>> On Sep 5, 1:45 pm, "Sean"
blah.com> wrote:>>> "brian fletcher"
bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:fLzDi.31664$4A1.7636@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> "Sean"
blah.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:46db3eb5$0$22253$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...>>>
>>>>>>>> Is one of the latest greatest BBC documnetaries doing the rounds.
>>>
>>>>>>>> The brain is clearly shown to be a computer that responds to
>>>>>>>> direction, at least at the creative level.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Even this superb doco con-fuses the brain with the mind, even
>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>> one of the main subjects is 'creative visualisation'.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Who does the visualising?
>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually Arnold S used to practice this technique in his youth,
>>>>>>>> without having a clue about the brain chemistry.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Just goes to prove, intelligence is not linked to creating of
>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>>> power bases, be it physical or political.
>>>
>>>>>>>> The doco clearly explains how creative visualisation 'bridges' the
>>>>>>>> neuron synapses. Didnt go far enough to identify the syanpses
>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>> brains.
>>>
>>>>>>>> That comes much later !!!
>>>
>>>>>>>> BOfL
>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't you mean the synapses between 'minds'? ;-)
>>>
>>>>>>> Really brian, people are just going to say that 'you're out of your
>>>>>>> mind here!
>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, if the responses to my previous posts that the mind and
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> brain are not in reality the exact same 'things' is any indication
>>>>>>> ....
>>>>>>> well at least the Dalai Lama understands it. [ as per SoT's new
>>>>>>> thread ]
>>>
>>>>>> What we call "the mind" usually refers to an aspect of the brain.
>>>
>>>>> I am not 'we", you maybe are part of this "we", but I AM not ... I'm
>>>>> quite happy to sit here knowing it's more than just the brain .. ok?
>>>>> If
>>>>> that bothers "we", whoever "we" is, well "we" can do and say what
>>>>> "we"
>>>>> wishes to do. ;-)
>>>
>>>>>> Because the brain is so complex we break it down into aspects to
>>>>>> help
>>>>>> define and describe, but it is all brain, right?
>>>
>>>>> Wrong .. next query?
>>>
>>>>>> I say this to counter the notion that "the mind" is something more
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> the brain.
>>>
>>>>> Say what you like my friend, but that doesn't make it accurate or
>>>>> true.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> "The mind" may be more precise but only because it excludes so much
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the brain's aspects. Maybe.
>>>
>>>> "We" agree. Ahhhh, thats what the "royal" we refers to hehehehehe
>>>
>>>> BOfL
>>>
>>> "We" do indeed kind sir .. .. care for a quick game of crochet old chum
>>> before tea?
>>>
>>> Court here is getting a bit tiresome, and so soon already ... tis
>>> wearing,
>>> all these stuffed shirts ;-))
>>>
>>> But spring is here now, so I hope to get out more soon enough, get some
>>> sun
>>> and trees and surf, go into the country to places haven't been before
>>> down
>>> this way, and who knows what, may even pop into the old parliment again
>>> for
>>> a laugh, .... at least some exercise is in order, apart from that all is
>>> well.
>>>
>>> I will drop into town a few times while the big show is on here, and
>>> observe
>>> what goes down ... interesting times in which we live. Many people are
>>> very
>>> very touchy, others spinning tops. Others sort of exhausted, and way too
>>> stressed. of course, there;s just as many who are happy and enjoying
>>> themselves. I am grateful my life has calmed down a lot, much slower
>>> pace,
>>> less neg. drama and changes pushing thru .. past a few health dramas, so
>>> hit
>>> a bit of a rest point mate. I'm making the most of it .. might just keep
>>> this up for a long time. Can't think of anything else I need to do .. so
>>> I've enjoyed this time around here .. always good to see some
>>> improvement in
>>> understanding by retracing ones steps anew. Much more enjoyable and
>>> detached
>>> this time around, imho. - Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> So, I have a perception that the "mind" and the "brain" are not
>> synonymous, but of course, closely related. The brain is the physical
>> apparatus that allows me the intangible awareness of self and
>> surroundings of my mind. How do you define both to make them not
>> equivalent to each other?
