The True Nature of the Spleen of Existence

[Dissident Dan]

Follow your spleen, not your mind. Only that can lead to enlightenment. When you open yourself to the wisdom of your spleen, you discove the miracle of the true nature of existence, and can fulfill your divine purpose.

 

[BoulderHead]

This sounds like Sage advise. I'll give it a go, thanks!

 

[wuliheron]

The spleen that can be spoken of is not the eternal spleen.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The spleen that can be spoken of is not the eternal spleen.

But Master, what does the spleen do? ... Is not life but like a box of chocolates?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

DD, if you have a more useful, clear and
in general better philosophy than the one
of the person you're apparently trying to mock
(as far as I can see, at least) - please,
reveal it to our judgement.

Live long and prosper.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But Master, what does the spleen do? ... Is not life but like a box of chocolates?

The spleen does nothing and, thus, everything is done. Life is not a box of chocolates, life is the essence of the spleen which can only be realized through the eating of the chocolates.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

DD, if you have a more useful, clear and
in general better philosophy than the one
of the person you're apparently trying to mock
(as far as I can see, at least) - please,
reveal it to our judgement.

Live long and prosper.

Humor and humility are integral aspects of my philosophy, its the scathing sarcasm and personal insults that sometimes bug me. Serious sarcasm and personal insults are never pretty, but you know you've hit someone where it hurts when that's the best argument they can come up with. Especially here with all the exceptionally educated people who frequent the site and the moderators who monitor everything. :0)

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

DD, if you have a more useful, clear and
in general better philosophy than the one
of the person you're apparently trying to mock
(as far as I can see, at least) - please,
reveal it to our judgement.

Live long and prosper.

Yes, I do. Your brain is the only bodily organ that thinks. Your heart just pumps blood, and emotions do not lead you to truth.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Yes, I do. Your brain is the only bodily organ that thinks. Your heart just pumps blood, and emotions do not lead you to truth.

Excellent point. I think the spleen was a good choice for the organ, to substitute "heart", in this kind of reasoning. They are both organs, with assigned purposes (or not, what does a spleen actually do?), but they are not the "seat of emotion" as some believe.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Yes, I do. Your brain is the only bodily organ that thinks. Your heart just pumps blood, and emotions do not lead you to truth.

Sorry, but this is patently absurd. People have been discovered who due to brain injuries possesses little or no emotions. With the exception of being able to draw upon their memories before the accident for relavent contexts, they are aimless walking computers which cannot place anything in any kind of meaningful context. Tell them to hop on one foot all day and they may well do so just as your computer will churn out endless meaningless trivia forever if asked to do so.

You should check out the discussion in the thread "The Seat of Consciousness." Before knocking your own biological and emotional heritage using nothing but tautological rubbish you should investigate the scientific evidence.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1719

 

[Dissident Dan]

I am confused, Wu Li. How does that contradit what I said? It only supports it.

 

[Iacchus32]

The Heart of Reality

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1649&perpage=15&pagenumber=4" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Hmm ... I was just telling Mentat that our feelings allow us to validate and give definition to what we perceive. Maybe you need to take some time out from all this brain work and listen to your heart for a change?

Originally posted by FZ+
But that isn't validation. Validation requires objectivity. Here's my model...

The heart, or irrational self creates the system of virtual concepts in the mind from sensations, impulses, memories, instincts etc, defining our assigned essences to existent form. Ie. the irrational pins our internal universe to the external one.

What is the ability to see, touch, smell or whatever, without the sensation that goes along with it? These are the sensations which comprise "the experience," which then becomes the validation.

Originally posted by FZ+
The brain, or really rational self performs deductive logic on the created concept-web of the internal image, and transforms it into decisions. Ie. it sifts the jigsaw and makes patterns, compares data, balances inputs.

And yet how can you say the brain is rational or, capable of being objective, when we turn around and say everything that stems from the brain, at least in terms of thought, is abstract? While we also say everything that exists outside of it is concrete? And yet here we are using "abstractions" to define what is concrete. Hmm ... must be another one of those "paradoxical moments."

But then we have the five senses, which exist outside of the brain, and therefore "must" be concrete which, we describe as irrational? Now how rational does that sound?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I am confused, Wu Li. How does that contradit what I said? It only supports it.

