Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[stevie]

My brain cannot create a consistent meaning of "if we do not let our minds to act on their own". Maybe it's because this expression presupposes a personal self as master of the mind? But to me it appears that the sense of self cannot be separated from the sense of there being a "mind" or a "consciousness".

Maybe it is the case that the title you have chosen reflects more clearly (for my brain) what you are after

I agree because if there were no mind there wouldn't be a sense of self either. However that doesn't appear to be a relevant idea or a relevant idea only for some kinds of buddhist extremists only.
Some type of psychotherapy takes a more moderate and workable approach in that it treats compulsive harmful thinking with teaching to let go of thoughts and/or to principally hold thoughts only loosely, reduce the tightness of the bonding between self and thought.

I do not think there are extremist teachings in Buddhism. There are teachings in buddhism which can be categorized in various levels, and only the ones who follow in a certain path and develop certain abilities (when we train our minds for some time through things like meditation, certain areas of brain are awakened). Yes, there are teachings that teach one to detach the mind from the bodily feelings.

I've been saying "buddhist extremists" so I've been referring to persons.

Usually we do not have a control over our minds.

Replacing "usually" by "generally" I'd agree because using eliminative materialism as a working hypothesis the self having control about anything is merely a useful illusion. I've said "working hypothesis" so there is no claim as to truth or reality involved.

There are extremists in any cult, religion, etc. And sometimes what they believe or say can be the truth.

Well, you never can know whether truth or falsity. So best is to suspend judgement.

Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist and have no role to play in a mature science of the mind. - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy -

I get eliminative materialism as a sort of understanding, rather than a claim on control.

For me it's a good working hypothesis.

[Sushan]

I do not think there are extremist teachings in Buddhism. There are teachings in buddhism which can be categorized in various levels, and only the ones who follow in a certain path and develop certain abilities (when we train our minds for some time through things like meditation, certain areas of brain are awakened). Yes, there are teachings that teach one to detach the mind from the bodily feelings.

I've been saying "buddhist extremists" so I've been referring to persons.

Usually we do not have a control over our minds.

Replacing "usually" by "generally" I'd agree because using eliminative materialism as a working hypothesis the self having control about anything is merely a useful illusion. I've said "working hypothesis" so there is no claim as to truth or reality involved.

There are extremists in any cult, religion, etc. And sometimes what they believe or say can be the truth.

Well, you never can know whether truth or falsity. So best is to suspend judgement.

Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist and have no role to play in a mature science of the mind. - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy -

I get eliminative materialism as a sort of understanding, rather than a claim on control.

For me it's a good working hypothesis.

Well, yes, I agree with you on your 'working hypothesis' idea, and your comment on truth or false. And the two goes hand in hand in this definition that I found in the internet.

A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails. In this way, a working hypothesis is an accepted starting point for further research.

And by any means I am not implying that your theory is wrong, but only highlighting the chance of it going in either way.

[Pattern-chaser]

Some people choose to live this time which we get to live as a human animal away from other humans...

Humans are social animals. Humans living alone is known, but extremely rare. Of 8,000,000,000 humans in the world, how many do you think live alone?

[Sushan]

Some people choose to live this time which we get to live as a human animal away from other humans...

Humans are social animals. Humans living alone is known, but extremely rare. Of 8,000,000,000 humans in the world, how many do you think live alone?

If we actually know how many are living alone, then how can they be literally living alone? There are people who simply distant themselves from all the other humans in physical, mental, and any other available ways. And they do not go on advertising that, so no one can know about the ones who are actually alone. Besides that there are many people who have gone into a mandatory lonely living just because there is no one to care about them.

[AmericanKestrel]

This topic is about the July 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, The Truth Is Beyond Belief!: Some thoughts to make you think about the power of your thoughts…by Jerry Durr

"The One, when viewed from below, appears to be the many. The many, when viewed from above, is seen to be The One."

This “lofty” perspective has, to this day, inspired me to explore the power and role of the human mind with its magical ability to so seamlessly impose its own subjective, separating beliefs overtop an objective, unified reality - Existence Itself.

(Location 24 - Kindle version)

This author highlights the ability of our mind to form subjective and controversial ideas not only about vague facts and theories, but also regarding obvious and clearly proven points (e.g. Flat-earth believers). It is okay for anyone to have any personal opinion, but people often tend to argue and quarrel upon such facts.

