Everything in the mind has its basis in the feeling, humanity's mind is the result of humanity's feeling. The human feeling is basically needs, and those needs are either material or immaterial (moral). The animal doesn't have moral needs, and its feeling is comprised of instincts related to its existence, preserving its species, safety, food etc… . This is indicated by the fact that animals have no principles or morals. Thus, when we talk about the nature of man we should bear in mind the duality of this nature, for man has two natures: material and moral. 

Both the sane and the insane person have the same needs, but they won't meet those needs the same way due their different mental capabilities. The mind is the tool of the feeling to deal with the external material world, and the material world is the embodiment of the mind and from it the mind takes its vocabulary. The is indicated by the material origin of the vocabulary of the language, and language is the means to communicate the feeling and the mind.

Let's assume that both those two persons were inside a burning room, both the feelings of the sane and the insane want to escape, but chances for the sane to survive are higher. Because they can go beyond the limits of the room with their mind which makes them know the right way more than the weak-minded. Here the mind is a servant of the feeling, and that's why God has praised people of minds in the Quran, and the good mind is the one that accurately follows the feeling and provides solutions that meet the feeling's needs and don’t oppose other feelings. The feeling itself is a huge package of feelings and emotions moving in isolated lines. So, there must be a mind to coordinate their symphony and prevent them from contradicting one another, as does the maestro with tens of music players.   

Coordination often occurs between moral feelings and material ones, as in the need for food which the mind regulates using a higher need like fasting or wrongness of stealing. If it wasn’t for this coordination, there will be chaos and conflicts that harm the human and make them contradict themselves.

Thus, the right mind is the one taken from nature -material and moral-, and not a product of society, religion or circumstances like what materialists and atheists claim, and under such notion they demand rebellion against all we took from society. This is like an implied call to rebel against reason, and after that they boast about their reasonability!     

I'm defending sound reason, not everything we took from our societies, but they want us to revolt against everything! And at the same time they wants us to obey and submit to all our animalistic instincts! No matter how weak they were, and they demand that we neglect all what our virtuous instincts tell us, no matter how strong they were. The result ,then, will be animalism, to add fuel to the fire of the evolution theory which gives scientific cover to say that: you are animals! So practice your animality otherwise you'll have psychological illnesses as Dawkins and Freud repeatedly say, after they had denuded man from the best thing in them: their higher instincts, and contended themselves with the lower instincts.      

Every correct knowledge humanity gains is a mind added to the previously accumulated mind, including scientific facts. When a science is proven to be a fact it becomes logic (which part of the mind). Every proven knowledge becomes part of reason and logic whether material or moral, without contradicting the previously built knowledge which humanity made sure of through experience. Thus, science is mind and mind is science, but the mind is more general while science is specific.   

For example, man feels cold so they try to remember where they put their heavy clothes, look for firewood or think of a new heating system etc… . All those operations are mental operations preceded by the feeling of cold. So, the feeling precedes the mind. Therefore the mind is a servant of the feeling.

People feel annoyed by crowded cars for example, or car accidents, so the mind starts working and making traffic laws, traffic signs, bridges etc…, in an attempt to solve the problem that annoyed the feeling.

People feel pain from illnesses, that is why the science of medicine emerged. People feel tired of travel, that is why they invented the world of transportation and communication, and so on and so forth.

Thus, man is basically a follower of the feeling not the mind. Yes sometimes we follow the mind before we feel, but that's due to the belief that this mind is built of the basis of feeling. But when we discover its opposition to the feeling we abandon it and look for another mental solution. This applies to everything, from finding a suitable way to cook food to a whole ideology. 

If humanity were followers of the mind they wouldn’t have repeatedly abandon it and change it, and there wouldn’t be so many people who oppose it. We find a group of people trying to solve the problem of traffic jams or any other problem, they agree on the basis which is there is a problem and it harmed them, but they differ in the way to solve it.

One proof of the notion that the feeling is what moves humanity is the constant change of means through civilizations while having the same needs, like the need for safety, comfort, survival etc…. The ancients were looking for means to help them in their lives even though they didn’t know electricity or trains, but they used their minds to solve their problems, and the need is still the same. Therefore, the feeling is the motivator and it's always first, and science has never stopped, which means that the mind has never stopped.   

On this basis, we have two types of learning: Strong learning and weak learning. Strong learning is the one that comes directly from the feeling to mind, i.e. starts from the need. The weak learning is what starts from the mind to the feeling, on the assumption that this mind is built from the feeling. Modern education is based on weak learning, which crams into the student's mind issues and assumptions which they didn’t feel the need for and didn’t concern them, where what concerns them is neglected. This forces students to blind memorization which is rarely held by the feeling, because memory is connected to the feeling.