>>
>> K e v
>>
>
> An excellent question. And yes they are of course intricately related [
> much more than closely ]
> What we have here though is a challenge in semantics .. and this relates
> to my other post about "ineffable". Some things are difficult to say, and
> transfer that understanding to another, because all we have is "words" ...
> but these words mean different things to different people .. not just in a
> language sense, but in a consciousness and awareness sense as well.
>
> So Phil is not very happy with me, given his reply to you. :-( But this is
> more to do with semantics, or the meanings of what he and I are trying to
> convey. That is where the apparent disagreement is ... but really I have
> no disagreement with him and his perspective. What Phil says, and means,
> is indeed true .. up to a point, but it is still accurate from that level
> of understanding about what's going on with our brains, minds and
> consciousness.
>
> So, got you really confused now? But it's important Kev ... it's
> not always easy to discern the differences and nuances in what people are
> meaning. Straight away Phil is assuming that my perspective is a danger
> and unscientific because it's tending to bring in the notions of G-d,
> magic and miracles. But that's his "perspective" not mine.
>
> And yet isn't it a "miracle" that we are here at all? Isn't it somewhat
> mysterious how this brain/mind thing actually works, given as Phil has
> said we still do not yet have all the scienctific knowledge to comprehend
> what's happening .. there are gaps all over the place and despite great
> strides in real accurate knowledge over the last few decades .... more of
> the brain is still a mystery, or a miracle, than what is actually known to
> date.
>
> OK, so that's the background to my response, I hope it helps set the stage
> e for my best attempt at an useful answer for you to ponder upon and
> observe .... back to your question ..
>
> In a way it's back to front ... a stab at a definition does not make
> something "not equivalent". Either it is or it isn't equivalent. That's
> where the truth is ... the definition is not the truth, but a shadow
> trying to convey the image of something. So we are back to semantics .. my
> defintions and analogies cannot prove anything, one has to see it for
> themselves.
>
> The first step is to suspend one's existing beliefs about it .. that is
> dump everything you've ever heard about the brain/mind .. and start from a
> blank slate. That btw is how good science works, men of vision try not to
> let pre-existing beliefs colour their current experiments. So let's try to
> "think" outside the existing boxes, and for a period of time IMAGINE that
> the brain and the mind are in fact two separate entities, that work under
> as yet unknown rules and sets of scientific laws. Accpet that, if this was
> true, that magic, and mircales has absolutely nothing to do with it, and
> that if it was true then it would be as simple as the moon spinning around
> the earth ... IF it was true, and IF one was able to see it, and
> understand it fully.
>
> So in this point I have to agree with Phil again ... when real knowledge
> and truth is uncovered it is usually very SIMPLE ... after the event that
> is. So if my ideas are true and valid, then we can expect them to be
> simple and basically obvious when an understanding of how things works is
> understood.
>
> What makes it complicated and difficult is not letting go of pre-existing
> beliefs that can no longer stand the test of time and new knowledge and
> have to be jetisonned first.
>
> What people often miss is that these beliefs need to be SUSPENDED as being
> true, BEFORE the new or different perspective can even enter the mind to
> be pondered upon ... before that the gate to this info is as tightly
> closed as a Fort Know vault, without the combination codes.
>
> Am I waffling? yes, and no ... I am hopelfully laying down a bit of a
> template for everything here, not just how to look at this mind/brain
> issue. But everything that you believe, and recognising when new info is
> trying to come in and it creates a disturbance in the FORCE [ as per
> Starwars ] .... that is when one's beliefs gets challenged and it creates
> ripples of dissonance .... we cherish our beliefs, they are like our
> closest loved ones and we hold to them dearly, and we often hit a lot of
> FEAR when we are being challenged to accept that maybe, we might lose our
> preciousnesses [ that's a Lord of Rings analogy ] , because we think that,
> or believe that our beliefs are a real part of ourselves ... when they are
> not. They are just beliefs we have formed in the absence of any better
> belief, or theory.