Thinking about this, I got the idea that there will be no more arguments if we do not let our minds to act on their own. What do you say?

We can control our thoughts, in fact stop it for a while, as in meditation, by focusing on the breath. Our thoughts are completely stopped every night when we are in deep sleep, dreamless sleep. And we experience total bliss in that state. That is what stopping our thoughts would feel. Ramana Maharishi said by stopping your thoughts one will realize one’s real self.

[stevie]

Well, yes, I agree with you on your 'working hypothesis' idea, and your comment on truth or false. And the two goes hand in hand in this definition that I found in the internet.

A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails. In this way, a working hypothesis is an accepted starting point for further research.

And by any means I am not implying that your theory is wrong, but only highlighting the chance of it going in either way.

Not "theory" but "working hypothesis"! calling it "working hypothesis" I am not implying that it is right.

[Pattern-chaser]

Some people choose to live this time which we get to live as a human animal away from other humans...

Humans are social animals. Humans living alone is known, but extremely rare. Of 8,000,000,000 humans in the world, how many do you think live alone?

If we actually know how many are living alone, then how can they be literally living alone? There are people who simply distant themselves from all the other humans in physical, mental, and any other available ways. And they do not go on advertising that, so no one can know about the ones who are actually alone. Besides that there are many people who have gone into a mandatory lonely living just because there is no one to care about them.

N.B. You referred to "people [who] choose [...] [to] live as a human animal away from other humans". This excludes the lonely and abandoned in our societies, of whom I agree there are many. But they aren't who you referred to.

And no, we probably don't know exactly how many hermits there are, but I think we could have agreed, without this quibbling, that they are very few, which is what I said, and what you are apparently replying to. Hardly any human conforms to the description you gave: "Some people choose to live this time which we get to live as a human animal away from other humans."

[Sushan]

This topic is about the July 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, The Truth Is Beyond Belief!: Some thoughts to make you think about the power of your thoughts…by Jerry Durr

"The One, when viewed from below, appears to be the many. The many, when viewed from above, is seen to be The One."

This “lofty” perspective has, to this day, inspired me to explore the power and role of the human mind with its magical ability to so seamlessly impose its own subjective, separating beliefs overtop an objective, unified reality - Existence Itself.

(Location 24 - Kindle version)

This author highlights the ability of our mind to form subjective and controversial ideas not only about vague facts and theories, but also regarding obvious and clearly proven points (e.g. Flat-earth believers). It is okay for anyone to have any personal opinion, but people often tend to argue and quarrel upon such facts.

Thinking about this, I got the idea that there will be no more arguments if we do not let our minds to act on their own. What do you say?

We can control our thoughts, in fact stop it for a while, as in meditation, by focusing on the breath. Our thoughts are completely stopped every night when we are in deep sleep, dreamless sleep. And we experience total bliss in that state. That is what stopping our thoughts would feel. Ramana Maharishi said by stopping your thoughts one will realize one’s real self.

Are we actually in control of our thoughts? I do not think so. It is an ability that one has to develop, and I do not think it is an easy task to do so.

Does our minds stop during our sleep? To think about that we have to think what mind is. If it is a result of the collective function of the brain, then no, our brains work even when we sleep. We do not get thoughts during our sleeps (or we do not perceive them) just because we are sleeping, but not because the thoughts are being stopped. But I agree that during sleep we cannot think actively.

[Sushan]

Well, yes, I agree with you on your 'working hypothesis' idea, and your comment on truth or false. And the two goes hand in hand in this definition that I found in the internet.

A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails. In this way, a working hypothesis is an accepted starting point for further research.

And by any means I am not implying that your theory is wrong, but only highlighting the chance of it going in either way.

Not "theory" but "working hypothesis"! calling it "working hypothesis" I am not implying that it is right.

Okay okay, my bad, and I am sorry. Yes, it is a working hypothesis which can either be correct or wrong.

[Sushan]

Some people choose to live this time which we get to live as a human animal away from other humans...

Humans are social animals. Humans living alone is known, but extremely rare. Of 8,000,000,000 humans in the world, how many do you think live alone?

If we actually know how many are living alone, then how can they be literally living alone? There are people who simply distant themselves from all the other humans in physical, mental, and any other available ways. And they do not go on advertising that, so no one can know about the ones who are actually alone. Besides that there are many people who have gone into a mandatory lonely living just because there is no one to care about them.