Notice yourself when you say: I wanna do something but I donno what it is and how do I do it! This happens to us all the time. What started it is a feeling and then came the mind and the memory. The mind works through the memory and who has no mind has no memory. Intelligence is the speed, accuracy and capacity to load information and to expose them to both memory and feelings.  

Memory is controlled by the feeling. notice that when a person forgets something, they're sure they've forgotten something but don't know what it is, and then they start thinking and remembering until they remember. So, the feeling doesn’t forget, and everything that is connected to the feeling can't be forgotten, for no one forgets the things they love even people with amnesia, they didn't literally lose memory otherwise they will forget how to eat or how to walk! All skills can't be forgotten, even playing the piano.  

This discussion occurred in a philosophy group on Facebook between Alwarraq and two other members:

"only ideas are immaterial , and ideas do not "exist" ideas are true or false, logical or paradoxical but not existing. When you ride a bicycle, the bicycle exists but the "act of riding" does not exist, it is a function, not an object. When you have 3 apples, the apples exist, but the "number 3" does not, it's a concept in your mind. When you love your girlfriend, the oxytocin and serotonin in your brain exists, but the "feeling of love" does not, it is an idea, an act of mental computation.Love, numbers, logic, even self awareness, those are not existing things, those are functioning algorythms of mind. Actions and functions, not objects or beings."


Millions of chemical reactions take place in the brain, why is it that those specific reactions have names known to all of us and we know nothing about the others? And why do they affect us so much that they shape our lives? And why among all the reactions we only love those few, e.g. love? Actually we live our life for those specific "chemical reactions"! For when you ask anybody about their goal in life they`ll definitely tell you: to be happy, joyful and loved by all, which as you said don`t exist!

According to your logic there is no such thing as motion, there is only gearwheels and oil and some other parts, for motion has no physical existence and no atoms. This ignorant idea kills reason, logic, science and physics –which depends on motion-. Science and logic needed to be killed in order to kill religion.

Is denying motion the outcome of what you call "being smart"? Why does it have laws since it doesn`t exist? This idea is what violates science not religion.

According to your logic this website doesn`t exist, only people and computers do! You also don`t exist because you are only shoulders and kidneys…etc, even your kidney doesn`t exist there are only small particles!

Any noun that stands for collective things doesn`t exist according to what you've said, this is the deconstructive materialist view, like the materialist professor from that story when he entered a university and started asking: where is the university? I only saw buildings, classrooms, and people!

However, in the issue of souls we have a different situation, for the body can lose many parts and yet the soul still the same, but if you take away many of the university`s important divisions it won't be a university anymore. The soul doesn`t change as long as there is a life, for a person who lost his hands and legs can talk to you in the same way he used to before losing them, therefore the soul isn`t a result of the body parts, for a person who has an artificial heart, no arms and legs, transfused blood, blind, deaf, has an implanted kidney and liver and even some parts of his brain are taken out and yet he`s still the same person with the same thinking, taste and even likes the type of cheese he used to prefer.

To conclude, the whole idea is, firstly, illogical in terms of the outside world and, secondly, doesn’t apply to humans.

Motion is one of the results of material correlations; those correlations take place in the human body producing things like heat and motion. That being said, where do feelings and soul come from?

Material parts came together and we called that gathering: a university for example. The body parts came together and we call that: a human, the correlations of those body parts produced motion and energy, but humans have things other than just those, what are they? What are the feelings, ideas and consciousness?

In the example of the university, that "gathering" produced a university not consciousness. When you make a machine you collect pieces and they produce energy and motion, but why doesn't it produce consciousness? Why is it that only we, living organisms, have consciousness?

Any correlation among material parts produces things different than the composing parts, when you put together bricks, doors, windows…, you`ll make a room, i.e. a new material formation, but they don`t produce consciousness. Any material aggregation will produce new formations, new motion, and new energy (law), but it doesn`t produce growth, self-maintenance, consciousness, feelings, nor ideas.

Matter is everywhere, pick up some parts and construct whatever you like, will you be able to get consciousness? Then why don`t you admit that this thing can`t be produced? And life only comes from life?

All brain activities are results of commands coming from an unknown source, e.g.: a woman thinks then remembers her late mother then cries, if she didn`t think those chemicals in the brain wouldn`t have reacted, which makes this reaction -crying- a result not a reason. Our feelings of love, happiness etc.., are all started by outer causes, they don`t produce themselves. The process goes this way: a cause comes from the outside then touches upon something inside of us which affects the brain chemicals. For instance, you encounter someone who threatens you then you get angry and then the Adrenaline "kicks in" to make you ready to attack. It`s not that Adrenaline comes from itself first and then you feel angry and look for someone to fight with!

