# Is the Mind Master or Slave?



## ExtraIntroVertical (Feb 27, 2016)

The title is a little misleading as pertains to my ultimate question...but I am nonetheless curious. I know this has been debated for centuries, just wanted to see if anyone has a fresh perspective...so here goes.

Is the mind dependent on the physical brain or are the two autonomous? If dependent, why? If autonomous, why? And is it possible that each is dependent on the other? Thanks!


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Gosh I dunno. I am a bit tired of the mind/body dualism that has penetrated so much of society. I don't even know if it was meant to be taken so literally and black-and-white, as it has been. Then there is the idea of emergence of mind (from physical properties).. which seems to make sense, until you think more from a quantum physics perspective (what makes physical properties the foundation of non-physical properties when the foundation of physical reality also has properties of waves?) I think it'd be more accurate to say that the mind as a "master" is the integration and synchronization of all the mind's activity (and the body's, for that matter), whereas any individual activity, brain or body part is a "slave" - working for a higher goal. So the "ego" mind (instinctual drives, survival, emotional centers) are - or at least, should be - enslaved to the "master" which is the extent to which the mind ("consciousness") can sync itself. I don't think there is a central syncing area like a CPU, as it's been proposed lately that consciousness is decentralized.


----------



## SilverKelpie (Mar 9, 2015)

ExtraIntroVertical said:


> Is the mind dependent on the physical brain or are the two autonomous? If dependent, why? If autonomous, why? And is it possible that each is dependent on the other? Thanks!


Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question here, but if you don't have a brain, you ain't gonna have a mind. Sounds dependent to me.


----------



## ExtraIntroVertical (Feb 27, 2016)

SilverKelpie said:


> Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question here, but if you don't have a brain, you ain't gonna have a mind. Sounds dependent to me.


I see your point. Hard for the mind to exist if the brain doesn't...but I was more interested in mind operation /brain operation...can the mind be diseased and the brain not diseased? can the brain be diseased and the mind not diseased? I wasn't asking that precise question, but more of a general question in that realm.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

ExtraIntroVertical said:


> I see your point. Hard for the mind to exist if the brain doesn't...but I was more interested in mind operation /brain operation...can the mind be diseased and the brain not diseased? can the brain be diseased and the mind not diseased? I wasn't asking that precise question, but more of a general question in that realm.


This makes me think of neurological, vs. physiological, vs psychiatric illness. Psychiatric is perhaps the hardest to conceptualize because it seems to be "mind" as well as brain. It would seem that psychological "disease" is less directly physical in nature (doesn't directly pose a survival risk), but it still has "brain" (and/or genetic) correlates, even though it is a "mind" issue. So there is definitely some kind of interdependence going on there. Although physiological illnesses can be independent of psych ones (i.e. someone can have epilepsy but be psychologically functional), they can also cause psychological distress.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

The mind is a function or a biological organism. It's neither the slave or master ;but a symptom.


----------



## ExtraIntroVertical (Feb 27, 2016)

ninjahitsawall said:


> This makes me think of neurological, vs. physiological, vs psychiatric illness. Psychiatric is perhaps the hardest to conceptualize because it seems to be "mind" as well as brain. It would seem that psychological "disease" is less directly physical in nature (doesn't directly pose a survival risk), but it still has "brain" (and/or genetic) correlates, even though it is a "mind" issue. So there is definitely some kind of interdependence going on there. Although physiological illnesses can be independent of psych ones (i.e. someone can have epilepsy but be psychologically functional), they can also cause psychological distress.


A physiologically damaged brain cannot support a completely healthy mind...and clinical studies pretty much show that most mental illnesses can be treated with medications that alter the brain chemically/ blocking receptors/increasing certain chemicals in the brain...this proving interdependence between the two. But what about cases where a patient <I am NOT a doctor by any stretch of the imagination> is treated for, say, depression, shows signs of improvement but then seemingly out of nowhere, commits suicide? Inductively, this suggests that it is at least possible that the minds woes may not always be caused by some physiological malfunction or abnormality...does this sound/ has it been proven/ can it be proven to be accurate?


----------



## smokeafish (Jun 21, 2014)

Aww, I'm utterly gutted that this question is just another monism/dualism debate so I'm just gonna answer the question that entitles the post as I presumed it meant
The subconscious mind is most definitely master vs the conscious, as a chief intuitive I know this better than most, we are naught but the result of genetics and experience, we are shaped so much by outside forces that the idea that we have an ounce of autonomy is ludicrous, given all that has happened nothing could ever happen differently than it does, it's not predetermined but there is no randomness, only a lack of data/understanding, the same is true with our personal psychology and so we are all pawns in a game that nobody is playing
And yeah all of our experience is illusory in order to help us survive as organisms, it's all physical, the mind is not ethereal but corporeal, there is no soul, we are all just experiencing our own individual illusions, we are real and we exist but that does not mean that we have souls or anything, such a conclusion is insanity, all reason stands against this, all institutions that benefit from ignorance stand for it, never any proof anywhere. How could there be proof? I hear people ask. Stop believing in things with no fucking proof I say.


