# The Mind is NOT the Brain



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Urban Erudite said:


> I'm not even sure I know what is meant when people envoke the 'mind' anymore. It feels as if we're trying to construct a metaphysical non-meat space from which we can categorize all the unknowns of the cognitive process.


And can you specify 'where' it feels? In your brain?


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I'm convinced that the mind is the brain's way of talking about itself without having to actually point to itself (metaphysically speaking, of course). It's like the TARDIS in Dr. Who. "It's bigger on the inside."

http://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/people/clark/pubs/embmnd.pdf


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

@_dream land fantasy_

Where do you find this information and what is it you're looking for? I have noticed a pattern in the subjects of your posts. You're getting there but not quite yet. 

The mind (or spirit) has been abolished by the Roman Catholic church during the council of Constantinople. Later we abolished the soul (enlightenment period and the soul is NOT the spirit or mind) and now we are abolishing our body. (I am talking to you but where is the body?)

Personally I consider Plato to be an Eastern Philosopher (maya) so all the "philosophers" you mentioned (in the article I thanked) are all Eastern.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Urban Erudite said:


> I'm not even sure I know what is meant when people envoke the 'mind' anymore. It feels as if we're trying to construct a metaphysical non-meat space from which we can categorize all the unknowns of the cognitive process.



^THIS.

/thread.

_If this topic continues, it might as well get moved over to the philosophy sub-forum, as it has nothing to do with MBTI/JCF/Socionics. I haven't seen anyone talking about the cognitive functions even once so far this entire discussion._


----------



## SocioApathetic (May 20, 2012)

Urban Erudite said:


> I'm not even sure I know what is meant when people envoke the 'mind' anymore. It feels as if we're trying to construct a metaphysical non-meat space from which we can categorize all the unknowns of the cognitive process.


Agreed. The "mind" has somehow become this lofty entity that floats high "above" the brain. It never fails to amuse, the kind of reaction some people have when you address "mind" and "brain" as the same thing; they actually get offended on behalf of the "mind" as though placing it on the same level as brains is insulting in some asinine way.

I also agree with @_Abraxas_. This thread seems more suited for the Critical Thinking & Philosophy forum.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

SocioApathetic said:


> Agreed. The "mind" has somehow become this lofty entity that floats high "above" the brain. It never fails to amuse, the kind of reaction some people have when you address "mind" and "brain" as the same thing; they actually get offended on behalf of the "mind" as though placing it on the same level as brains is insulting in some asinine way.
> 
> I also agree with @_Abraxas_. This thread seems more suited for the Critical Thinking & Philosophy forum.


Really, I haven't seen any of that on this thread. 

There was a debate here a while ago, and it was about libido, the psychic energy Jung refers to. His theory is based on applying thermodynamics to the psyche. Now this is purely theoretical, as he doesn't even claim it to be existent. I don't have a problem with that, because for me the psychic 'self' doesn't equal the physical self. But for all of you who claim they are equal, I am very curious in how you are going to align the two theories.

Personally I don't have a problem with people seeing them as equal, and I am myself very much interested in the scientific discoveries made, and for instance I would have no problem in explaining love through brain chemicals (although I won't reduce it to mere brain chemicals). But not seeing them as equal doesn't mean one is higher than the other, just not being the same. And not separate, but rather somewhat integrated. Not homogenic, but something layered in structure.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

"Mind" is a word, and that's all it is.

And insofar as it is a label, we must ask - _what thing_ is it a label for?

Is it a label for the brain, or what?

If you want to talk about "mind" being a label for anything which is, itself, _non-physical_ - such as _other words and concepts like "behavior"_ - then you're just going around in circles, playing what Wittgenstein _famously_ called "The Langauge Game."

If you ever want to be the fly that gets out of that bottle, you need to stop trying to engage in a semantic discussion, and lay it out objectively:

_WHAT PHYSICAL EXISTING THING = THE MIND?_

If there just is _nothing_ which we can all agree physically = "mind" - which is what the OP seems to believe - then the whole argument becomes linguistic and conceptual, nothing more, nothing less.

And I'm not saying that it's a waste of time to engage in that kind of abstract philosophy - far from it. I love that kind of philosophy, where we sort out our conceptual categories and we modify both our language and ways of thinking to make whatever we choose to do with our lives _more efficient_.

But that is what it really comes down to, and that is what we ought to be discussing if we are talking about just what this so-called "mind" is. And that is a discussion that goes all the way back to before *PLATO*. It's not even a psychological topic - it exists _soley_ in the realm of _philosophy of the mind_, which goes hand-in-hand with psychology, of course - but, philosophy strictly deals with conceptual distinctions, not _objective reality._ And so, philosophy is really nothing more than a _camera lens_ which we are always trying to define more precisely - whereas "reality" _just exists_, and is defines itself by it's very _being,_ BEFORE we ever even get the chance to take a crack at it and decide what reality exists _*as*_.


----------



## Number Six (Mar 4, 2013)

My mind travels into my balls when I'm horny, my stomach when I'm hungry or feeling particularly social, my throat if I'm being expressive and my brain when I'm doing anything remotely cognizant.

Obviously, the mind is not the brain - the brain is a computer, the mind is probably more akin to electricity, or the user - pick your favorite analogy.

I am fairly certain that the heart, which is the first organ to be formed in the body, actually gives off "brainwaves", more powerful, in fact, than the brain itself, so in a sense, we have a mind before we even grow a brain, we just aren't aware of it because we need the brain to translate it into something conceptual, like thought.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> "Mind" is a word, and that's all it is.
> 
> And insofar as it is a label, we must ask - _what thing_ is it a label for?
> 
> ...


Any word is a label and a metaphor. And a string of metaphors, can hold a value. But they are only significant within a context, for instance by having an opposite. So the definition of a word may change over time, even dramatically, like 'prude' or 'commit'. There's a lot of words that are relatively young, which of course doesn't mean it didn't exist before, but I guess there was no need for differentiation. Like 'intuition' or 'self-esteem', can you imagine? For sure there is no physical evidence for this, because they are concepts, or percepts, or ideas. And it's probably also impossible to localize it in the brain. (a word has a meaning, an image, feeling tone. etc.). 

I've attended a presentation of some neuro scientists and they had scanned brain-activity in reaction to the perception (I believe it was hearing) of just one single word. In a much more precise way than fMRI scans, which basically only shows where there is 'smoke', sort of being the most 'industrial area' involved. 

But when measuring this way, it showed activity allover the brain (after entering the brain via the auditory pathway). If we would use the 'computer' metaphor or analogy, this would be basically one flow, reading zero's and one's, at a certain clockspeed. But even in a distributed neural network, one would expect one neuron setting on the others, or parts exchanging information. But most areas seemed to fire spontaneously. And they didn't have a clue where it was coming from, and what part send information to another area, or what coordinated this all. Because after all, we (reductionist approach) assume a hierarchical organization, just like we understand the brain is coordinating our leg movements, when to sweat, etc. 

And mind you, this is just perception of one word. Were not even talking about a series of words, or a poem. 

The fact that you can fuck up ones mind by using psychoactive drugs, is to me no proof of being the same. I don't need to fuck up your brain to fuck up your mind, for instance by putting you in complete social isolation, or lock you up in a box and wait, but provide you with everything you need in materialist terms. This 'contextual' approach may take a little while longer to have effect, but the damage done may even be harder to get 'out of your system'.


