The mind and the brain: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » The mind and the brain » The mind and the brain

The mind and the brain

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Last

The mind and the brain

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 10/03/08 - 05:15 AM:	#51
unenlightened wrote Independent of what? The mind? Illegitimate question, I say. What did you mean when you wrote this: "unless I am talking to God, you did not make the sunlight or the birds, and I certainly didn't." ?
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3284

Posted 10/03/08 - 12:04 PM:	#52
ragus wrote: unenlightened wrote: Independent of what? The mind? Illegitimate question, I say. What did you mean when you wrote this: "unless I am talking to God, you did not make the sunlight or the birds, and I certainly didn't." ? I'm sorry, this is the point at which I have to say that if you do not understand, I cannot better explain.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Mars Man
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Location: Matsumoto, Japan

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 898

Posted 10/03/08 - 04:37 PM:	#53
Retracking just a bit here, and while doing so, making an attempt (at least) to cover some points and concerns raised in the meantime by some, I'd like to go back to 'this' which is where I had left off at. That's on page two. The following passage, by unenlightened san, is where the term first appeared (if I have not missed something): So I would like to give priority to the fact of observation. I could say 'experience' but that has connotations of the past, and memory therefore. I mean, waking up as if for the first time before thought has got going, one opens one's eyes to this... Then reflecting upon 'this' in thought, one makes divisions and distinctions, inner and outer, mental and physical, observer and observed. That had been post #27, and I had engaged it in my #29. Now, it appears that I had mistakened the originally intended usage to some degree--mind you to some degree--as later posts seem to verify. My input in my #29 had been to deal with the linguistical aspects at hand, more than anything else. The reason for that is I really understand that both points of view presented are true in essence and presentation; neither are of a contrasting nor conflicting nature. I see the thread as fundamentally being on track with the theme (the OP's general content and questions) yet with various degrees of embedding which is to lead to a conclusion on a particular point in the argument in response to the OP. (At times, and this may just be me [but I suggest that it may well be valid], embedding could go down to at least three layers--more seems unproductive.) In my #29, I had held the major central nervous system organ responsible for animation in most animated life forms above the miroscopic levels--and especially in the case of the Homo sapien as the referent for the word 'this.' The application, or usage, which followed in unenlightened san's presentation, did not seem to cancel out, but simply to inclusively enlarge. I see no real problem with that other than a possible lack of focalization ease. In my #29, I had offered the following, if I may quote that here: Now in that we understand this this through observation and the collection of empirical knowledge much more than when even Elizabethan English had fully exited the stage, are we not free to reconnect our symbols (words) with the observation aggregate that is cognizable without verbal linguistic tools? My wording is not so good, actually--sorry about that. Our present day understanding of the brain--the major organ, as mentioned above--is such that we are surely free to . . . see quote. In post #53, above, reincarnated san had responded to a statement by Flannelgraph san in #26, page two, paragraph 3 (basically), viz. "The mind doesn't arise from the brain, but IS the brain (or more specifically - neuronal processes)." The statement made by Flannelgraph san can be seen as correct, in spite of the any lack of tightness of expression. Here, I suggest that the problem which reincarnated san is making effort to clarify, lies with the usage of the definite article, 'the.' 'The mind is brain' would surely sit much better. That is true--as I hope to further my argument in later sittings--in that conscious should be understood to be a continuum of operation of brain substance, and that any CNS organ rendered suddenly totally inoperative will yet have the substance which cognized mind in it--thus having a brain without mind is an impossibility. I will get back, little by little.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3284

Posted 10/03/08 - 05:39 PM:	#54
Oh dear, I can't seem to shut up on this one. Thanks for the summary Mars Man. Let me see if I can articulate my objection to 'The mind is brain'. In my language, the brain is something that can be observed. Now to say that something has been observed is to imply an observer that has observed it. On the one hand, I want to say that this is a false but necessary distinction, and that there is one thing called the 'observation'. But on the other hand, in saying that the mind is brain, one is in effect saying that everything is observed and nothing observes it, which doesn't seem right at all. Try it the other way round, 'Brain is mind' Well if brain is mind, surely everything is mind? But then we have lost the world. So can we say 'The mind is brain', but 'Brain is not mind'? I don't know what that would mean...
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2126

Posted 10/03/08 - 10:26 PM:	#55
Anteolsson anteolsson wrote: The mind is a property of the brain Unless the mind continues living beyond the person and the brain being dead. That is one of the reasons the question was thought of originally. You should take a look at a video I saw on www.ted.com which is about a woman who had a stroke and she temporarily lived outside her body. It is fantastically facinating. Please watch it here http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks...ful_stroke_of_insight.html At the end of the day, this is simply one person's claim about what she alleges she thought she experienced. As we all know, the mind is prone to all kinds of illusions and delusions, especially when we experience things which are unexpected, out of the ordinary or in unfamiliar circumstances, and many of these illusions we often don’t realize are illusions (indeed our minds can often refuse to accept they are illusions even when presented with evidence that they are). Our minds instinctively try to make sense of unintelligible, strange or random data by relating them to things that we know and we are familiar with in the everyday world, so it is hardly surprising that someone who has a near-death experience might believe that they are in a situation which is full of illusions (such as “living outside the body" ) without them knowing it or realizing it. Mars Man san Mars Man wrote: having a brain without mind is an impossibility Please could you show either experimental evidence, or your logical argument, which concludes that having a brain without a mind is an impossibility? What happens after death? In a corpse, we have a brain - are you claiming there is still a mind present?
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 618

Posted 10/04/08 - 04:40 AM:	#56
The word mind may be defined as the operation of a mechanism such that it may: -define its own goals and purposes, and manipulate thoughts to its own desire. But can the brain, a system of neural nets that exhibit effective target-seeking behaviour, work on its own or do these targets have to be externally set, mind? I am with the second.
This song will prepare you for a good smile.