so, is the mind always one step ahead as to be impossible for

>>8629419
No, it's going to be mapped out soon and the brain is slow compared to computers.

>>8629425
ok, until that happens then the answer is yes?

>>8629464
>always one step ahead

The answer is no. In fact the mind is already behind. People can predict your choices well before you make them with a brainscan already.

>>8629517
>choices
>mind

i didnt say conscious mind, but mind. our consciousness is a minimal part of the mind.

>>8629684
Why would you call non-conscious brain activity mind?

>>8630229
why would you call digestive system anything different from the mouth?

>>8630281
Define the unconscious part of the mind. Where is it? What does it do?

The mind can only be experienced subjectively, objectively there is only the brain and its activity. An unconscious part of the mind could be experienced neither subjectively or objectively.

Which is to say, it's entirely hypothetical.

Anybody read Alfred Bester's The Demolition Man?

>>8630342
how could we define it consciously if it is unconscious?

what we have in consciousness is the end products of mind activity. our conscious lives dont come out of nowhere nor are they some direct contact with some objective world.

the only thing thatd be hypothetical would be any model describing mind's workings, but not posing mind itself as a part of the human organism. or if you want, its as hypothetical as anything you might say about the brain, cause, no matter what the object of our enquiry, the filter to describe it is the mind.

>>8629425
Computers to trigonometry easy cos they don't need worry about the pointlessness or uselessness, or usefulness of things. Really just very competent retards.

>>8629419
...just get in sync with your own mind. It's called awareness I think. Super-tautological. You think, therefore you think. If you are aware of this, you've managed self-reflexion. Like all conscious beings

File: buddha3.jpg (50KB, 351x445px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 351x445px

No

>>8630392
>how could we define it consciously if it is unconscious?
How can we define it at all if it can't be experienced in any way? It's a nonsensical concept.

Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. You don't need some vague notion of mind that is mostly non-observable and mysterious for no apparent reason to go in between.

>>8630527
>he thinks buddhism is not a little story to keep humans busy so they dont fuck themselves up

>>8630548
it is only mysterious for someone expecting everything to be conscious and measurable. plus, there are a lot of traces in stuff like dreams or humor art etc.

>>8630563
>he thinks buddhism keeps you busy
>he thinks buddhism keeps you from fucking up
>he thinks buddhism is a story

Son, you're thinking of Hinduism.

>>8630619
buddhism is a story for hinduists

>>8630619
>He thinks

>>8630654
>>8630619
>he thinks 'he' is the one who 'thinks'