----------



## Nihilarian (Apr 9, 2013)

I kinda agree with the premise that the mind is not the brain. but, my reasoning really comes from the arbitrariness of the semantics, the ideal of causation, and the limitedness of facts.

first the fun part, the words. the mind is also not a key lime pie, but nobody is confusing those two. just as knowledge is not intelligence, kindness is not generosity (this one is loose), and so on is not so forth, there will always be unjustified interchanges between them. but as long as you can tell that you and your conversational partner are pointing to the same thing. (i.e. intelligence or knowledge) it shouldn't matter. don't be like me, getting hung up on the slippery semantics, the content is what should really be important.

time for causality. i guess that the ideas and stuff that form inside the brain (the mind) are completely caused by the physiology of the brain. So the brain causes the mind. and i think it's illogical for *A *----To cause ---> *A*. therefore, the brain is* A*, and the mind is B

last part. the unfortunate lacking of neuroscience. i don't think we know yet whether or not ideas, hopes, dreams, beliefs, fears, desires, everything that comprises the mind, are found in physical forms around the brain. is the idea of being a democrat, wanting a car, being afraid of spiders a physical neuron in the brain? that, i don't think we yet know. if it is, the brain might very possible be the mind. but from analysis of observation, the big picture is what matters in connecting the brain and mind.

so, I think that once we have the answers to that last part, then we decide between study of the brain or the mind.

also, this is just expository. as an intp, i'm firmly on the the fence.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

If the mind in the end proves to be part of the brain or whatever all I have to say is... that would be boring.


----------



## SocioApathetic (May 20, 2012)

13 others said:


> If the mind in the end proves to be part of the brain or whatever all I have to say is... that would be boring.


The argument is not about the mind being a mere "part" of the brain, for that still suggests the mind is separate from the brain. Some would argue that the mind is an emergent property of the brain's "hardware" and complex processes and though this appears to be a materialistic view of the mind-brain problem, I will argue that it is dualistic. Because mind has the ability to emerge, mind and brain are still being separated. Emergentism has always been the trickiest of the lot for me because it is always so easy to say that the processes of the brain "create" the mind and move on, believing that you have just uttered a solid, satisfies-all statement. Does such a statement solve the problem of interaction? How is mind able to interact with brain if they are separate entities? Is there a bidirectional relationship between the two? Oh, there is? Right, then why did the mind have to emerge if it could submerge?
And what of neural dependence? If mind "emerges" from the brain, does its "function" rely on the brain? If yes, why would it need to "emerge" at all?

Emergentism, I feel, is just a "realistic" way to continue believing mind is its own entity, above that mere organ in the head that serves only as a motherboard.

In my opinion, "mind" is just the name we give to the processes of the brain but they are not separate. Mind _is _what brain does. There is no need for this "mind" to "emerge" from the properties and processes of brain. They are one and the same thing, "boring" as that might be.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

It is not just a paradox. Ladies and gentlemen, this is _THE_ paradox of all paradoxes.

The subject-object problem.

The very thing Carl Jung devoted his _entire life_ to.

His greatest contribution - introversion and extraversion. This is the essence of the paradox. The chicken and the egg.

Which came first? The observation or the observer?

You _cannot_ have observations without observers.

Without _experience_ - trees don't make sounds, because there are no woods for them to fall in - because there is no mind for them to fall in. No universe, no big bang, nothing.

_*We are running the holodeck, and it has no exit.*_

No beginning, and no end.

Time is not even cyclic.

_Time is memory, and memory is *existence*._

Without unconsciousness, there could not _be_ consciousness.

_*Everything is a memory.*_

The brain itself is a simulation - simulated by itself.

But a model _cannot_ EQUAL the thing it is modeling.

The brain _cannot_ simulate reality.

It can only simulate _you._

And _that_... is what _I_ define as "psyche" or "mind".

_Existence. Self._

"In the absence of that-which-I-am-not, that-which-I-am, _*is not."*_



It is not possible to understand what I am trying to say here, so don't try. That's not how this works. Right now, I'm doing what is called a "stream of consciousness" because that is the only way to express what I am trying to convey here. The concept I am trying to get across does not have any linguistic expression whatsoever.

Instead, inside, you feel... _something_ as you read this. Something _so true_ that it goes beyond _language_. It can only be described as _intuition_ - the vaguest sense... that for just a moment, you can "imagine" _the grand design itself._ And it is a thing so transcendent, that once you look upon it, you become so blinded by its magnificence - that when you then return to the kingdom of sensation, you find it hard to re-adapt and take this _one ripple we call "reality"_ so seriously.

To those who know, those who _just get_ what I'm talking about... you can probably relate to this feeling I am describing; a feeling of standing _outside_ of things like "time" and "space" entirely. Maybe you understand and can vaguely differentiate, as I do, between the aspect of yourself which exists as a temporal thing, versus the aspect of yourself which _cannot be conceptually limited, and so cannot be clearly communicated or expressed, only witnessed._

And it can only be witnessed by those who can see it, which is so very few.

I do not really know why that is so - but, if I wanted to know the answer to that question, I could choose to seek it by studying stars, planets, life, and everything _experienced_ - or, I could go inside myself, into my own imagination, into my own memories, into my own unconscious - the root of the archetypes, the source code of the brain that runs the holodeck - and simply reprogram it however I wanted.

And if I do _that_, then "truth" becomes meaningless, and I am lost forever in subjectivity.

_But that is the paradox itself._

*Every human being is doing that anyway, unconsciously.*

The only difference, it seems, is that _I am the water, and I can see the ripples, and I can even see the stone - but I cannot move it. It moves itself, and I move with it - and as I move, *so does the stone.*_

There is no exit from this.

It simply goes on forever and ever, _and ever_.

In a way, this even negates the idea of "death" - for that too is a paradox.

How can I subjectively experience my own non-existence? That is a contradiction, and totally absurd.

Rather _I was never born, and I will never die._

Those "events" are only memories, as I _remember_ this "Earth" and my "self" and everything else, every time I wake up in the morning - every time I come back from blacking out - and as I shall do again when I "die".

This is why "solipsism" is nothing to joke about. Why it is so easily dismissed - as it _must be_ for there to be "truth" whatsoever, while simultaneously being so _fundamentally definitive of the way each of us experiences our own existence._


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

*"The conscious mind allows itself to be trained like a parrot, but the unconscious does not—which is why St. Augustine thanked God for not making him responsible for his dreams."

"The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong."*​


----------



## Number Six (Mar 4, 2013)

SocioApathetic said:


> How is mind able to interact with brain if they are separate entities? Is there a bidirectional relationship between the two? Oh, there is? Right, then why did the mind have to emerge if it could submerge?
> And what of neural dependence? If mind "emerges" from the brain, does its "function" rely on the brain? If yes, why would it need to "emerge" at all?
> 
> Emergentism, I feel, is just a "realistic" way to continue believing mind is its own entity, above that mere organ in the head that serves only as a motherboard.
> ...


Nothing is a separate entity. Not a single thing in the entire universe. The mind as an emergent aspect of the brain doesn't follow, semantics aside, I agree. However the brain as an emergent of the mind is entirely plausible, if you don't try too hard to define what mind actually is. 

The mind is nothing, really. Maybe in the truest sense of the word. It cannot be conceptualized and it cannot be transcribed even to someone with a vague understanding of what one may be describing, because as soon as you do, you invalidate it, or fill it, so to speak.

