cant be my mind cause my mind is the one giving them out.
2006-09-29 13:14:12 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
God dude
2006-09-29 13:16:05 · answer #1 · answered by Millo 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Assuming that by "giving them out" you mean "generating the image", there are several things that would need to be clarified in order to know that an attempted answer was focused accurately on what you are asking.
First, *is* anyone looking at the image of the apple? This would have just as much of a burden logically as the question of identifying the viewer.
Second, what is the difference between imagining an object and looking at an object?
Third, how do you know you are imagining an apple without making the same assumptions as if you were saying, "If I look at an apple in my mind, what is the object I'm looking at?"
In other words "imagine" in this context carries the same logical burden as "look at in my mind".
But, fourth, the main problem here is one of self-reference, and is very similar to doubting one's existence, while giving the presumed existence of the doubting entity a free ride, or stating Zeno's paradox, but giving the conditions of the paradox an exemption for the sake of successfully asserting it ("...because one must first traverse half the distance from A to B....").
The bottom line is that you're giving "imagine an apple" a free ride, while assuming that "looking at it" has some special burden that imagining an apple does not have, which begs the question: how do you know this?
Fifth, you would have to show why creating an image in your mind precludes your mind also being the entity looking at it.
Sixth, you'd have to show why it is you think some other mind or entity would be looking at the image.
Seventh, you'd have to show why it is you think anyone is looking at it at all. Wouldn't you have to be the one *observing* this other being doing the looking in order to know that anyone is looking at the image at all? And in that case you've already looked at the image yourself, in order to know that it's 1) there to be looked at, and 2) it's there while someone else is looking at it.
Finally, as I've said in other contexts, one of the most important questions that can be asked in the theory of knowledge or philosophy in general is:
What is assumed by that statement or question *itself*?
2006-09-29 21:01:09 · answer #2 · answered by cheapersunglassesdotcom 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By making the assumption that the apple you imagined is actually a tangible object, you are separating it from your mind, which was the origin of the apple and the source of it. If it were a real tangible apple, it wouldn't have imagined, and then in that case it can therefore be perceived (seen). If it was imagined, it cannot literally be seen per se, but rather, cognitively constructed.
2006-09-29 21:27:32 · answer #3 · answered by boo! 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your "minds eye" is looking at it !!
If a tree falls in the forest and you are not there, does it still make a sound??
Of coarse it does, you do not have to be present to know there must be the sound of the falling tree!
The same goes for your imagination, you can dredge up anything you have already seen with your eyes, close them and you can see just as plainly with the "minds eye", as you could by actually seeing it.
I think this goes for all the senses!
2006-09-29 20:43:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If another is looking at a real apple then you have misstated/misdescribed the mental event; the word "I" and verbs with its sentence connect them in a relationship in the description as the sentence with the active "I". If the image is message passively received, then the "I" is not active and should expressed in the passive, e.g. 'If my eyes are closed and an image come to my mind, is it mine to look at, or public domain or that of an unidentified mind.'
'cant be my mind cause my mind is the one giving them out.'
The mind is the owner of word 'my', e.g. 'my minds 'my' is mine and my minds mind is 'my', my='my'.'
2006-09-29 21:36:48 · answer #5 · answered by Psyengine 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When people close their eyes and imagine something the visual centers of the brain " light up " to scans. It is a complex problem, no longer a mystery. Read the latest in neurology and neurobiology.
2006-09-29 20:27:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It can be your mind because your mind can both create the apple and look at what it created. There's not an either/or situation on this one.
2006-09-29 20:26:40 · answer #7 · answered by WhiteLilac1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your eyes are only an instrument that your brain needs to see,when you imagine an apple it's because your eyes saw it before and your mind recorded it and kept it in it's file.if you were born blind your mind wouldn't be able to imagine an apple because it wouldn't have a record of it in it's files
2006-09-29 20:26:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are. You see it. You see all the details. You have one point of view of the apple, that is where you are standing. YOU are looking at the apple.
2006-09-29 22:19:15 · answer #9 · answered by rumple_teazer001 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not just imaginable apple but everything and anything happened in your mind....calamity is, that true you is among happenings within mind, lost and confused...not knowing that "lost and confused" is not "happening" but a Cause of all Happening.....
2006-09-29 20:22:02 · answer #10 · answered by Oleg B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YOU are!
Which proves that YOU are not your Mind or your Body.
Well done you are on the road to self awareness.
2006-09-29 22:51:22 · answer #11 · answered by thetaalways 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