----------



## Kaboomz (Jun 14, 2016)

mind = electricity

CNS = CPU

the brain is just a processor and conduit. the mind is part of every cell in the body.



smokeafish said:


> Aww, I'm utterly gutted that this question is just another monism/dualism debate so I'm just gonna answer the question that entitles the post as I presumed it meant
> The subconscious mind is most definitely master vs the conscious, as a chief intuitive I know this better than most, we are naught but the result of genetics and experience, we are shaped so much by outside forces that the idea that we have an ounce of autonomy is ludicrous, given all that has happened nothing could ever happen differently than it does, it's not predetermined but there is no randomness, only a lack of data/understanding, the same is true with our personal psychology and so we are all pawns in a game that nobody is playing
> And yeah all of our experience is illusory in order to help us survive as organisms, it's all physical, the mind is not ethereal but corporeal, there is no soul, we are all just experiencing our own individual illusions, we are real and we exist but that does not mean that we have souls or anything, such a conclusion is insanity, all reason stands against this, all institutions that benefit from ignorance stand for it, never any proof anywhere. How could there be proof? I hear people ask. Stop believing in things with no fucking proof I say.



the subconscious and conscious mind are the same thing. it's like saying a tree is somehow different from the forest. as a primary intuitive it's surprising you're dismissing the logic of paradox. since the brain is wired to differentiate, analyse and compartmentalize, it stands to reason that autonomy is just a reflection of stochastic experience. one tree in the forest. just because you have a billion trees doesn't mean there is now no forest. like you said, it's all illusory, so lending ultimate credence to one above the other is actually quite ludicrous?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I believe it is standard practice to accept something like only materialism rather than breaking things into those two substances. If the mind and brain are completely separate then why is it that the mind seems tethered to a body? Why is it that if the brain is damaged, the mind seems to be damaged as well? Separating the mind and brain into two mediums is difficult. You take a drink of alcohol and your mind is altered, how do you go about explaining that if the mind is disconnected from the physical brain?
The accepted notion seems to be that we can eventually explain the mind in terms of the physical brain, we started to identify parts of the brain responsible for critical thinking as an example. But our current state of knowledge may seem unsatisfactory to convince some people that the mind emerges from the physical brain and that they are totally one material. Perhaps when we are in a more aged development in our understanding of the brain, we may have a far better way of answering the question.


----------



## smokeafish (Jun 21, 2014)

Kaboomz said:


> mind = electricity
> 
> CNS = CPU
> 
> ...


Our conscious experience is an illusion that we have constant awareness of, the subconscious is a non illusory part of our existence we are not constantly aware of, hence the differentiation. You might say that a tree is the same as a forest but the tree has the property of being a tree, not of being a forest or even part of a forest,a tree could not have that property in itself, assigning it that property is illogical except in a descriptive sense, the forest has the property of including a lot of trees by it's nature, in actuality there is no forest, only trees.
The subconscious and conscious is a descriptive differentiation. I lend no ultimate credence to either as they are a part of the same system but in terms of experiential effect the subconscious has greater impact on our decision making (I hypothesize that this is our experience of this as I hypothesize that any control is illusory) than does the conscious. It's a logical layer above, that is to say, there is the illusion of randomness, then the illusion of autonomy and then the illusion of conscious control, layers.


----------



## Kaboomz (Jun 14, 2016)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I believe it is standard practice to accept something like only materialism rather than breaking things into those two substances. If the mind and brain are completely separate then why is it that the mind seems tethered to a body? Why is it that if the brain is damaged, the mind seems to be damaged as well? Separating the mind and brain into two mediums is difficult. You take a drink of alcohol and your mind is altered, how do you go about explaining that if the mind is disconnected from the physical brain?
> The accepted notion seems to be that we can eventually explain the mind in terms of the physical brain, we started to identify parts of the brain responsible for critical thinking as an example. But our current state of knowledge may seem unsatisfactory to convince some people that the mind emerges from the physical brain and that they are totally one material. Perhaps when we are in a more aged development in our understanding of the brain, we may have a far better way of answering the question.


why assume you can affect the mind in anyway to begin with? it's a fallacy to accept the mind as some coagulation of thoughts and feelings and impulses, in lieu of the modality that they are filtered through. drugs and trauma affect the brain. it's a mechanical issue that has systemic effects. if you break a bone, you don't fundamentally alter the nature of the cells in the arm, but good luck trying to use it properly despite

the mind seems more aperture than anything ethereal or corporeal.