It's awareness without ego, the fundamental nature of all reality - brains and bodies cover it up, creating the illusion of separation via thoughts/species/lifeforms but I think that true mind remains the same, regardless. Like a video camera playing in the background of life, hidden behind bias, identity and the concept of self. It is not an organ in the head of one particular species, it is the essence of life that has to exist in order to experience reality objectively.

Then again, it's just a word. I don't think anyone is adept enough to use language to explain a universally coherent understanding of something that is fundamentally paradoxical. But we do like to try xD


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

I want to curl up into a ball and spontaneously combust.

This thread makes me wish the internets never came to be.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> *"The conscious mind allows itself to be trained like a parrot, but the unconscious does not—which is why St. Augustine thanked God for not making him responsible for his dreams."
> 
> "The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong."*​


:laughing: I can hear you @Abraxas !


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

mimesis said:


> Because after all, we (reductionist approach) assume a hierarchical organization, just like we understand the brain is coordinating our leg movements, when to sweat, etc.


Well, this about sums it up.

Humans, by nature, are inclined to look for causal connections. Questioning causality itself appears to be questioning everything about the human thought pattern - once there however a whole new realm of possibilities opens up - and I may add, it's a far more interesting one than the realm tinkered together based on causality.

I think a great example I've read way about the decay of radioactive particles. We do know that they will decay. We maybe even know why they('ll) decay, but we will never know why that specific particle decayed where and when it did. We merely estimate an average have to accept it as such - within the sphere of decay in a nutshell chaos and acausality seems to be most apparent and existent.


----------



## diMaggio (Apr 27, 2011)

dream land fantasy said:


> The mind is much bigger than the brain.


You lost me there. How do you figure that? You're using "size" two different ways here.
That's like saying "These ten thousand eBooks are much bigger than this USB stick".
Doesn't mean they can't fit on it though...



13 others said:


> If the mind in the end proves to be part of the brain or whatever all I have to say is... that would be boring.


So I take it you'd rather like to believe something wrong because it'd be more interesting than to believe the truth because it's boring?
I.e. like Cypher who wanted to be re-integrated into the Matrix? Ignorance is bliss etc.? Blue pill?

I for one would always want to know the truth, no matter how uninteresting and boring it might be.
(And oftentimes it's a lot more awesome than we could've imagined!)
And for everything else, I am totally ok to be honest enough to admit to myself: "I don't know... yet."

There are so many claims one can come up with (imagination is the limit), and many people would like it so much if reality were magical and interesting. But in the end it's either one doesn't know something (yet), or it's wishful thinking because the alternative would be depressing. I say, embrace what you don't yet know, don't try to postulate some arbitrary explanations that sprang from wishful thinking and learn to appreciate perceived reality for what it is.

As for me, I think the mind is not separate from the brain and is indeed manifested by the brain (i.e. the brain is the medium of the mind) because there are plenty of sound reasons for that in the real world (like e.g. the effects of brain injury, or that nobody sane ever encountered a mind that wasn't attached to a brain). For all the magical stuff the mind is supposedly capable of, there is just no good reason to believe in as there is not even the hint of evidence for that. 
(And no, what one "feels" or "imagines" is not proof, it's just what someone "feels" or "imagines". I can "feel" or "imagine" a lot of BS, but that alone doesn't make it a candidate for truth.)
There's only claims and ignorance of probabilities in regards to coincidence (cue "superstitious pigeons" & B.F. Skinner).
Humans are good at imagining things and having a desire to feel something special/wondrous in life.
If this desire isn't paired with enough self-honesty about what one really knows and with enough critical thinking, then you're prone to enter the realm of wishful thinking where logic and sound thought seems to be irrelevant or self-serving.
I, for one, am ok with sacrificing the desire to feel something magical for the integrity of mind.

Just my 2 cents, no offense. :happy:


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)




----------



## DemonAbyss10 (Oct 28, 2010)

no wonder humanity has been regressing lately. I swear I am going to start hearing about leylines and the photon belt at this rate. Well, back to being the usual rational scientific minded individual I am.


----------



## glaba (Mar 16, 2013)

> A mind is the complex of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, learning, reasoning, and judgement—a characteristic of human beings, but which also may apply to other life forms.




Many of these have been proven to come from the brain. For one, learning. I define learning as the ability to gain skills and knowledge by experience. Experience requires the existence of memories, and memories have been shown to depend on certain sections of the brain especially, namely the hippocampus. Henry Molaison had his hippocampus removed in an attempt to cure his epilepsy, and he lost the ability to form memories. These pieces of information--The "mind", and NOT the brain, causes learning; learning requires memory; and memory depends on the hippocampus, which is inside the BRAIN--contradict each other. "Not the brain" and the brain can't both cause learning. It's a contradiction. However, only one of these "facts" is actually backed up by evidence. Mine. So, unless you give me some evidence, you're wrong.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

glaba said:


> Many of these have been proven to come from the brain. For one, learning. I define learning as the ability to gain skills and knowledge by experience. Experience requires the existence of memories, and memories have been shown to depend on certain sections of the brain especially, namely the hippocampus. Henry Molaison had his hippocampus removed in an attempt to cure his epilepsy, and he lost the ability to form memories. These pieces of information--The "mind", and NOT the brain, causes learning; learning requires memory; and memory depends on the hippocampus, which is inside the BRAIN--contradict each other. "Not the brain" and the brain can't both cause learning. It's a contradiction. However, only one of these "facts" is actually backed up by evidence. Mine. So, unless you give me some evidence, you're wrong.


A harddisk of a computer is merely for storage and retrieval of data. It's sometimes even called a peripherial device. Sure, if your harddisk is corrupt it can seriously compromise proper functioning, or not function at all. But it can't function without power supply either. And I guess, a microprocesor or chipset are sort of non-harddisks right?


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> It is not possible to understand what I am trying to say here, so don't try. That's not how this works. Right now, I'm doing what is called a "stream of consciousness" because that is the only way to express what I am trying to convey here. The concept I am trying to get across does not have any linguistic expression whatsoever.
> 
> Instead, inside, you feel... _something_ as you read this. Something _so true_ that it goes beyond _language_. It can only be described as _intuition_ - the vaguest sense... that for just a moment, you can "imagine" _the grand design itself._


Actually since you mentioned it, this looks a lot like the sort of thing I did when I was younger and first getting in touch with inferior Fe, before I got better at it and could make it look more like english. That is, what you call intuition and the relationship you seem to have to it looks a lot like what I call feeling and the relationship I used to have to it at about 20, and I eventually learned to put my "truths that go beyond language" back into language.

Just sayin'.


----------



## ManWithoutHats (Jun 2, 2012)

Ignitus said:


> Dreams and imaged thoughts have been picked up as electrical impulses, and a scanner can picture relatively well what the thinker was thinking (a test conducted had them look at a scene and picture it in their head, and results depicted a similar image; not in HD, but similar.


Information on this I would much appreciate a link to-

Edit: Nvm, I read a couple more posts.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Conclusion said:


> Actually since you mentioned it, this looks a lot like the sort of thing I did when I was younger and first getting in touch with inferior Fe, before I got better at it and could make it look more like english. That is, what you call intuition and the relationship you seem to have to it looks a lot like what I call feeling and the relationship I used to have to it at about 20, and I eventually learned to put my "truths that go beyond language" back into language.
> 
> Just sayin'.