N.B. You referred to "people [who] choose [...] [to] live as a human animal away from other humans". This excludes the lonely and abandoned in our societies, of whom I agree there are many. But they aren't who you referred to.

And no, we probably don't know exactly how many hermits there are, but I think we could have agreed, without this quibbling, that they are very few, which is what I said, and what you are apparently replying to. Hardly any human conforms to the description you gave: "Some people choose to live this time which we get to live as a human animal away from other humans."

I agree that the numbers can be very few, but it is not zero. So there are people who choose to live alone and there are people who are forced to live alone due to social circumstances.

[Pattern-chaser]

Some people choose to live this time which we get to live as a human animal away from other humans...

Humans are social animals. Humans living alone is known, but extremely rare. Of 8,000,000,000 humans in the world, how many do you think live alone?

If we actually know how many are living alone, then how can they be literally living alone? There are people who simply distant themselves from all the other humans in physical, mental, and any other available ways. And they do not go on advertising that, so no one can know about the ones who are actually alone. Besides that there are many people who have gone into a mandatory lonely living just because there is no one to care about them.

N.B. You referred to "people [who] choose [...] [to] live as a human animal away from other humans". This excludes the lonely and abandoned in our societies, of whom I agree there are many. But they aren't who you referred to.

And no, we probably don't know exactly how many hermits there are, but I think we could have agreed, without this quibbling, that they are very few, which is what I said, and what you are apparently replying to. Hardly any human conforms to the description you gave: "Some people choose to live this time which we get to live as a human animal away from other humans."

I agree that the numbers can be very few, but it is not zero. So there are people who choose to live alone and there are people who are forced to live alone due to social circumstances.

Once again you restate what we both know and agree upon. But what is your point? You stated that some people are hermits, even though only a tiny proportion of us are, but what was your purpose in saying so? You began this exchange by saying "Some people choose to live this time which we get to live as a human animal away from other humans, and it is simply to have less troubles." Almost no humans are hermits, and I don't think we can simply assert that they adopt this lifestyle to minimise trouble. So what were/are you trying to say?

[Joshua10]

In answer to the original post statement.

We do have a mind and we do have thoughts and we do have issues though,that is normal.

Ues, that is the norm. But how many of us simply accept that norm? Have you never had the feeling "it is good to die than live like this" after thinking about your troublesome life? I have got the feeling, and when I think about such occasions later, I realize that the issue becomes (or appears) bigger with our thinking. If we do not think the issue will still be there, but in its original size.

How one feels depends upon one’s overall philosophical outlook.

If one doesn’t have a mind then one is unable to think.However,one does have a mind and one does think outward thoughts and experience inward autopilot thoughts.

If one adopts “I think therefore I am” philosophy then one remains trapped a “prisoner of consciousness” unable to manage thoughts adequately.

I adopt “I am, therefore I think” philosophy as in I know that I am neither consciousness nor thought.I am aware of the 2 consciousness types and control them which helps me to understand the 2 thought types better.

The “I am” is a PRESENCE.

Secularism would completely disagree with the above,however, who cares what that loser thinks.

[Sy Borg]

Joshua, I agree. I am, therefore I think. Descartes was wrong about existence, just as he was wrong about animal sentience.

It's obvious, really. A baby is, but it does not yet think. Then, with experience in the world, it gradually starts to think.

Sensation and emotion come before thought. A sense of being appears to start with sensation.

[Joshua10]

Joshua, I agree. I am, therefore I think. Descartes was wrong about existence, just as he was wrong about animal sentience.

It's obvious, really. A baby is, but it does not yet think. Then, with experience in the world, it gradually starts to think.

Sensation and emotion come before thought. A sense of being appears to start with sensation.

Descartes clearly got it wrong so why is he so celebrated in philosophy I wonder? he couldn’t have got it more wrong.

The statement “I am,therefore I think” stands the test.

A sense of being starts with the “I am” part of the above statement.No associations are required, sensations or otherwise, in my opinion.

I would suggest that AWARENESS is key to a greater understanding of how the “I am” relates/interacts with consciousness and thoughts.

AWARENESS and EXPERIENCE provide the confirmation that the “I am” exists.

[Pattern-chaser]

I adopt “I am, therefore I think” philosophy

Joshua, I agree. I am, therefore I think.

Descartes opined that 'the fact that I think demonstrates and confirms my existence'. You offer the converse, that thinking is a direct consequence of (human) existence. Two sides of the same coin, I think.