Re your statement "I just don't think feelings such as happiness, anger, sadness, grief, etc. are functions of the over-mind." The words: Anger sadness, grief, are emotions. I am uncomfortable with the word " feelings mostly because the word has so many distinct meanings. But that, perhaps, is a quibble.

I would like to use the word "obvious" with you. The word obvious is obviously meaningless without a complement. Obvious to me obvious to you etc. and I would like to speed this up by assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the truth of the following facts are obvious to you as well as being obvious to me.

One. Animals, early men and modern men have had emotions for many millions of years. Two. Only men are self aware, have consciousness, can talk or have conscious minds. Thus Overminds contain emotions.

A possible caveat. Conscious minds are intricately and intimately, connected to the overmind and can perhaps be considered as part of the overmind and a conscious mind can easily and effortlessly import an aspect of emotion from the overmind and attach it to an expression such as "those are sad words".

logical positivists[/quote
Re - "Sorry, not to diss you or to belittle you." I might describe that statement as - "A Diss sandwiched between 2 truths". — god must be atheist

I Good heavens!

The meaning of a word belongs more to the science of Lenguistics than to philosophy.

I have never seriously considered myself to be a philosopher. I am sure I can't explain what phiiosophy is but I know it when I see it. Perhaps I don't belong here. Much of the scholastic research which predominates here is beyond me. I am more of a pleasure seeker and I participate in this forum for pleasure. I am enjoying it hugely. I read a lot but I rarely read to learn. I am too lazy. I read for pleasure.

This next does not relate to philosophy only to procedures and rules. My name in this thread seems to be blanked out and I don't know why. Might I ask you to tell me what that means?

I personally dislike the word opinion because in my mind it seems to imply: a FIXED opinion and frequently infers a high degree of rational inflexibily. " It is my opinion that: xxxxxx.? I rarely use it myself and I am uncomfortabe when others use it.

I was very distressed to read the words: "philosophy does not exist beyond the comprehension of the language or beyond the comprehension of ideas that the language can express. If you know the language, then philosophy can't tell you anything that is incomprehensible to you."

If philosophy doesn't exist beyond comprehension than what am I doing here wasting my time? What's worse: Might not I be considered a philosopher? Sometimes bewidered, of course, but very good looking. Thus if philosphy doesn't exist then philosophers don't exist either.

My god! what will I do? Who will feed my children?

Sorry about that.

I withdraw from the discussion of the meaning of the word claim because of pure bewilderment. I just looked it up and it had 14 differnt meanings.
I give here a sample: "used as a verb --cause the loss of (someone's life): the attacks claimed the lives of five people"

I might say: "Philosophy can only contain words and symbols in contrast to science which can also include physical actions such as performing experiments."

I agree, mostly, but my answer to your question: "then where do you think that discussion will take us to?" is - I would hope that it would take us to more discussion.

I am not sure but I think you replied to this and that for some reason it failed to get recorded. Perhaps I am mistaken. Would you please resend your last post?

Thank you

Now I think we are discussing the meanings of two words. Are you stateing or claiming the 2 words mean the same thing?
You say - state - claim that I must prove that it is a fact, that happiness is not a function of the front cortex. Must I? No I Must not. You say - "You have to prove that to us." I am curious to know what will be the consequences if I don't.
What about reasoning? Is it not an obvious fact that men and apes have experienced happines for millions of years? Is it not an obvious fact that no animal except ourselves have conscios minds and can talk?
Re -

Does a monkey or an ape or a dog have no feelings?

I have no interest or desire to support my statements. My statements are based on memories of books and articles I have read over the last 50 years. I am not arguing. I have no opinions, only memories.

I am not sure what you mean by proper arguing but intuitionally I think most arguing is mindless and worth nothing.

I stated above, (Not claimed) about the intuitive mind: It produces all emotional processes. Please read more carefully.

Flatly: happiness is not a function of the conscious. Not even close. Happiness is a very complex group of emotions and is not remotely in the conscious.
Happiness existed in men and apes millions of years before the conscious mind was created by evolutionary processes. The conscious mind is brand new created probably less than a half a million years ago.