What, so you assume everything that exists can be linguistically expressed?

How very extraverted!

Unfortunately, there are certain experiences which cannot be shared with others, only personally known and felt, yet we all feel and know about it - and yet, _nobody_ has the ability to condense such transcendent knowledge into a sensible frame of reference.

Again, it really is a matter of the difference between sense and nonsense - but just what constitutes "sense" is that you are aware of the extraverted aspect of something subjective. It isn't non-sense just because it is too magnificent to precisely define.


----------



## ManWithoutHats (Jun 2, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Now, I posted those links hoping that people would have the maturity to at least _skim_ them, giving everyone the benefit of the doubt with regards to free-time, and education.
> 
> If, assuming you possess that level of maturity, and so I can discuss this matter with you in a serious way,
> 
> ...


I nominate this for best post of the year.

...Thanking wasn't enough


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

mimesis said:


> A harddisk of a computer is merely for storage and retrieval of data. It's sometimes even called a peripherial device. Sure, if your harddisk is corrupt it can seriously compromise proper functioning, or not function at all. But it can't function without power supply either. And I guess, a microprocesor or chipset are sort of non-harddisks right?


I don't exactly know what your point is, but it would be more accurate to compare the mind as you say and brain to a motherboard.


> A mind is the complex of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, learning, reasoning, and judgement—a characteristic of human beings, but which also may apply to other life forms.


On the motherboard there's the BIOS that enables "consciousness" so to speak which is then made stronger when more information exists on the hard disk. Connected to it is the graphics card and sound card which allows for perception (tho built to do it in reverse). It got a CPU as well as memory cards which is its ability to think, learn and reason. The BIOS itself can make some degree of judgements and that ability and its ability to reason is extended as the computer is thought (by the collection of data to its hard disk).

I suppose that a computer is then basically a lifeform with a mind of its own.

The mind (aka. the "brain" for those who knows biology good enough, rather than result to other explanations instead to bridge their lack of knowledge) is so complex that we can build a basic form that represents it.


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> What, so you assume everything that exists can be linguistically expressed?
> 
> How very extraverted!
> 
> ...


What, so you ask us to honor with the word "existence" what you feel but cannot linguistically express?

How very introverted! 

Seriously though I'm not calling any of it "nonsense," nor do I really see the point in me holding any opinion on it at all -- as far as I'm concerned it is whatever it is and you have my authoritative extraverted blessing to keep doing what you're doing.  Nor is it my intention to belittle the experience itself, since even if I'm right and this is basically the early stages of integrating your inferior, well that's presumably a stage we all have to pass through at some point or another. That said I do think that what you're seeing/feeling/intuiting/etc here has more to do with one temporary aspect of your own cognitive architecture than it does with anything profoundly existential, and that by insisting on such experiences in a public forum you're inevitably inviting a certain amount of gentle ribbing about it.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Conclusion said:


> What, so you ask us to honor with the word "existence" what you feel but cannot linguistically express?
> 
> How very introverted!
> 
> Seriously though I'm not calling any of it "nonsense," nor do I really see the point in me holding any opinion on it at all -- as far as I'm concerned it is whatever it is and you have my authoritative extraverted blessing to keep doing what you're doing.  Nor is it my intention to belittle the experience itself, since even if I'm right and this is basically the early stages of integrating your inferior, well that's presumably a stage we all have to pass through at some point or another. That said I do think that what you're seeing/feeling/intuiting/etc here has more to do with one temporary aspect of your own cognitive architecture than it does with anything profoundly existential, and that by insisting on such experiences in a public forum you're inevitably inviting a certain amount of gentle ribbing about it.


Of course.

In retrospect, I'm not even sure why I wrote it.

It seems like a waste of time if most people won't take it seriously.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Conclusion said:


> What, so you ask us to honor with the word "existence" what you feel but cannot linguistically express?
> 
> How very introverted!
> 
> Seriously though I'm not calling any of it "nonsense," nor do I really see the point in me holding any opinion on it at all -- as far as I'm concerned it is whatever it is and you have my authoritative extraverted blessing to keep doing what you're doing.  Nor is it my intention to belittle the experience itself, since even if I'm right and this is basically the early stages of integrating your inferior, well that's presumably a stage we all have to pass through at some point or another. That said I do think that what you're seeing/feeling/intuiting/etc here has more to do with one temporary aspect of your own cognitive architecture than it does with anything profoundly existential, and that by insisting on such experiences in a public forum you're inevitably inviting a certain amount of gentle ribbing about it.


On a different note, I'm curious: Do you use all those "" to lighten your post up so not to "rub" anyone the wrong way?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> I don't exactly know what your point is, but it would be more accurate to compare the mind as you say and brain to a motherboard.
> 
> On the motherboard there's the BIOS that enables "consciousness" so to speak which is then made stronger when more information exists on the hard disk. Connected to it is the graphics card and sound card which allows for perception (tho built to do it in reverse). It got a CPU as well as memory cards which is its ability to think, learn and reason. The BIOS itself can make some degree of judgements and that ability and its ability to reason is extended as the computer is thought (by the collection of data to its hard disk).
> 
> ...


No I don't want to go too far in the analogy with a computer. My point was more that memory is important for cognition, but compared with a hardisk of a computer, it's an important part but not necessarily the part that processes the information.


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Of course.
> 
> In retrospect, I'm not even sure why I wrote it.
> 
> It seems like a waste of time if most people won't take it seriously.


I'm not sure I'd go that far -- I'd imagine it's served its purpose, even if neither of us can linguistically express what that purpose was exactly.  Indeed even had I known back then what I know now, I'd probably still have done all the vaguely analogous things I used to do, and chosen "being true to my own process" over "avoiding that gentle ridicule." I think it's more a matter of realistic expectations, really -- accepting how unlikely it is that anyone will actually try to understand where you're coming from. And maybe also appreciating how little the approval of the people who won't try is really worth. 

@_The Umbraic Light_ Well, honestly it's more "being true to my own process" than it is "attending to how it 'rubs' people." I guess what I really want is a kind of wry smile, since that's what I'd use in person. Maybe  is closer to the mark, but my habit is . Historical accident presumably. 

@_The Umbraic Light_ True, but take a look at Oceanmoonshine's so/sx 5 description.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Conclusion said:


> @_The Umbraic Light_ Well, honestly it's more "being true to my own process" than it is "attending to how it 'rubs' people." I guess what I really want is a kind of wry smile, since that's what I'd use in person. Maybe  is closer to the mark, but my habit is . Historical accident presumably.


Hmm, I guess I understand. So it is based merely within you, rather than out of you? Usually when I see excessive use of emotioncons (is that how you spell it?) it is because they are using that extroverted feeling to give to the person. So I found it weird that an INTP would be using it--never actually seen one use faces all too often. HMM! Now I'm too curious, but thanks for the explanation. roud:


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

Of course the mind is not the brain, but the OP took the wrong turn after making this very simple observation and did not return to a proper path for any philosophy of mind after she took that wrong turn. The idea that the mind is something that has some sort of magical or supernatural quality is particularly obscure and unfounded. I do not think that you'll find anyone who would seriously claim that the mind _is_ the brain though, maybe that the mind is a result of the brain's activity (which is the position that epiphenomenalists defend).