This is similar to your will, first you "want" to move your hand then brain activity occurs, after that your hand moves. You can even command your brain to move your hand and yet stop it from moving.

All the brain processes goes like this: a command then the brain start working, and it`s not always capable of following that command, as in when you want to scratch your back but your hand doesn`t reach it. Also like who lost his hand but still feels that he can move it. That shows us that our will is different from our brain and that the brain is merely a tool. A hemiplegic person tries to speak but can`t utter words properly; for his vocal tract isn`t working properly, yet he still tries like the paralyzed who tries to stand up.

Any action you make there is a command that took place before it, and that becomes clear in big commands like when you want to get out of a room, but even a small scratch has a precedent command TO the brain, not FROM the brain. That`s why some patients are tied to the bed after certain types of surgeries, because a person with a broken leg for example might forget that and stand up.

Will is different than the brain, a proof of that is that sometimes the will commands the brain but it can`t fulfill that command. Also, the brain gets tired but the will doesn`t.

Dreams –while sleeping- are unchained by a person`s abilities and they only respond to our will. Imagination is also unchained by abilities, so is genius.

Genius (as a noun) is higher than and untied by thinking, for genius has nothing to do with intelligence. Anyone who said or discovered something genius always says that he/she doesn`t know how it came out of him/her, if it was a result of thinking (intelligence) s/he would`ve known. Why is it that a genius remark always comes in a glimpse? And thinking is a long process, isn`t it? also, why is it that genius people don`t believe that they are smart? And why does s/he need other people`s encouragements to trust his/her geniality? If it was from his/her own mind s/he would`ve known if s/he`s smart or not. A proof of that is that many genius ideas and great melodies come in our dreams, even though the brain`s performance in our sleep is lower than when we are awake!

Whenever the mind is active creativity is absent (law), a proof of that is, for instance, when you give a poet a paper and a pen and tell him: You better write some nice lines! Here the poet won`t be creative because his mind is active

For your entire post, there is a simple answer: one, that you used yourself "...This view even denies the existence of any phenomena..." And that is that. There is a difference between "action" and "existence", between what is "happening" and what is "existing". "Processes" do not exist. This does not mean that processes are not important, or that we dismiss the influence of the processes on the objects. Both are equaly important, just different.

And yes, I can say that "I do not exist". My Self, my mind is not "existing". It is "happening".
Just because ideas, perceptions, and processes do not exist, doesn't mean that the world is any worse, than the idealist world. I know for certain that I do not have an immaterial soul, that my mind is just a temporary process of my material brain.
And that makes life, and my mind, precious, awesome and unique.


Does what happens exist or not? Isn`t the "happening" an evidence of existence?
This is how materialism burns the mind and human intelligence, it makes the mind goes back to the early years of childhood where nothing exists except material pieces, and we don`t want to be nonexistent infants! 

Why do you say that it doesn`t exist since it`s important? It`s impossible for something to be important and nonexistent at the same time! What doesn`t exist is nothing, and the importance of nothing=0!

I can`t really understand this persistence on nonexistence even though having an existent effect! Negating the existence of something while admitting its effect is something the mind can`t possibly imagine! I don`t know how will I understand you if the mind doesn`t understand what you said! how did you understand what you`ve said?! What are the tools you used to understand it? Why -at least- didn`t you call it a different type of existence? Totally negating existence is an irrational claim. 

I wonder what is left of your mind to be precious! That`s a mind that negates the existence of a thing and at the same time admits its effect!

David Kappelt:

I can't fucking wait until we can one day build a cybernetic brain that perfectly duplicates your brain, and then have it replicate your emotions perfectly, and you try to still fucking say that LOVE and FEAR and HATE are transcendental emotional "SOUL-STATES"
      Read a fucking book dude


Where`s what you`ve discovered in this field, even if it`s a small step, to support this huge hope that has no basis nor a string that might lead to the possibility of creating emotions in a science lab? 

This is an impossible-to-realize type of imagination. The possible imagination has some parts that are actualized in reality, and the impossible imagination is what has no realized part whatsoever, not even something similar to it is in reality. I wish that the difference between the two types of imagination be taken in consideration.

Flying was thought of as impossible but it was actually possible because there are birds flying in the air, but no one has proved an idea or emotion to be material, and we don`t find examples for it in nature, diving in the deep oceans, however, we find whales and fish doing it so it`s possible to do so.
This is the fucking deconstructed mind that`s close to meet with extinct dinosaurs!