Its a bit like saying the cpu in my computer is the only part of my computer that thinks, which is patently absurd. Take the cpu chip out and it makes a nice nick knack, but it can't work without the rest of the computer.

Not only emotions, but touch as well--feelings in every sense of the word--are integral to thought. The more complex the mind of an animal, the more integral they are. Certainly I still think if I loose my big toe, but then, I can also still think if I loose a significant part of my brain.

This is also apparent in evolutionary biology. Why you might ask, if all it took was a larger brain and opposible thumb didn't intelligence evolve sooner? The answer is that I can't take a modern CPU and just plug it into a ten year old computer and I can't just take human brain and attach it to a rats body. They form an integrated system and in some real sense you actually do some of your best thinking--and feeling-- with your big toe.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Its a bit like saying the cpu in my computer is the only part of my computer that thinks, which is patently absurd. Take the cpu chip out and it makes a nice nick knack, but it can't work without the rest of the computer.

Analogies only go so far. A human being is not directly analogous to a PC.

Not only emotions, but touch as well--feelings in every sense of the word--are integral to thought. The more complex the mind of an animal, the more integral they are. Certainly I still think if I loose my big toe, but then, I can also still think if I loose a significant part of my brain.

Emotions are definitely important. I never said that they aren't. I said that emotions don't lead you to truth. (There is an exception, though--coincidence.) What I mean by this is that "feeling in your heart" that something is true is no grounds for believing so. Only through reasoning can you decipher or understand truth through any means other than coincidence. This is not to say that emotion does not provide the inspiration, the motivation to reason--it obviously does provide the inspiration.

This is also apparent in evolutionary biology. Why you might ask, if all it took was a larger brain and opposible thumb didn't intelligence evolve sooner? The answer is that I can't take a modern CPU and just plug it into a ten year old computer and I can't just take human brain and attach it to a rats body. They form an integrated system and in some real sense you actually do some of your best thinking--and feeling-- with your big toe.

Obviously, the brain interacts with the body. But that does not mean that the heart thinks. My complaint is with the mind/heart dualism that is obviously rubbish, as the brain is the emotional and logical center of the body. Some people tell you to believe in something because your "heart" says so, not because your "mind" says so. In other words, they are saying to trust your emotions, even when they are contrary to what your logical abilities tell you. "Find god in your heart." and other fairy-tale stuff like that. Your emotions cannot directly reveal to you what is true, except by coincidence.
Your heart pumps blood. While it may send some kinds of chemical signals to the brain, it is not the thinking part of the body. You could replace someone's heart with a babboon heart, and he/she would still have the same personality.

 

[Iacchus32]

What is a brain without a body? What is a body without a heart? What is a human being without a soul?

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." (Matthew 22:37)

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan

Emotions are definitely important. I never said that they aren't. I said that emotions don't lead you to truth. (There is an exception, though--coincidence.) What I mean by this is that "feeling in your heart" that something is true is no grounds for believing so. Only through reasoning can you decipher or understand truth through any means other than coincidence. This is not to say that emotion does not provide the inspiration, the motivation to reason--it obviously does provide the inspiration.

Emotions most definitely can lead you to truths, often truths that logic simply cannot touch and vice versa. For example, I know my mamma loves me not because logic tells me its true, but because my heart tells me its true. Likewise, both logic and your feelings can lead you astray.

It isn't nature vs. nurture, but nature And nurture. Likewise, it isn't feelings vs. logic, but feelings And logic. One without the other is an oxymoron.

Obviously, the brain interacts with the body. But that does not mean that the heart thinks. My complaint is with the mind/heart dualism that is obviously rubbish, as the brain is the emotional and logical center of the body. Some people tell you to believe in something because your "heart" says so, not because your "mind" says so. In other words, they are saying to trust your emotions, even when they are contrary to what your logical abilities tell you. "Find god in your heart." and other fairy-tale stuff like that. Your emotions cannot directly reveal to you what is true, except by coincidence.
Your heart pumps blood. While it may send some kinds of chemical signals to the brain, it is not the thinking part of the body. You could replace someone's heart with a babboon heart, and he/she would still have the same personality.