No it is not a problem not even a minor one. Where in the world did you get that data?

The conscious mind braincells are easily shown to be located in the prefrontal lobes which is the bulge in the head just above the eyes.

Thousands of tests some a half a century old or more have established that fact. Brain surgeons know with extreme precision exactly where it is because of the occasional prefrontal lobotomy operation which is the surgical removal of the entire conscios mind in order to save the life of the patient. The entire prefontal lobes.

After that the patient can no longer talk but none of the rest of the brain is damaged and the patient can live happily.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

Not at all. These are my words. The more usual name is "subconscios mind" which i dislike because it implies that the overmind or intuitive mind is somehow "sub" to the conscious mind and that is obviously not the case. The over-mind is located in the brain cells and is responsable for thousands of brain cell computations a minute.

I will name a few such. Please excuse my non-professional vocabulary.
The over mind or intuitive mind controls all muscular movements, some of which are deliberate such as pole vaulting or involuntary such as Heartbeat which is a muscle. It measure the level of blood sugar in the body and controls with great accuracy the glandular production of insulin. It carefully measures the outputs of many other glands. It controls the workings of the digestive process although the two extremes of this, eating and defecating are partially voluntary. It produces all emotional processes. It controls the behavior of all blood circulating veins and arteries including the thousands of on off valves in the arteries. It monitors and controls all of the senses and their outputs such as sight, hearing and touch which consists of many thousands of sensors in the skin which can register pressure, hot, cold and another that I forgot. It controls all of the reproductive processes in the testicles. It controls many functions of the brain itself including non verbal thinking and feeling also includes blood circulation and oxygen flow.
The conscious mind braincells are connected to the intuitive mind brain cells with numerous nerves which are very well known to surgeons because of the occasional prefrontal lobotimy operation which is the surgical removal of the entire conscios mind.

All of this data is kindergarden stuff and well known to most prepared minds.

I am basing this perhaps on many years reading many psychologist accounts and participating in Freudian and Dianetic therapy. I have written accounts and can send them to you if you like but they are extremely lenghty.

The conscious mind cannot produce emotions nor feelings. Emotions and feeling are produced by the vast-over mind and are, as you state, very different one from the other. (There may be problems with the word "Feeling". It seems to have more than one meaning or definition).

The over-mind contains little or no consciousness, ie self awareness, which existss only in the conscious mind. The conscious mind contains vocabularies of word or symbols. Vacabularies can vary in size. From a single word, "mama", in an infant to thousands of words in a multilingual person.

I said: "It can't feel. I didn't say it can feel.

No. Mental reading is thinking. YesI

The value that a person places on life in general is largely abstract and usually emotionless. The value that a person places on a loved one is frequently highly emotional but can, at the same time, be a value in the abstract, ie a conscious mind expressed value as Manuel points out..

"Some only care about their own lives."

"To care" is a verb related to the word Mattering. It is actually an action - an activity carried out by the carer. It is sharply limited. One can only care so much. If you care about one person you can not care ten times as much by ten.

Also caring is a mental mechanism that exists physiologically in human minds and was evolved because caring is highly pro survival. Heavy caring can indirectly produce real actions liking clearing the snow off the walk or locking all the doors or advocating against racism.

A coincidence. I do that every morning

Or what to say here.

Agreed . Fantasizing seems to have many ramifications and is very widely useful.
Planning is nothing more than fantasizing methodically.

Fantasizing, preparing, planning, looking ahead, foreseeing, designing, daydreaming and inventing are all mental skills and are all different aspects of the same thing - Playing Make Believe.

The act of assuming is a conscious activity, It is obvious that activities require time to exist.

I agree.

Walk around my house you might see a dozen things that you don't know what they are. But you know where they came from just by reading the label.
Do you realize what you are doing right this second? You are using your conscious mind to create words and you are directing your fingers to type those words. Between you and me there is absolutely nothing except our 2 conscious minds. You are using your conscious mind to tell me that your conscious mind might never be thought as a phenomenon.
I have a strong intuition that if Kant were here he would agree with me.