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Conclusion said:


> I'm not sure I'd go that far -- I'd imagine it's served its purpose, even if neither of us can linguistically express what that purpose was exactly.  Indeed even had I known back then what I know now, I'd probably still have done all the vaguely analogous things I used to do, and chosen "being true to my own process" over "avoiding that gentle ridicule." I think it's more a matter of realistic expectations, really -- accepting how unlikely it is that anyone will actually try to understand where you're coming from. And maybe also appreciating how little the approval of the people who won't try is really worth.


Well, that's not really what I was trying to get at.

What I was subtly trying to hint at is the way that, you and me, right now, are "talking."

Insofar as we are doing this, every idea that we could possibly exchange MUST be extraverted, in addition to being introverted.

However, just as there is much about the extraverted (read: "objective") world that we don't yet know about, there is much about the introverted world (read: "subjective") that we don't know about.

And, just because we live in a modern world that is intensely focused on everything extraverted, as Jung famously pointed out, the introverted perspective gets devalued, and that's basically what you are talking about whether you know it or not when you say that you took the effort to translate your introverted perceptions into something linguistic.

Essentially, I'm saying that there are certain introverted concepts which are _so_ introverted that, even if it were possible to find an extraverted "point of reference" in order to exchange those concepts with someone else, it might be so damned difficult that it could take _forever._ After all, _how much do we really understand the universe we live in? We don't even know where it came from or how it will end, or much about it at all really._

Jung talks about the archetypes, and that's what I am _really_ getting at here.

There are _ intrinsic_ "images" if you will, which "come with the package" - and out of that we get consciousness, and our consensus definition of "reality." Yet, some of these images are _so primordial_ that they lack a proper expression, and can only be truly conveyed _indirectly_ via things like art and mythology, and poetry. This is because, we, as a global society and a species, in my opinion grossly lack the needed extraverted understanding to properly frame these things in an objective way; yet, these images _still exist within us and must be confronted one way or another._ Just what tends to happen, unfortunately, is that people tend not to give much attention to these sorts of things, or see them as "mystical nonsense" and what have you.

And that, well... that's because... frankly? Most people who think they are introverted are actually extraverted, and naturally, extraverts are going to devalue _anything_ which is not objective because that's what extraversion IS by definition according to the man that invented the word.

We live in an extraverted society that simply takes it for granted that "objectivity came first."

That is known as the "a posteriori" view.

_Nothing could be further from the truth in my opinion._

I take the _"a priori"_ view of reality - the rationalist perspective of "innate ideas."

If you are unfamiliar with the very ancient discourse between empiricism and rationalism, that might be something worth looking up if you ever get the chance, it really nails down what I'm getting at.

Basically, whatever I choose to say does not just make "sense" whenever _it_ is in line with objective reality. My statements will make sense because _I_ am in line with objective reality, or not.

And when I am not, then _I must be in line with subjective reality._

_Which still makes sense, but only in a personal way that requires you to personally agree deep down inside because you subjectively react and respond to some fundamental truth you recognize in what I had to say, despite whatever external conditions may invalidate what I said or make it seem nonsensical when evaluated by the values of our Western society. And you decide that it is so true *to you* that you don't care if so-called "objective reality" doesn't measure up. To you, that just indicates the limits of *objectivity itself,* and makes you feel good that you don't give a shit and can look past it while everyone else is just being a *goddamn parrot.*_

You see what I'm getting at? Because I get what you are saying, but I don't think we are on the same page.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> It is not just a paradox. Ladies and gentlemen, this is _THE_ paradox of all paradoxes.
> 
> The subject-object problem.
> 
> ...


I think I know where you're getting at, and I have learned the practice of focusing the mind in order to ultimately temporarily transcend those opposites of subject and object, and if you will, sort of being 'neither inside nor outside'. It's actually a blissful experience. In the process of learning this you become very much aware of the projections of the mind, or the nature of those projections. To process emotions there's a lot going on in other places, but the brain. 

Perhaps that's ultimately where it leads back to (like the amygdala) but to 'reprogram' the amygdala I don't focus on my brain, but for instance to the gut area. The amygdala is connected to our parasympathic system of fight-flight responses. So by focusing my mind this way and to these areas I was able to dramatically control 'conditioned' stress responses. Meanwhile there is scientific evidence that certain meditation techniques can indeed alter the functioning of the amygdala. 

Something I knew for years from personal experience (well, it seemed likely to me, after reading into brain science). For me the mind is different than the body because it's a different approach. Either from without or within. How I've experienced it, the mind is 'bigger' than the brain, because I believe these gut feelings control our behavior more than we are aware of. To become more aware of that, you can't really learn by a book, only through practice and experience. And for what it's worth I can't be bothered whether other people agree with me or not.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/11/meditations-positive-residual-effects/


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

mimesis said:


> I think I know where you're getting at, and I have learned the practice of focusing the mind in order to ultimately temporarily transcend those opposites of subject and object, and if you will, sort of being 'neither inside nor outside'. It's actually a blissful experience. In the process of learning this you become very much aware of the projections of the mind, or the nature of those projections. To process emotions there's a lot going on in other places, but the brain.
> 
> Perhaps that's ultimately where it leads back to (like the amygdala) but to 'reprogram' the amygdala I don't focus on my brain, but for instance to the gut area. The amygdala is connected to our parasympathic system of fight-flight responses. So by focusing my mind this way and to these areas I was able to dramatically control 'conditioned' stress responses. Meanwhile there is scientific evidence that certain meditation techniques can indeed alter the functioning of the amygdala.
> 
> ...



That's such a great post I didn't feel it was enough to just thank it.

I'm pretty much 100% on-board with you so far.

In my opinion, for instance, if you really want to define the so-called "mind" - you'd need to define _external reality as well_ - since _we_ are simulating reality subjectively, even if there is an "objective" world "out there" outside of our subjective experience, which influences subjectivity just as subjectivity influences it. It's an endless circle without beginning or end, and there is really no clear borderline between just what is objective and what is subjective in my opinion.

I also agree with Jung in that respect, that just whatever that borderline ends up being changes throughout history, and simply reflects the values of our present society and era. Who knows what will come, and there are civilizations in the East which have always been extraordinarily introverted. Probably why I'm very fascinated by Eastern philosophy.

I mean, I just realized this, but my signature at the bottom of this post is exactly what I'm trying to say here in this whole thread so far, pretty much.

*"Truth is the conformity of the intellect to the things."*​


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Well, that's not really what I was trying to get at.
> 
> What I was subtly trying to hint at is the way that, you and me, right now, are "talking."
> 
> ...


Ohhh. So you're wondering why it's desirable to try to extravert something inherently introverted, rather than (say) to hold a necessarily extraverted dialogue concerned with introverted things? Like you'll sometimes find in books about insight meditation or what have you -- that treat introverted experience as in itself worthy of attention, but that still have an essentially extraverted form, being books and all?

Well personally I don't see why it is either -- but I think that in the early stages of integrating an extraverted inferior, you feel compelled to try.  At least I did, anyway.

(And for what it's worth you have my authoritative extraverted blessing to type me as you see fit, in your introverted cosmos. )

EDIT: Only just saw your edit.



Abraxas said:


> We live in an extraverted society that simply takes it for granted that "objectivity came first."
> 
> That is known as the "a posteriori" view.
> 
> ...