The heart Feels and, therefore, thinks in some respects. In and of itself it may possesses quite rudimentary intelligence and virtually nothing in the way of abstract thought, but that is not quite the same thing as being utterly devoid of thought.

Again, it is not emotions and thoughts (ie mind) vs. sensation, it is mind And sensation. One without the other is an oxymoron. My computer has no mind as far as anyone can tell, but then, it has no sensation either.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is a brain without a body? What is a body without a heart? What is a human being without a soul?

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." (Matthew 22:37)

Merely for the purposes of clarification, the Hebrew word here rendered "soul" (ne'phesh), actually means "self".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Emotions most definitely can lead you to truths, often truths that logic simply cannot touch and vice versa. For example, I know my mamma loves me not because logic tells me its true, but because my heart tells me its true. Likewise, both logic and your feelings can lead you astray.

It isn't nature vs. nurture, but nature And nurture. Likewise, it isn't feelings vs. logic, but feelings And logic. One without the other is an oxymoron.

I don't agree with this reasoning. I know many people who have been said, by psychiatrists, to be devoid of most of the emotions of normal human beings. However, these people were actually rather exceptional at using their intellectual capabilities. In fact, it seems as though the lack of emotion, un-clouds (if that's a word) one's mind.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Merely for the purposes of clarification,
the Hebrew word here rendered "soul" (ne'phesh),
actually means "self".

Do you speak Hebrew Mentat ?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Do you speak Hebrew Mentat ?

I've studied it a little, in my studying of the Bible. Why?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
I don't agree with this reasoning. I know many people who have been said, by psychiatrists, to be devoid of most of the emotions of normal human beings. However, these people were actually rather exceptional at using their intellectual capabilities. In fact, it seems as though the lack of emotion, un-clouds (if that's a word) one's mind.

Yeah, and serial killers don't feel guilt and the autistic can not empathize or really sympathize. As I said before, people with documented brain damage have been discovered who really don't have much at all in the way of emotions and the result is they cannot place anything in a context they had not already learned habitually to use. As for what psychiatrists say, pay me a hundred dollars an hour for such worthless disciplines as psychoanalysis and what do you expect? They often spout meaningless nonsense and then throw a prescription at you along with the bill.

Of course, that's not to say emotions can't cloud the mind, simply that they provide irreplacable context and are the most likely candidate upon which the higher reasoning powers are founded.

 

[Psychodelirium]

Originally posted by Mentat
I don't agree with this reasoning. I know many people who have been said, by psychiatrists, to be devoid of most of the emotions of normal human beings. However, these people were actually rather exceptional at using their intellectual capabilities. In fact, it seems as though the lack of emotion, un-clouds (if that's a word) one's mind.

I'm not sure where you get that, but as far as I know, people who lack emotions tend be cognitively impaired in many other respects. They do fine solving logic problems, but they fall far below par with rational decision making and planning ahead. Logical but not reasonable, if you will.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
I've studied it a little, in my studying
of the Bible. Why?

You probably didn't score that high.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Emotions most definitely can lead you to truths, often truths that logic simply cannot touch and vice versa. For example, I know my mamma loves me not because logic tells me its true, but because my heart tells me its true. Likewise, both logic and your feelings can lead you astray.

No, you may feel that your mama loves you, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. There are lots of women who are beaten by their "lovers" and swear that "he loves me, he really does". Now, if you analyze the person, you can have some idea of whether or not the person feels like she/he loves you. These same actions that you can analyze may also lead you to "feel" that she/he loves you, but either a) it's really your reasoning that tells you that or b) it's a coincidence.

It isn't nature vs. nurture, but nature And nurture. Likewise, it isn't feelings vs. logic, but feelings And logic. One without the other is an oxymoron.

That's not true. An Athlon XP 1700+ processes uses logic--it's nothing but logic circuitry, but it feels nothing.

The heart Feels and, therefore, thinks in some respects. In and of itself it may possesses quite rudimentary intelligence and virtually nothing in the way of abstract thought, but that is not quite the same thing as being utterly devoid of thought.

The heart does not feel, it only sends signals for the brain to interpret. Obviously, the heart is part of a system of that interacts with your brain, but that is as far as it goes.

