How mind which is immaterial and has no location could possibly have an outside?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

STT

Guest
We can assign outside and inside to things which has location and volume. How mind which has no location and has no volume could possibly have an outside?
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
STT said:
We can assign outside and inside to things which has location and volume. How mind which has no location and has no volume could possibly have an outside?
Click to expand...
It is just a way of saying, STT. Do you believe your thoughts are within your skull?
 
Not all terms need to be understood in a univocal sense. Certainly, when we speak of something being outside our knowledge we aren’t speak of physical boundaries. We only mean that it’s not a part of our knowledge, or does not belong to our knowledge. “Outside” in this case is an analogical term and is not always used to refer to a position in space relative to a physical boundary.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
It is just a way of saying, STT. Do you believe your thoughts are within your skull?
Click to expand...
All I know is that my experiences are personal. My thoughts are personal and they are within me wherever I go. That however doesn’t prove that my thoughts are within my skull. All my experiences could be perceived by my mind which has no location, if we believe in mind. The question is that how such a thing, to have internal and external world, is possible when mind has no location.
 
STT said:
My thoughts are personal and they are within me wherever I go.
Click to expand...
You can point to a precise physical location for your thoughts? Hmm…
STT said:
The question is that how such a thing, to have internal and external world, is possible when mind has no location.
Click to expand...
“internal” and “external” to what, exactly?
 
STT said:
All I know is that my experiences are personal. My thoughts are personal and they are within me wherever I go. That however doesn’t prove that my thoughts are within my skull. All my experiences could be perceived by my mind which has no location, if we believe in mind. The question is that how such a thing, to have internal and external world, is possible when mind has no location.
Click to expand...
I think what Wesrock says above may solve your trouble. I will add something else: independently of being or not being spatial, you can distinguish (I hope!) between you and what is not you. Saying that something is outside you would mean that it is not you. No need to hit your head against the wall!, but if that gives you pleasure, then hit it strong!
 
Wesrock said:
Not all terms need to be understood in a univocal sense. Certainly, when we speak of something being outside our knowledge we aren’t speak of physical boundaries. We only mean that it’s not a part of our knowledge, or does not belong to our knowledge. “Outside” in this case is an analogical term and is not always used to refer to a position in space relative to a physical boundary.
Click to expand...
So you agree that we are dealing with an ambiguous thing, outside, when it comes to mind?
 
JuanFlorencio said:
I think what Wesrock says above may solve your trouble. I will add something else: independently of being or not being spatial, you can distinguish (I hope!) between you and what is not you. Saying that something is outside you would mean that it is not you. No need to hit your head against the wall!, but if that gives you pleasure, then hit it strong!
Click to expand...
Well, he said that the term outside is ambiguous when it comes to mind. How that could resolve the problem?
 
We can assign outside and inside to things which has location and volume. How mind which has no location and has no volume could possibly have an outside?
Click to expand...
I am where my body is at, and where my senses and memory and imagination linger. When I see the tree, I am truly at where the tree is at. When I remember the tree, I am truly at when the tree was at. The senses are a kind of transcendence of space, and memory is a kind of transcendence of time. The immaterial is called such because of its negation of material existence.

Christi pax.
 
STT said:
Well, he said that the term outside is ambiguous when it comes to mind. How that could resolve the problem?
Click to expand...
Ok, so your question is “How mind which has no location and has no volume could possibly have an outside?”. It doesn’t: Mind does not have an outside nor an inside as boxes do. Next time you hear or read something concerning mind that describes it as if it was a kind of vessel, just regard it as a metaphor. I hope that helps you.
 
Last edited:
Lucretius said:
I am where my body is at, and where my senses and memory and imagination linger. When I see the tree, I am truly at where the tree is at. When I remember the tree, I am truly at when the tree was at. The senses are a kind of transcendence of space, and memory is a kind of transcendence of time. The immaterial is called such because of its negation of material existence.

Christi pax.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that you have mind and you experience by mind and mind is not physical meaning that it has no location.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Ok, so your question is “How mind which has no location and has no volume could possibly have an outside?”. It doesn’t: Mind does not have an outside nor an inside as boxes do. Next time you hear or read something concerning mind that describes it as if it was a kind of vessel, just regard it as a metaphor. I hope that helps you.
Click to expand...
Your body and external world of course belongs to your external world. You can experience them and they are not like your thoughts which are internal to you. We are sure that we have two different worlds, internal and external. The question is they are internal and external respect to what?
 
STT said:
Your body and external world of course belongs to your external world. You can experience them and they are not like your thoughts which are internal to you. We are sure that we have two different worlds, internal and external. The question is they are internal and external respect to what?
Click to expand...
This is where you stumble again and again. “Internal” and “external” are inadequate words to talk about this matters. Nevertheless, we do not have better words yet. However, isn’t it clear to you that with “internal” we want to mean something that is part of ourselves or an act of ours; and that with “external” we want to mean the opposite?
 
STT said:
40.png
Gorgias:
You can point to a precise physical location for your thoughts? Hmm…
Click to expand...
No I can not locate my thoughts but they are with me wherever I go.
Click to expand...
You’re going to have to define what you mean by ‘with’, then, for this claim to make any sense.

However, I think I know what you’re getting at. And, I could equally well say that my Google Drive documents are “with” me wherever I go. And, by that I would only mean that I have access to them, not that I carry a server that contains the files with me everywhere. 😉
Gorgias said:
“internal” and “external” to what, exactly?
Click to expand...
You have internal world where your thought reside whereas you have external world where your body resides.
[/quote]

You’d have to define “internal world”, then… 😉
 
JuanFlorencio said:
This is where you stumble again and again. “Internal” and “external” are inadequate words to talk about this matters. Nevertheless, we do not have better words yet. However, isn’t it clear to you that with “internal” we want to mean something that is part of ourselves or an act of ours; and that with “external” we want to mean the opposite?
Click to expand...
No, I can define internal and external: Internal=personal and external=impersonal. As an example, think of thought which exists in internal world whereas the body and object which exist in external world.
 
STT said:
40.png
Gorgias:
You’re going to have to define what you mean by ‘with’, then, for this claim to make any sense.
Click to expand...
By with I mean that only I have access to it.
Gorgias said:
You’d have to define “internal world”, then… 😉
Click to expand...
Only I have access to it.
Click to expand...
Then there’s no potential problem, right? If “virtual access” is the only thing you’re worried about, then you can admit that it exists already in the realm of digital information!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top