Aha. I think I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I have much to add, except that I think that whether or not something makes "sense" is the wrong question -- why appeal to extraverted authority to validate something inherently introverted? Rather I think the challenge is to find a way to respect people's subjective realities, and to put them in meaningful dialogue with one another, via extraverted norms of behavior and of dialogue that make that possible.

Basically, I think that to frame things in terms of "sense" is itself to privilege extraversion, since that's an inherently extraverted criterion, and that you need something closer to "dialogue" to really value introversion.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Conclusion said:


> Ohhh. So you're wondering why it's desirable to try to extravert something inherently introverted, rather than (say) to hold a necessarily extraverted dialogue concerned with introverted things? Like you'll sometimes find in books about insight meditation or what have you -- that treat introverted experience as in itself worthy of attention, but that still have an essentially extraverted form, being books and all?
> 
> Well personally I don't see why it is either -- but I think that in the early stages of integrating an extraverted inferior, you feel compelled to try.  At least I did, anyway.
> 
> (And for what it's worth you have my authoritative extraverted blessing to type me as you see fit, in your introverted cosmos. )


Lol, thanks.

I don't necessarily have any idea what your type is though.

It's folly to try and type someone just because they show an extraverted bias here or there. It all depends on where their ego-complex is consistently over time, e.g., if they strongly _value_ those biases, or if those biases are largely unconscious and long ago are just sort've something "accepted" and "dealt with" as kind of a necessary burden, an adaptive process, but something that isn't really valued the same way.

That's my attitude, pretty much.

Plus, my inferior is Se. So then, you might begin to understand why I so strongly devalue the properties of objective "things" as something definitive of my reality.

But, like you, I do try to integrate it as much as I can, mostly out of necessity because I live in fucking consumerist-materialist America, which has (terrifyingly in my opinion) begun to exalt "science" as the fucking highest truth, and devaluing everything "unscientific."

If I was born in the East and got to become a monk or something, I'd probably have been in my natural element.

I love Eastern philosophy and history.


----------



## Cyphyr (Jun 6, 2012)

diMaggio said:


> No it doesn't, because as you've said yourself, the mind *perceives* reality, it doesn't create it.
> Ergo the brain, at most, produces the _perception_ of reality, not create it by way of the mind.
> 
> You were basically following this logic:
> ...


Exactly why it was a joke. Forgot to add ''

Though it is fun to think about it. If the mind did not exist to perceive reality, wouldnt reality not exist, as reality is defined by our perception of it? 
Just saying.


----------



## diMaggio (Apr 27, 2011)

Cyphyr said:


> Exactly why it was a joke. Forgot to add ''


Lol, you cheeky.... 


Cyphyr said:


> Though it is fun to think about it. If the mind did not exist to perceive reality, wouldnt reality not exist, as reality is defined by our perception of it?
> Just saying.


Ok, no  there... just checking.^^
Well, the existence of reality does not depend on our perception.
That is, our perception of reality isn't reality, it's just as much as we can perceive *of* it.
Whatever reality is, we can never know 100% what it is, since our perception is limited.
Nor can we know how accurate our perception of reality actually is.
In the end I'd say it doesn't matter, as long as the reality _as_ we perceive it remains consistent with its rules, so that we can navigate it just as consistently.

Reality isn't perception of reality. Perception of reality happens _on top of_ reality.
Reality isn't defined by our _perception_ of it, only our_ understanding_ of reality is.

If there's nobody in the cinema to watch a movie, then you wouldn't say that the movie doesn't exists, would you?
Perception of the movie is irrelevant to its existence.
The same goes for the mind in regards to reality. Perception is not a prerequisite for something to exist.
And the prerequisite for a mind to exist is for there to be a reality to exist within.


----------



## Cyphyr (Jun 6, 2012)

diMaggio said:


> Lol, you cheeky....
> 
> Ok, no  there... just checking.^^
> Well, the existence of reality does not depend on our perception.
> ...


I quite like talking with someone whose response more the 'reality is reality, what more do you want'. And I actually agree with what you've stated here. Reality is a strange mix of objective fact and subjective understanding, but its underwhelming to accept it just as such; I'd much rather analyze and conceptualize it a little further. That's how I enjoy my little slice of reality. 

And in tesponse to your last point, in my opinion, of course, perception is irrelevant to existence, but it could be argued that existence is irrelevant in the absence of perception


----------



## Jetsune Lobos (Apr 23, 2012)

Oh god. This is like a kitten that mistook a hornet's nest as it's plaything.


----------



## diMaggio (Apr 27, 2011)

Cyphyr said:


> but its underwhelming to accept it just as such


But I hope you wouldn't rather dismiss something just because it appears underwhelming?
I mean, the truth is the truth, no matter how interesting a particular section of truth is or not, and it shouldn't matter if it's wearing a fancy dress or not, no?
Just checking. 



Cyphyr said:


> I'd much rather analyze and conceptualize it a little further. That's how I enjoy my little slice of reality.


Fair enough, I totally understand that. I do like to do the same actually.
It's just that when it comes down to decide which way of thinking (in regards to reality) to integrate into my daily life, I'm pretty practical.^^



Cyphyr said:


> And in tesponse to your last point, in my opinion, of course, perception is irrelevant to existence, but it could be argued that existence is irrelevant in the absence of perception


Hehe, you could say that, yes. But then again that would be a pretty anthropocentric view.


----------



## Cyphyr (Jun 6, 2012)

diMaggio said:


> But I hope you wouldn't rather dismiss something just because it appears underwhelming?
> I mean, the truth is the truth, no matter how interesting a particular section of truth is or not, and it shouldn't matter if it's wearing a fancy dress or not, no?
> Just checking.


I concur. But every once in awhile I have to mentally test the bounds. Re-imagine things in a different light than just what is currently acceptable as truth. Which is in fact, how most scientific discovery is made. I mean, of COURSE the Earth is center of the universe, but what if it wasnt!!? 
And if it turns out that what has been told to me as fact, is in fact, fact P), then at least I can say Ive thought about it. 
wow, tangent. Cool.

Also, we live in an anthropocentric society, and yes I was bringing to light an anthropocentric train of thought, although, who's to say it wouldn't be similar if another species were the dominant on the planet/universe?


----------



## diMaggio (Apr 27, 2011)

@_Cyphyr_:
I was trying to point out a potential bias where sometimes we might dismiss something because it doesn't appear as interesting.
But I didn't actually think that was what you really meant. I just asked to make sure _and_ mention this kind of bias at the same time in case you weren't yet aware of it _despite_ what I was assuming. So think nothing of it. 

Also I like that you used "concur" instead of "agree", as I personally like to make the distinction between the two in order to say that I had the same thought independently/separately from someone. Because saying "I agree" mostly is ambiguous as to whether one merely accepts what someone else said or if one was actually thinking the same to begin with.

Regarding the question if existence might be irrelevant in the absence of perception:
Irrelevant to the perceiver (that is no more)? Yeah, I'd say so. Without any fresh input we'd be like a stagnating black-box, not being able to interact with anything, nor able to produce any novel thought beyond the initial "starting content" of our minds.
In that state existence would be pretty irrelevant to me, but that would be the least of my worries. 