Again, it is not emotions and thoughts (ie mind) vs. sensation, it is mind And sensation. One without the other is an oxymoron. My computer has no mind as far as anyone can tell, but then, it has no sensation either.

I don't know where I brought up emotion. As far as a computer having a "mind", that depends on how you define "mind". But it definitely thinks, without having any emotion or sensation. And even humans have emotions without sensation. I'm sure that there are people somewhere who are completely numb. You don't need to feel a touch or taste a taste or see a sight to think, although, as humans, we might go just a little crazy without, but that is part of our genetic programming. Being happy or glad can be independent of sensual (that's not what I meant...you have a dirty mind) interaction with an outside world. Reasoning can be done without it, as well, as computers can be quite good at that.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
No, you may feel that your mama loves you, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. There are lots of women who are beaten by their "lovers" and swear that "he loves me, he really does". Now, if you analyze the person, you can have some idea of whether or not the person feels like she/he loves you. These same actions that you can analyze may also lead you to "feel" that she/he loves you, but either a) it's really your reasoning that tells you that or b) it's a coincidence.

Don't you start talkin' trash 'bout my mamma boy! Just kidding.

Actually there have been experiments done that validate my view. In one experiment people were asked to judge the difficulty of the slop of a hill they were about to climb. First they responded verbally then they were asked to demonstrate with their hand. The results of experiments like these showed beyond a reasonable doubt that these people's conscious minds at least were often dead wrong while their subconscious minds were dead on.

Similar results were discovered during split brain experiments. Essentially the verbally and mathematically adept half of the subjects' minds would frequently lie. It takes brains to lie effectively. The list of such experiments that demonstrate the power of emotion and intuition is long. To argue against such things without providing the slightest evidence is presumptuous to say the least.

I don't know where I brought up emotion. As far as a computer having a "mind", that depends on how you define "mind". But it definitely thinks, without having any emotion or sensation. And even humans have emotions without sensation. I'm sure that there are people somewhere who are completely numb. You don't need to feel a touch or taste a taste or see a sight to think, although, as humans, we might go just a little crazy without, but that is part of our genetic programming. Being happy or glad can be independent of sensual (that's not what I meant...you have a dirty mind) interaction with an outside world. Reasoning can be done without it, as well, as computers can be quite good at that.

The problem revolves around the principle of GIGO, which you are demonstrating very well right now. Garbage in, garbage out. If you told your computer to endlessly write "Wu Li Sucks" it would do so until it died. If that's your idea of intelligence or consciousness, you are welcome to it. I shall cultivate wisdom instead, which right now is telling me it is pointless to argue with you.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Actually there have been experiments done that validate my view. In one experiment people were asked to judge the difficulty of the slop of a hill they were about to climb. First they responded verbally then they were asked to demonstrate with their hand. The results of experiments like these showed beyond a reasonable doubt that these people's conscious minds at least were often dead wrong while their subconscious minds were dead on.

Well, first I would like to know how they explained verbally. I would assume that it was by giving the measure of the angles (degrees). However, describing it verbally and describing it with a hand gesture does not portray a difference between conscious and subconscious, only verbal and kinesthetic. Secondly, conscious and subconscious do not correlate to logical and emotional.

If you gave me a drawing with an angle, I could easily enough mimick the slope of the angle with my hand with relative accuracy. However, if you asked me to assign number to it, I would be less accurate. That is because of translation problems--converting visual information into numerical, and the ability to compare one angle to another (how many 1 degree angles fit into this drawing?). This is not a difference of emotional and logical, or even conscious and subconscious.

If this does not represent the example you provided, please give me more information.

Similar results were discovered during split brain experiments. Essentially the verbally and mathematically adept half of the subjects' minds would frequently lie. It takes brains to lie effectively. The list of such experiments that demonstrate the power of emotion and intuition is long. To argue against such things without providing the slightest evidence is presumptuous to say the least.

I don't have enough information here to adequately address this. I will say that intuition and emotion are not the same thing.

 

[FZ+]

The results of experiments like these showed beyond a reasonable doubt that these people's conscious minds at least were often dead wrong while their subconscious minds were dead on.

But, wuli, there were experiments too which show that people's conscious minds were dead right while their subconscious minds were dead wrong... Like the stories regarding "repressed memory haoxes".