started. Just observe the course of logic. It just reinforces, while new ideas must be disruptive. Philosophers need to get off the merry-go-round of academic philosophy.

I don't understand you? Please elaborate?

Give me one single example, pal. — bioazer

This may not be considered a scientific discovery but it serves the purpose, think about gravity and how this was considered an absolute basic law of physics so just imagine when the wright brothers first brought about the idea of flight? How nonsensical this appeared to be because it would alter or manipulate the laws of physics. Now this may be a crude answer but logic if followed consistently does not get us anywhere.

From direct observation, the Earth appears to be flat. So I guess the Earth is flat — bioazer

Direct observation is not just merely looking at something ofcourse, you are exaggerating. Direct observation in this case would be to create a recognized post and from then on follow the distance onwards to see/observe whether or not we would fall off at the supposed edge. Direct observation does also entail direct experience.

Without some kind of methodology, discussing philosophy becomes pretty meaningless, because there is no real way to debate or compare ideas. Some kind of structure is required.
We use logic because it is a tool that can be employed to describe the world with a fairly high degree of accuracy. Simple observations are not enough.
I refuse to argue or challenge anything outside of logic because it is pointless and silly! If you postulate anything outside the realm of logic, it is entirely subjective speculation and I could postulate something completely the opposite and neither of us have any way of proving our point to the other. If nothing you say is provably true or false, then why should I bother even engaging with you, or you with me? Both of us have to be logical if we want to have any kind of meaningful discussion. — bioazer

I am not denying the importance of having structure in ones argument and I am not denying the relevancy of logic if you actually read what I said I did not downplay logic at all. What I did say was that direct observation succumbs logic in the sense that logic deals with concepts that point towards truth direct observation deals with the actual experience.

I thought that the point of philosophy was to explain why the sun comes up, not to fry your retinas — bioazer

And I thought the point of an argument was for both parties to learn and engage not to be condescending.

As some sort of pedogogical training tool, logic is OK. But the longest standing tradition is direct observation of patterns in nature which goes back eons, to pre-historical times, across all cultures, and continues through modern philosophical thought. It is the only method that allows philosophy to move forward. Logic goes round and round. — Rich

How is it possible to observe patterns in nature without some kind of tool that ontologically discloses the patterns as patterns?

It is not direct observation as such but the articulation of this direct observation that is philosophically relevant. Logic is but one tool among many others that good philosophers use to articulate their 'direct observation' (or less pretentiously, their experience of the world).

How is it possible to observe patterns in nature without some kind of tool that ontologically discloses the patterns as patterns? — bloodninja

This is precisely what the mind does and only the mind. Tools are simply that. No more.

It is not direct observation as such but the articulation of this direct observation that is philosophically relevant. — bloodninja

There are many ways to convey the observations of one's mind. Usually imagery is one if the most effective.

This is precisely what the mind does and only the mind. Tools are simply that. No more. — Rich

Are 'direct observation' and the 'mind' distinct in your view? Does one come before the other or are they essentially the same?

I would say that the Mind is the observer that learns (memory) and created new patterns from what it learns.

I would say that the Mind is the observer that learns (memory) and created new patterns from what it learns. — Rich

So the mind creates the new patterns that it directly observes? Is the mind directly observing the mind?

The mind creates new patterns based upon what it observes, some more novel than others.

Yes, the Mind is observing the Mind. It is reflecting and evolving.

I would say that the Mind is the observer that learns (memory) and created new patterns from what it learns. — Rich

By that account Google Maps is a mind.

Jesus, what bloody bullshit...

Now would be a good time to give some examples to articulate your direct observation of the mind directly observing the mind. In your view is only observation of mind direct and observation of everything else indirect?

Google Maps is a creation of Mind. So is Google. All patterns.

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

A novel, for example, is a reflection of the author and a painting that of the artist. A computer that of the designer and a football game that of the players. They are all "carving out" new patterns. Etching them in the fabric of the universe. It manifests as we observe it. Philosophy would be the art of observing all of these different patterns, in all forms, so as to understand the nature of human evolution. It is observing meta-patterns. No other discipline does this.

The Mind observing itself usually goes under the umbrella if meditation, but meditation is but one technique for observation of self. Each technique offers something different.

But by your account, it's also a mind. It observes our searches, memorizes them better than we could ever, and optimizes its behaviour accordingly.

Suffice to say, no one should say that Google Maps is a "mind". And that's because it has only a minuscule fraction of the cognitive functions we have access to.

Suffice to say, no one should say that Google Maps is a "mind". — Akanthinos

I just said it. It is a direct manifestation of patterns discerned by the mind and etched into the universe.