But then again stars still explode, galaxies still spiral and move apart.
To the universe any perceiver is irrelevant as well.
IMO... presumably... ^^


----------



## Cyphyr (Jun 6, 2012)

diMaggio said:


> @_Cyphyr_:
> I was trying to point out a potential bias where sometimes we might dismiss something because it doesn't appear as interesting.
> But I didn't actually think that was what you really meant. I just asked to make sure _and_ mention this kind of bias at the same time in case you weren't yet aware of it _despite_ what I was assuming. So think nothing of it.
> 
> ...


Interesting. I suppose then you could perhaps say that the existence of the mind is irrelevant to the brain... Consciousness isn't particularly useful, in the sense that we (think we) know it, to the raw act of surviving... 
Also, yes I chose to use 'concur' with that in mind, although I too fall into the trap of using 'agree' in that sense. I appreciate you're noticing. (I tend to be a stickler for language sometimes. Say what you mean, or at least try... Another tangent for another day. Thoughtfulness breeds so many tangents when it comes to discussing behavior, and it seems as though so many people operate with such a low level of consciousness (heh) of their actions and the implications thereof... ahem.)


----------



## diMaggio (Apr 27, 2011)

Cyphyr said:


> Interesting. I suppose then you could perhaps say that the existence of the mind is irrelevant to the brain... Consciousness isn't particularly useful, in the sense that we (think we) know it, to the raw act of surviving...
> Also, yes I chose to use 'concur' with that in mind, although I too fall into the trap of using 'agree' in that sense. I appreciate you're noticing. (I tend to be a stickler for language sometimes. Say what you mean, or at least try... Another tangent for another day. Thoughtfulness breeds so many tangents when it comes to discussing behavior, and it seems as though so many people operate with such a low level of consciousness (heh) of their actions and the implications thereof... ahem.)


I'd say there is no absolute standard for the irrelevance of something, it always lies in the eyes of the beholder.
That means it might be true that the existence of the mind may be irrelevant to the brain.
But, to the mind, its own existence might not be _quite_ that irrelevant. At least it's not for mine. 

Or another example:
Someone else quenching their thirst is irrelevant to my own survival (i.e. not to die of dehydration).
But to that someone it is _not_ irrelevant to _their_ survival!

So, as with time, irrelevancy is relative and thus it's important to keep in mind to whom or what something is to be considered irrelevant or not.

But to come back to what you said:
I do agree that, to the brain, the mind or consciousness (to the degree that we humans display it) _might_ not be particularly necessary for raw survival. But then again it allowed us to become the apex predator on this planet. 
And personally, now that I've got a taste of cognition, I prefer to keep it and expand on it as much as I can;
to reach ever higher echelons of insight and understanding.
For me that is the essence, the purpose of my life.


----------



## Cyphyr (Jun 6, 2012)

And once again, I would say that I concur. This has been quite a pleasant topic of discussion...
Especially about being reticent to even think about having to give up being a cognizant being..


----------



## dream land fantasy (Sep 8, 2012)

All in Twilight said:


> Ok, but why? You're interested/doing research in a subject but you're not telling me what it is you're looking for.
> People confuse things here all the time. That's because they don't read books and don't know how to do research anymore. Wiki is their bandage.


 the difference bet. the 2 terms mind and brain because they are int. linked terms but not the same& i wanna prove it!


----------



## dream land fantasy (Sep 8, 2012)

diMaggio said:


> Ok, you compare the weight of books with the weight of the brain.
> It might be true that a gazillion tonnes of books are heavier than a 1kg brain.
> The problem with this comparison is that the books are not the analogy of the mind, but the information *on* the books is.
> 
> ...


i tried to differentiate bet. the 2 and not to project it's similarities on this thread!


----------



## ForlanceAbice (Jan 18, 2013)

orni said:


> wut?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah... I just completely blanked the moment I read the whole thing...
It is just.... I don't even know how to respond.


----------



## Orchidion (Jan 3, 2013)

dream land fantasy said:


> the difference bet. the 2 terms mind and brain because they are int. linked terms but not the same& i wanna prove it!


So you do not possess a prove that mind and brain are substantially different entities. You have yet made a judgement and now look for evidence. You are biased.

As long as you can find a physiological correlate for psychological phenomenas, the assertion that brain and mind are essentially different is futile. Occams razor would make this whole situation easier.

12 pages have been written in this thread by now, still there is virtually no argument from your side supporting this notion, merely extracts of texts you copied and pasted here. It is about time you bring all your arguments and empirical data favoring this theory in here.


----------



## ForlanceAbice (Jan 18, 2013)

The brain is simply which that shelter's the mind within.


----------



## b90 (Aug 15, 2011)

My opinion on all of this.

Our minds are simply a product of our chemical composition, our memories and experiences and brains. We're all just highly complex biological machines. There is no mind outside the body. (Or brain, for that matter.) Someone mentioned the heart being more of a persons "mind" than the brain. What about people on bypass? Do people lose their possibility for emotion and compassion if their hearts stop? What about heart transplants? Do they loose a part of their consciousness when their heart is removed? Do they gain something else when a heart from a donor takes its place? That's preposterous.

Short term memory resides in the frontal lobe, long term memory through neural pathways and connections which form and spread throughout the brain. In a sense, our brain very much is like a computer, but we're not operating on ones and zeroes. We start learning from when we are very young, and as a product of this, our brains form different neural paths and connections, some perhaps by chance, some by certain experiences, perhaps we're born a certain way, or with a certain personality, but we're all shaped and formed by our environment. There is no higher power, no "soul" external to the body.

This is all speculation, I'm not a neuroscientist, nor a psychologist. But I like the idea that we're nothing more than electrical impulses coursing through our brains, in a way, it makes us all special, and makes life seem even more precious. At least to me.


----------



## Cyphyr (Jun 6, 2012)

b90 said:


> My opinion on all of this.
> 
> Our minds are simply a product of our chemical composition, our memories and experiences and brains. We're all just highly complex biological machines. There is no mind outside the body. (Or brain, for that matter.) Someone mentioned the heart being more of a persons "mind" than the brain. What about people on bypass? Do people lose their possibility for emotion and compassion if their hearts stop? What about heart transplants? Do they loose a part of their consciousness when their heart is removed? Do they gain something else when a heart from a donor takes its place? That's preposterous.
> 
> ...


Gotta love Descartes for convincing us we're all machines..
I have trouble with your analogy though.. Because you are talking about the physical heart, and I believe the person who wrote this was referring to the figurative heart (seat of motivation), therefore saying the mind (seat of thought, compilation of all the data that makes up a person) doesn't follow. So no, removing a persons heart does not destroy their ability to perceive emotions, however destroying part of the brain does, at least until the brain can partially rewire itself. (I've seen this to be the case with my mother-in-law who had a severe right-hemisphere stroke and was nearly blind to emotion for several weeks afterward.)
I do at least partially agree with what has been postulated that the mind is product of the brains activity, but I had to call you out on your analogy for the sake of clarity. 
Dont take it personally, my mind made me do it.


----------



## b90 (Aug 15, 2011)

Cyphyr said:


> Gotta love Descartes for convincing us we're all machines..
> I have trouble with your analogy though.. Because you are talking about the physical heart, and I believe the person who wrote this was referring to the figurative heart (seat of motivation), therefore saying the mind (seat of thought, compilation of all the data that makes up a person) doesn't follow. So no, removing a persons heart does not destroy their ability to perceive emotions, however destroying part of the brain does, at least until the brain can partially rewire itself. (I've seen this to be the case with my mother-in-law who had a severe right-hemisphere stroke and was nearly blind to emotion for several weeks afterward.)
> I do at least partially agree with what has been postulated that the mind is product of the brains activity, but I had to call you out on your analogy for the sake of clarity.
> Dont take it personally, my mind made me do it.