----------



## Kaboomz (Jun 14, 2016)

smokeafish said:


> Our conscious experience is an illusion that we have constant awareness of, the subconscious is a non illusory part of our existence we are not constantly aware of, hence the differentiation. You might say that a tree is the same as a forest but the tree has the property of being a tree, not of being a forest or even part of a forest,a tree could not have that property in itself, assigning it that property is illogical except in a descriptive sense, the forest has the property of including a lot of trees by it's nature, in actuality there is no forest, only trees.
> The subconscious and conscious is a descriptive differentiation. I lend no ultimate credence to either as they are a part of the same system but in terms of experiential effect the subconscious has greater impact on our decision making (I hypothesize as I hypothesize that any control is illusory) than does the conscious. It's a logical layer above, that is to say, there is the illusion of randomness, then the illusion of autonomy and then the illusion of conscious control, layers.


dissemination is the foundation of dualism. you can talk about the tree being distinct from the abstraction of a forest...why stop there? what about the bark being different from the roots? the leaves from the twigs and branches? the detritus from the water that feeds all of it?

my analogy was only symbolic, not literal. you've been talking about illusions, and now you're maintaining that there is no forest, but there are trees.

there isn't even a spoon =(


----------



## smokeafish (Jun 21, 2014)

Kaboomz said:


> dissemination is the foundation of dualism. you can talk about the tree being distinct from the abstraction of a forest...why stop there? what about the bark being different from the roots? the leaves from the twigs and branches? the detritus from the water that feeds all of it?
> 
> my analogy was only symbolic, not literal. you've been talking about illusions, and now you're maintaining that there is no forest, but there are trees.
> 
> there isn't even a spoon =(


I'm not actually saying there is no forest but there are trees, I'm saying that the differentiation only makes sense descriptively. We are using language to understand this, language is flawed, especially when we can't even define what constitutes things such as the subconscious. There is philosophy looking in from the outside, that's one thing but the experience of consciousness still exists whether illusory or not, which technically it both is and isn't therefore it can be spoken about both from pure logical determinism and the experiential position. I may have flitted quickly between objective and subjective in my original post but I stated nothing incorrect. I just didn't make it clear that I had made that switch.
I am way too sleep deprived for this...


----------



## ExtraIntroVertical (Feb 27, 2016)

@smokeafish...you can answer whatever question you think I asked...because I pretty much wanted to know opinions on this from whatever angle people choose to take...the question was vague so as to not limit the responses. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kaboomz (Jun 14, 2016)

smokeafish said:


> I'm not actually saying there is no forest but there are trees, I'm saying that the differentiation only makes sense descriptively. We are using language to understand this, language is flawed, especially when we can't even define what constitutes things such as the subconscious. There is philosophy looking in from the outside, that's one thing but the experience of consciousness still exists whether illusory or not, which technically it both is and isn't therefore it can be spoken about both from pure logical determinism and the experiential position. I may have flitted quickly between objective and subjective in my original post but I stated nothing incorrect. I just didn't make it clear that I had made that switch.
> I am way too sleep deprived for this...


i'm glad you called it. this could have obliterated the whole day :exterminate:

go to sleep!


----------



## smokeafish (Jun 21, 2014)

Kaboomz said:


> i'm glad you called it. this could have obliterated the whole day :exterminate:
> 
> go to sleep!


Lol yeah I got far too hyped up there, gotta watch out for entp-entp interactions lol, dunno if i can even sleep now, my minds racing, like my intuitions doing mad shit in the background, you know how you can feel it doing so in some weird way? yet my thinking is moving like a slug
Anyway thanks for the micro-debate, good night/morning


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Kaboomz said:


> why assume you can affect the mind in anyway to begin with? it's a fallacy to accept the mind as some coagulation of thoughts and feelings and impulses, in lieu of the modality that they are filtered through. drugs and trauma affect the brain. it's a mechanical issue that has systemic effects. if you break a bone, you don't fundamentally alter the nature of the cells in the arm, but good luck trying to use it properly despite
> 
> the mind seems more aperture than anything ethereal or corporeal.


I don't know, you're not really impacting me here with what you said.


----------



## EMWUZX (Oct 2, 2014)

I would argue that the mind is the hand guiding the stream. Sometimes, the stream is too much for the hand to bear, other times, it's easy to guide. Sometimes the hand has tools, other times the hand has only itself. Sometimes the hand is strong, and other times the hand is weak.

You get the picture.


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

ExtraIntroVertical said:


> The title is a little misleading as pertains to my ultimate question...but I am nonetheless curious. I know this has been debated for centuries, just wanted to see if anyone has a fresh perspective...so here goes.
> 
> Is the mind dependent on the physical brain or are the two autonomous? If dependent, why? If autonomous, why? And is it possible that each is dependent on the other? Thanks!


I don't draw a distinction between the two. The "mind" is just a way to describe the qualities of the brain, in my opinion, but it is not any kind of separate entity. The "mind" is the brain. I see nothing that sets the two apart. Altering the structure of the brain invariably affects its qualities, so why draw the distinction in the first place? This, to me, is similar to when people try to posit that a soul exists. They claim that it contains our personality and other aspects of our cognition, but yet these qualities are completely tied to the brain. One way or another, you end up positing something that isn't falsifiable or that can't be distinguished meaningfully from the physical brain. Now, you could at least coherently use "mind" only as a way of designating the qualities while fully acknowledging that the two are indistinct (something you're not doing here). Doing this, however, would be a special definition and given that drawing this distinction does not contribute any unique insight and given that it'd commonly be confused with perpetuating dualism, it seems wholly unwarranted to use this.

The short version: the mind and brain are the same thing.


----------