>
> So, if you picked up on this clearly you may see where I am making an
> obvious analogy to scientific endeavour and how science operates .. it is
> no different in "theory". IOW science works in exactly the same way
> they we work as human beings, and science is just a natural outflow of
> this greater Principle within ourselves and our basic nature. The
> Macrocosm and Microcosm, as above so below type of thing. Everything
> operates to particular higher principles, and the brain/mind is no
> different in this regard.
>
> Are you following me here? I think it's important.
>
> Ok, so let's not forget that science looks at things by pulling them apart
> and seeing how they work. Over time this process has taken science into
> smaller and smaller spaces and workings .. now we deal with unseen forces
> like genetics, synapses in the brain, and Qantum Physics etc ... but hwat
> hasn't chnaged is that all ove these thingsd always worked that way they
> did, science hasn't changed that ... and the things that science as yet
> does not know still also wrok the way they do, and they always will. Why
> is this important? To remind us that there's always more to what's
> occuring than science thinks it knows. Surely that's a truism, so let's
> not make the mistake of turning Science into a God-like being, because by
> it's very nature Science has a long record of being incredibly fallible,
> even if it is presented as being self-correcting over time, it is proven
> to be seriously flawed to some degree at ALL times in it's history. So
> accept that before things are corrected, let's not kid ourselves that
> before each of these little steps of improvement the Science was indeed
> NOT accurate, or NOT totally true.
>
> Now that is a known principle from our very own expereince ... and yet,
> each time some great discovery is seemed to be made, people, being people,
> can't help but shout from the rooftops about this great new truth that has
> been discovered by Science .... bollocks I say .. let's see it for what it
> IS, another small good step, or a complete error due to bad science
> even, - Thalidamide - Agent Orange - Psychiatry - and keep it all in
> perspective, knowing tomorrow someone will come along and claim another
> theory based on more so-called irrefutable scientific factual evidence
> from a new study saying - "ooops that ain't actually right, what happens
> is this" - and on and on we go.
>
> But, that does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water,
> science is indeed a valuable tool for mankind, it works, it helps in many
> ways - yet in many other ways it is still useless and seriously limited.
>
> Anyway, science breaks things down into parts, into smaller nits, and
> through this science discovers how things work.
>
> Next they say becasue this how this thing works that is WHY this other
> thing does what it does, or they theorise WHY this or why that based upon
> this new information uncovered in reserach.
>
> This is a mistake usually .... How things work, does not ever answer WHY
> things work, or why they work the way that they do .... this is where
> science goes beyond it;'s scientific rigour and conjectures about things,
> and it is these conjectures that are fundamnetally [ yes read
> fundamentalists here ] based upon nothing more than the scientist's
> beliefs, or those who read the scientists work about "how", and then their
> beliefs project that into WHY about all manner of things .... this imho is
> also complete bollocks usually.
>
> Scinece can observe what happens, and then it can theorise about how this
> happens, when this happens, in an overall process of physics or biology
> .... but it can never answer the really big questions ... and they always
> include the word : WHY ? .... and in particular HOW does all this "little
> stuff" fit into the BIG PICTURE of How and Why?
>
> Such theories are always guesswork, always based upon one's personal
> beliefs about the "big picture", and WHY are we here, as opposed to not
> here. When people use Science at this level of theorising they are
> operating on a level of mythology and beliefs, no different than any
> religion has done since the beginning of time.
>
> Why can I say this ? easy, because from their own science they admit that
> they in fact do not KNOW. There just isn;'t enough evidence available to
> answer such questions. One can Philosophise all they want, be as rational
> in "thought and logic" all they want, but all of this is based upon a
> floating foundation of BELIEFS about what is, and why is it so.
>
> What's all this got to do with the brain? Everything!
>
> Now we might have a foundation upon which to discuss your query in an
> open-minded fashion. others will of course disagree and suggest such a
> foundation is irrelevant for any number of reasons. That's their choice.
>
> Your question was - "How do you define both to make them not equivalent to
> each other?"
>
> There are many ways that we could explore and look at this question, so I
> am going to leave most of that up to you. Here I am going to give some
> simple ideas, some analogies, and queries back to you. let's see where it
> might take us?