Well, Descartes also believed that "heart" or "soul" was different from our mechanical bodies in the sense that it was nonmaterial and disconnected from the laws of nature. While I can certainly agree that someones personality, or "mind" isn't something that can be physically seen or touched, I do believe it's a product of our environment, past experiences and physical makeup. As opposed to being something otherworldly, which travels trough space and time.

Though, I'll agree when you put it like that, that I might have misinterpreted the post above in regards of the heart, in that they meant that it was a figurative heart, which serves as a seat of motivation as you coined it, and not something disconnected from our physical bodies.

When it comes to the topic of brain damage, and people healing and reverting back to being just about the same person they used to be, even after severe trauma to vital parts of the brain, I don't know enough to even speculate as to how that works. But I still believe it has something to do with how amazing the human body is, and how great the brain is to make up for such damage, as opposed to the idea of a unique soul, which resides in each and every one of us until our physical bodies deteriorate.

Oh and, don't worry.  I don't take it personally at all. If anything, your reply made me smile. 
Discussion is fun, and it's only a discussion if there are others with different views and opinions than yourself, else it would just be talking.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

I wonder if the first human clone will silence the soul proponents.


----------



## b90 (Aug 15, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> I wonder if the first human clone will silence the soul proponents.


I doubt it.
It would probably just add fuel to the fire.


----------



## Mindtraveler (Apr 21, 2013)

Our mind is not here to be held in pink pudding!


----------



## vorpal (Jun 12, 2011)

I am interested to hear what PerC thinks about Dario Nardi and his study into how cognitive functions correlate to areas of activity on the brain... 
I think his book is called 'the neuroscience of personality'

It has a very pop-science feel but I think if there is only an ounce of truth in his research it is worth it.


oh yea, this relates to how the nd ad brain are one....


----------



## pmj85 (Jul 31, 2010)

Christ in a chicken basket.


----------



## Number Six (Mar 4, 2013)

b90 said:


> There is no mind outside the body. (Or brain, for that matter.) Someone mentioned the heart being more of a persons "mind" than the brain. What about people on bypass? Do people lose their possibility for emotion and compassion if their hearts stop? What about heart transplants? Do they loose a part of their consciousness when their heart is removed? Do they gain something else when a heart from a donor takes its place? That's preposterous.


Hi.

_"the heart is a sensory organ and a sophisticated information encoding and processing center, with an extensive intrinsic nervous system sufficiently sophisticated to qualify as a "heart brain" .... Armour discusses intriguing data documenting the complex neuronal processing and memory capabilities of the intrinsic cardiac nervous system, indicating that the heart brain can process information and make decisions about its control independent of the central nervous system. By providing an understanding of the elaborate anatomy and physiology of the cardiac nervous system, this monograph contributes to the newly emerging view of the heart as a complex, self-organized system that maintains a continuous two-way dialogue with the brain and the rest of the body.(source: http://www.heartmath.org/research/e-books/index.html)"
_
_"...Paul Pearsall is one of many researchers who has observed that transplant patients who receive an organ from another person's body may also receive much more -- what he calls their "cellular memories." Recipients have reported inheriting everything from the donor's food cravings to knowledge about his murderer -- information that in one case led to the killer's arrest. As a result of these and other researchers' findings, Pearsall is now convinced that the heart has its own form of intelligence, that we are only rarely aware of in modern life. In his view, the heart processes information about the body and the outside world through an "info-energetic code" -- a profuse network of blood vessels and cells that serves not only as our circulatory system but as an energy information gathering and distribution system, much like a complex telephone network. What's more, he believes that the soul, at least in part, is a set of cellular memories that is carried largely by our hearts. Predictably, such views have met with opposition in the medical world. But in his view, the implications of his theories -- that the heart "thinks," cells remember, and communication can therefore transcend the boundaries of time and space -- are too important for him to dismiss.” (These comments come from here: http://www.ikosmos.com/wisdomeditions/essays/mw/bennett01.htm)"
_

Don't feel I'm stating this as proof of opinion, just that there are documented facts to the contrary. Neurocardiology is fascinating. There are thousands of cases that infer we do lose something of ourselves and gain something of others via transplants. How you interpret "lose/gain" is subjective, though.

I agree that we're nothing more than decaying electrical impulses. I disagree that the mind is part of that. Again, though - 'mind' is such a loose term it's absolutely futile to try and explain something using it in a scientific sense. Not everyone is into analogies and metaphors, and I can't articulate myself well enough without them, so I just wanted to offer some differing opinions by people that do speak science.


----------



## orni (Sep 19, 2012)

vorpal said:


> I am interested to hear what PerC thinks about Dario Nardi and his study into how cognitive functions correlate to areas of activity on the brain...
> I think his book is called 'the neuroscience of personality'
> 
> It has a very pop-science feel but I think if there is only an ounce of truth in his research it is worth it.
> ...


http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/128709-nueroscience-personality-dario-nardi.html


----------



## mapledinosaur (Apr 22, 2013)

dream land fantasy said:


> The scientific and rational community have spent an inordinate amount of time and money studying the brain. The belief among these individuals is that the brain is the ultimate part of who we are. They say that the brain controls everything. The mind, according to these scientific types, is just a function of the brain. This is akin to the belief that the brain secretes hormones through the glandular system, establishes electrical impulses through the electrical system and has many more functions. We are told by our scientists that the brain is the most important organ and the mind is just an activity that the brain performs.


If they are really scientific and rational, I would think that they rather say that our genes makes up an ultimate part of who we are and our brain is a tool to put all of that genetic information to work. The statement that the brain being the most important organ appears simply to be an opinion if it depends on whether a human is standing between life and death. What about the heart? and the mind is not an activity performed by the brain, but thinking is. 



> Nothing could be farther from the truth. The reality is that scientists and rational-minded individuals have it completely backwards. The mind is much bigger than the brain. The mind does not live in the brain but passes through the brain.


I believe when you mention the "mind" you actually mean human "intellect".. at least that's what it sounds like. Humans are able to have their intellect by using their brains to think. In that sense, we owe it to our brains that we have all of our thoughts do we not? Thus, it is not that either the "mind" or the brain is lesser or greater than either or but coexisting and benefiting from each other. 



> Magic will begin to happen at even a quicker pace when we stop studying the brain (just an organ) and learn how to focus our minds. Scientists and brain researchers are far away from the leading edge of discovery. You can not study the mind with a microscope, X-Ray, MRI or a CAT scan.


Indeed, you cannot study the mind with a microscope. but you can study the brain with a microscope and that is to study anatomy and an attempt to find any possible correlation with our thoughts and actions in accordance. This field of study is usually in the anatomy and biology related part of science whereas studying the mind is found in psychology - in which scientists conduct studies on people actions and trying to understand thought. The difference is physical vs. mental, and therefore not the same.



> Using your mind to attract your reality is actually a very simple technique. First, make your thoughts important. Most people randomly shrug off their thoughts as not being important. They often get stuck thinking the same old negative thoughts all day long and can not begin to see the relationship between what they are thinking and what is happening in their life.


what do you mean when you say that one can use their mind to attract reality?


----------