Double disagreed. Without vocal chords there wouldn’t be coherent speech but there could still be perfectly intelligible communication, which presupposes a conscious mind as the necessary means for it.

A human has many efficient devices for communication. Laughing is a form of communication. Screaming with rage also. Also shrugging the shoulders. Also frowning, smiling, raising the eybrows, gesturing, pointing , a clenched fist, a shy look, Indian sign language. There must be hundreds, or thousands. None of these require words. For a dog tail wagging. None of these relate to the conscious mind. All of them are easily available to persons with undeveloped conscious minds such as children.

You do not play chess by using words. The conscous mind can only deal with words or symbols like math symbols. It is the part of the mind that you and I are using now. It can talk but it can't feel. It cannot regulate the heart beat or the breath rate. It cannot play chess. It cannot control the running muscles while running. It cannot sense anything. It cannot relate to hearing or seeing. The coscious min can talk but it cant itch. The overall mind can itch and it can perform thousands of other things but it can't talk.

Certainly they can think but they can't think in words. I am assuming here that your word "think" includes intuitive thinking and other cognative nervous actions in the subconscious mind which is a word I dislike becaise it infers that the totalality of their brain cells don't exist.

Yes, please. Draw me a graph.
I grasp all of your clearly expressed statements but I don't understand the relationship between the first 3 sentences and the rest. ements.

Participating in this discussion I have become convinced that I have been on the wrong track.

I stated: "Here it is a Puzzling Fact. A person cannot think verbal thoughts without speaking those thoughts aloud." This fact is a well known fact among psychologists and might be known to you.

MWW suggested that I might have it backwards and I think he is correct.

I now think speech itself is only one aspect of a complex gestalt.
Consider: Without a conscious mind there could be no speech. Without speech there could be no conscious mind.

Without vocal chords there could be neither.

Those thoughts provoke new perplexities. Why are humans the only animals that have conscious minds? That is an astonishing statement. How could that be true?

The logical question that arises is: Where did the conscious mind come from?

A possible answer is that evolution evolved speech in human beings slowly over a very long period of time, perhaps 300,000 years.

But that merely delays the question. Why did evolution evolve speech only in humans?

Speech requires a brain that contains very large numbers of brain cells.

Early man had more brain cells than any other animal on earth. He also had vocal chords. So the bones of the human skull expanded and the prefrontal lobes were created just above the eyes.

Only in humans.

You just did. Go buy a Movement detecter.

No I dont think it moves backwards but it does move forwards in time.
our personal use of concepts derives from the cultural-collective heritage

I agree, In the beginning I said: "have important Philosophical Ramifications even though I can't think of any.
We are wallowing in trivia.

Re your words: "our personal use of concepts and the cultural-collective heritage within which those concepts evolved and were transmitted."
I agree. I would gues that: "the cultural-collective heritage within which those concepts evolved" includes and contains "our personal use of concepts"

MWW Your words: "I think your basic contention is mistaken. That which seems like internal vocalizing, is still merely thinking, and nothing I think requires speech. It is true, on the other hand, that what is spoken must first be thought. Therefore, I think your contention is mistaken because I think it is backwards.
It is not mistaken but it is almost impossible to beleive and not at all even slightly reasonable and can only be confirmed with a movement detecter.

It doesn't matter.

Lets see uh. . Both thinking and reading are mental but so is everything else. For example: fearing and hating etc. and I don't like the word mental because it includes all 3 minds plus memories.

Everything in the conscious mind is verbaized by definition and the reverse is true: if is not verbalized it can't enter the conscious mind. We might prefer to call it: "the word mind or the semantic mind".

No, reading does not enter into it, the phrase that you are thinking might be taken from the memory or simply invented or a phrase from the default mind.

The words: "The father handed the baby to the mother" were chosen because the consonants in that phrase are all pronounced with the mouth almost closed. Th, tongue against lips, f, lips against teeth, , h tongue against the front of the palate, b and m lips against lips. Therefore they would impossible to read aloud with the mouth wide open and slightly difficult to read silently.

Was your mouth wide open? Were you reading at the same time?