>
> The brain is the physical computer installed with non-physical software.
> The software is the laws of nature programmed into all beings.
>
> The Mind, is the non-physical power that dreamt up and created the
> Software, which in turn programmed the material computer. And more than
> that the Mind is the power behind the physcial computer being made
> physically the way it exists.
>
> The physical computer has different parts that do diffferent things ..
> there's RAM memory, there hard disc storage files from which to retrieve
> older memory .. and store the installed software [ or rules/laws ] of what
> the physical computer can or can't do.
>
> The Mind is also the person sitting at the keyboard, and telling the
> computer what to execute and when. This Mind can instruct the computer to
> work well, or it can totally fuck it up and make it crash. The attitdue of
> the person sittin gat the computer is the primary cause of what that
> computer will be used for and how well it will be maintained.
>
> There is another mind, far more advanced, that was able to create the
> computer and the software, so that the "little Mind" could sit in front of
> it and run that computer even though that "little mind/person" does NOT
> HAVE A CLUE HOW IT ACTUALLY WORKS, or why it was made like it was in the
> first place.
>
> How's this analogy working for you so far?
>
> Rememeber it's an analogy, and a parable ... what I am speaking of is
> "ineffable" in a way, so I am only "pointing towards the Truth" and not
> stating it in full or specifically ... it's a shadow or a hazy reflection
> off the water in the lake of the huge mountain in the distance. it is not
> the mountain itself. See?
>
>
> Next .... science shows us that there are things like DNA, Genes, and
> Nerve cells in the brain. These things all do have various physical
> functions that can be clearly observed in physicality. We can see them
> working through our advanced technology today. These things are real,
> obviously, and all of this comes together as the workings, the HOW of the
> brain ...
>
> OK ... we know that when we are thinking or feeling, that activity takes
> place in the brain. That is clear.
>
> But in our computer analogy we can see the same stuff ... the hard drives
> spin, the data is copied and movee from one part of the computer to
> another, and then we can observe a page of text being printed out on the
> printer. That's simple .... it is all self-contained .... except for one
> thing .... such obseravtion does NOT tell you WHY the comouter is taking
> those actions, only HOW those actions are being performed.
>
> The WHY belongs in the motivation and purpose of the person who instructed
> the computer to act in that particualr way, as opposed to selecting a song
> to play instead of printing a document.
>
> The actions of the computer do not, and cannot tell us WHY the person
> chose to instruct the compuer to print a document as opposed to play a
> song .... that is beyond the observations of the computer itself to inform
> us. All we know is that for some reason or other the messages were
> inputted from the keyboard or the mosue and the computer acted as "nature"
> built it.
>
> The Computer is the Brain ... the person giving instructions to it is the
> MIND.
>
> Without the Mind being in control .. the brain will just sit there .. if
> the sceen saver is switched on [ a GENE is active ] the monitor will
> switch off into dreamtime and just sit there. When there are faults in the
> software or the hardware ... eg Genes don't work or brain damage has
> occured .. then the computer won't work properly. If you observed any
> weird [ insane ] actions of the computer ... one could assume that the
> person at the controls [ the Mind ] was a bit whacko and giving wrong
> instructions ... BUT this would be an assumption, because all one can
> observe is the activity of the computer itself .... one might 'discover"
> that the hard drive is faulty ... and should be replaced ....... but that
> doesn;'t mean the person operating the computer is also faulty, only that
> the system is screwed up, and is now beyond the control of the Mind to do
> anything about it.
>
> This of course speaks to brain damage and faulty genes ..... but it
> doesn't mean the Mind is not still there and fully fundtional in itself
> ..only that the communciation circuits between the Mind and the Brain are
> damaged.
>
> So, this analogy points to the idea, that both the Mind and the brain are
> needed to work effectively, and that communication betiween the two PARTS
> are necessary for satisfactorty operations and goals being met.
>
> Now, one last idea to ponder at the same time.
>
> We know from science that at synapses electrical activity and chemical
> activity occurs, it is observable. When we have a thought, or make soem
> action this activity can be observed in particualr areas of the brain .
