Philosophy of the mind

Dualism is the truth. You can disregard all other theories

All 'philosophies of mind' are fucking garbage.

I think the most promising theory is some variation of simulation theory. Here is an interesting article about it:

cs.helsinki.fi/u/ahyvarin/teaching/niseminar4/Hesslow_Simulation.pdf

Also, the quantum mind theory by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hamerhoff is pretty fun, if only because it's so convoluted.

So, how's high school going?

The simulation mind seems very promising indeed. The quantum mind, though progressive and certainly revolutionairy, is questionable. It is extremely difficult to even try to prove that our brain works like a quantum computer.

>high school
I'm 29.

God teir is nothing compared to
>Nature tier
Biosemiotics
e-edu.nbu.bg/pluginfile.php/319303/mod_resource/content/0/Texts_for_the_READER/Lesson_13_Favareau_History_biosemiotics.pdf

All living systems have a conscious mind.
Pic related: a green moray and grouper engage in cooperative hunting.

Is the Buddhist philosophy of mind under folk psychology? Or under "reductionism"?

wew lad you should have graduated 11 years ago

Not one mention of panpsychism so far?

Bunch of plebs.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAH

Hmm, that's actually a good question. I think it's a mix between dualism, externalism
and folk psychology. The idea of "selflessness" for example is a clear cut case of dualism mixed in with externalism.

Do you even know what naturalism in the POTM is? It's the STEMlord manifesto, so considering you support reductionism it will be pretty in support of your view

>implying number 4 is not a social construct

Looks very intersting. Will read into this if i find the time

Are you sure selflessness is dualism mixed with externalism?

Explain the reasoning.

Well, the general idea of externalism (passive) is that your surroundings influence mental states. Becoming Selflessness is the idea that what you are, your being, is part of the bigger picture/connected with the universe what ever way you wanna put it. This is a pretty externalist position since it allows interconnectness, aka everything is dependent of each other /influenced by each other / connected. That's a pretty cut and clear variant of an externalist viewpoint. Dualism however is a bit trickier. If you take the monism vs dualism debate and have to label Buddhism i'd still label it a form of dualism with my current knowledge of the Buddhist teachings, but not because there are a lot of arguments in favor of buddhism being dualistic, rather there are strong arguments making it not a monist teaching like the turing machine or type identity. Moreover, it is by default not a naturalistic teaching, and that is a very big argument to call it dualistic. It must be said though that buddhism, if it can be labelled dualist, is not "classic" dualist movement à lá descartian dualism, Thurman (the father of the women who starred in pulp fiction) made a case specifically against the descartian notion of cogito ergo sum and how it is not budistic at all.

Oh and selflessness being a dualistic approach is explained through the idea of it not being monistic, making it dualistic by default. It is not a traditional dualistic teaching, absolutely not, but the idea of "becoming one with the universe" is absolutely not monistic.

>Selflessness is the idea that what you are, your being, is part of the bigger picture/connected with the universe
heh, that's where you're wrong kiddo

I think I'll disagree with that a bit. If I remember right, monism is a view that states there is no difference between self and others and all things are one. "Becoming one with the universe" type of stance is the classic monistic position. Hindus adopt this approach in their monism. Advaita hindus adopts this the strongest in claiming there is no distinction between others and yourself. There is no distinction between yourself/others and the all encompassing brahman (the ultimate reality/goo/substance/etc). The name Advaita means non-dual, referring to the notion that there exist only the brahman.

Dualism is the making a clear distinction between this and others. I am myself, you are you. Etc.

Buddhism would also be under the notion of non-dual, but not monism. Where as monists posit a single existence, Buddhist say none-ness. As in, they reject the notion anything has any essential existence. Their word for selflessness is anatta or anatman, which translates to non-self. This is initially advanced as core part of their psycho-analysis. Hume's bundle theory is basically an early Buddhist idea of the self. The self that doesn't really have an essential existence, yet exist in nominal sense.

On to ontological sense, the selflessness is also applied to universal scale where all things that which are conditioned have no self existence. Dualism/monism doesn't really work with Buddhism.

Explain? Because the last time i checked and studied this concept it was the believe of letting yourself go with the underlying assumption that you are part of the universe/bigger picture/fibers of the universe whatever terminology you want to use, and focussing on the self will make you unhappy/sick/corrupted whatever terminology you want to use again, but i could be wrong.

Monism is "all is one"
Dualism is "we're all different"

"we're all one" is monism.

monism

ˈmɒnJz(ə)m,ˈməʊnJz(ə)m/

noun

a theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in a particular sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world.

I was using the philosophy of the mind semantics here, as in mental and physical events are one and not separated. Apologies for the miscommunication

The mind is a phenomena much like rain. There is no "I". If you begin to treat your "I" in the third person -- "this mind" --, everything begins to make sense.

Nah, it's not meant for everyone. If you have issues or something or you simply feel good due to meditation then bless you, but it's not meant for everyone.

Arguably we are all "interconnected" because quantum phenomena 10 billion light years away can affect us.

I am talking about the attitude of selflessness. You are told you are unhappy/sick/corrupted, a bad person for criticizing them and not giving them your time, your money, wearing the chastity cage and making all sorts of sacrifices for their good cause. You apparently have some moral duty to believe you are an idiot and can't be right even though you expose yourself to scrutiny and hold yourself to high standards of proof while you must subsume yourself to someone who throws a massive hissy fit whenever they face a little criticism.

I have seen many belief systems like this that attack your individuality and self-esteem and people just fall for it, they think they have to abandon reason to be popular, that they are in the wrong for exercising the very means of ascertaining the truth.

At a certain point it would be naive not to wonder if, you know, they might be doing one of those lie things, or they are just spooked as fuck.

If they do not respect you as an individual and all the rights that naturally spring from that then how can you even have a dialogue with the other beings you share this universe with?

It's is, was one of those concepts that changes your entire worldview for me.
There is a lot more on springer

Property dualism is obviously the correct answer

Is the Buddhistic concept of self you're talking about coming from the Theravadan or Mahayanan framework? Hume's bundle theory seems more like Theravadan (dependent origination), but the whole not-dual and not-one thing seems very Mahayanan--emptiness at the same time as suchness, and so on.

I have a nebulous grasp on Buddhistic philosophies; I couldn't ever articulate it in any systematic way. I'd like to learn more because hitherto their metaphysics and ontology are by far the most interesting I've come across (considering here the West as well as the Far East).