> This is all physcially true, and real. You can see it, experiemnets prove
> this happens ... and they can follow nerves etc that link up with other
> physical things like legs, hearts, and eyes.
>
> The we can also see physical things like heads turning, or people making
> love, and we know that all these synapes are firing away, and chemicals
> are flowing through the brain and the body.
>
> So when someone has a "thought" science can observe activity in the brain.
> Is this cause, or this this effect?
>
> Science can show us HOW this activity intergrates with the actions of the
> bigger aspects of the body, yes.
>
> But what comes first the chicken or the egg?
>
> So, a scientist can show you where in the brain and how in the brain
> particualr activity is centered and where action happens when someone has
> thoughts.
>
> Now, ask that scientist to 'show" you a thought!
>
> have yo ever seen a 'thought' Kev?
>
> I want to you to stop, clear your head, and imagine in your Mind ... a
> three story building made of bricks, painted HOT PINK ... and you can just
> make out the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders dancing naked on the roof ...
>
> Do it now!
>
> OK?
>
> Now show me that thought in your Mind Kev. Show me that "thought" in your
> Brain Kev.
>
> No, don't show me MRI scans of synapses flashing, or chemicals moving to
> your groin or your heart rate increasing over the cheerleaders ... show
> me the THOUGHT, show me the IMAGE you had, the specific one YOU HAD .....
>
> Yes you could draw a picture of it, you could describe what you saw in
> your mind kev, but it is NOT the thought itself, it is NOT the IMAGE
> ........ because that is totally NON-PHYSICAL .. yes it is a thing, but it
> is not physically real.
>
> What happened in your Brain IS physically real ... but the thought itself?
>
> What do you think?
>
> And has what i have said here helped in any way? I could give many more
> exmaples and analogies, and many more ways that you can test things and
> experiment with yourself .... no one elses opinions will have anyhting to
> do with it ... mine included.
>
> But are you able to get to a space, where you can 'suspend your existing
> beliefs' ???
>
>
>
> BTW Thanks for asking, much appreciated mate!
>
> Cheers Sean
>
It all sounds good, but it seems you are just saying that it is too complex
to understand so we can't call the mind part of the brain, but another part,
somehow independent. If brain damage occurs, the failure is not in
communications between parts, but in part of a system, so integrated that
the best analogy is weak. Software does not recreate hardware, and software
is not created by hardware. The weakness of the analogy is what bugs me, I
suppose, so I want to say (as you did) to remember it is an analogy but want
to add to not try to clarify the ineffability of it by deconstructing into
brain and mind, but by saying it is ineffable because it is a complex
system. I know we must use the term "the mind" but only to indicate (limit
to) the aspect of the brain to which we refer :-) (or not if you think it is
separate or at least mostly independent ( I like that "at least mostly..")
The brain created the mind, and the mind recreates the brain, whereupon the
brain recreates the mind. (all the time really really fast)
That may seem too simple and even wrong, as the brain does not change in any
large way, but the synapses are small and many and the networks are nearly
infinite (close enough for our understanding). The brain and mind are
constantly changing to a great extent in the aspects we are talking about
here. The brain does not grow in size particularly or shape or overall
character, but in the most important ways that make us human - the ability
for mechanical means to create what SEEMS so intangible. The mind is a
state, created by the brain and through the mind the brain is changed - the
networks and patterns of activity are physical, electrochemical (and maybe
some other forces we can't detect but are NOT magic.) The networks and paths
that are used most or are imprinted deepest are ones we use and remember. A
smell can bring a memory because smell is so important to us and hooked into
very strong primitive imprinting methods in the brain. You are scarred for
life by smell. The tiny path is plowed into a superhighway system and years
later even a whiff of the smell can find that dusty overgrown and unused
imprint with no problem and with no higher thought.
The miracle to me is that it is nothing other than the brain ... There can
be a brain with no mind, but no mind without the brain.
The 'mind' is the processes we conveniently assign to "mind" aspects of the
brain, and rightly so for everyday use, but this is alt.philosophy, for
Pete's sake!
So, am I wrong?
and who is Pete?
-Phil Clemence
