What is the mind?

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Sat Dec 12 04:21:00 EST 1998

Let's see... where to begin...?

I =Saw= the "Duality" that's discussed in AoK... that behavior is
produced only as a by-product of TD E/I-minimization... I was aware of
Cartesian "mind/brain duality", but just didn't think that folks'd read
only the title, and "decide" what the theory was based on that... a
classic case of "judging a book by its cover".

There are many "dualities" invoked in Science. Originally, I'd named the
Neuroscience theory "Duality Theory". I had to change that to
"Neuroscientific Duality Theory" because "Duality Theory" was already
the name of something else... I tend to be "wary" of verbal-"fanciness"
for the sake of "verbal-fanciness" (although I've got a playful streak
that sometimes "slips-out"... kind of like the Spirit of the Comic
Strip, "Rose is Rose", which I =Love= because of it's Celebration of
Joy, itself)... but "words" are just place-holders for me... a
tied-to-Earth means of addressing Thought that's Free to Soar... so I
never "worried" about the "duality" in the theory's name... and when I
realized that folks were associating the theory's stuff with the old
mind/brain duality, I thought about changing the name, but 1. that'd
resulted in confusion, 2. probably would've exacerbated the
"difficulty", and 3. I saw that'd be a good "exercise" for folks to
work-it-through for themselves... so I left it.

Folks know I Believe in God... but there's no "duality"... God's
In-There... for very-Sturdy Reasons, I've allowed myself to view what's
described by 2nd Thermo (wdb2t) as Being an Actual Physical =Presence=
of God, in a "Glimmering" Way... the "Hand" of God, right there for us
to flat-out See, if only we Look.

BTW, the stuff about folks thinking I'm deliberately "being mysterious",
and such, stems from the stuff I Learned while contemplating folks
"flipping-out" over the "duality" in the theory's name. Seeing that
folks could read the title, and not the text, and then "argue" about
"what it all means", I also Saw that it'd be =Slow= going. (It was
actually with this Realization that I "Died"... I Saw that the work
would "Eat" my Whole Life, not leaving anything for me to have a Family
of my own... or even a dog... or a garage... I =Love= garages... the
slow getting-it-right of working on an engine, and polishing some old
metal all-bright-and-shiny is a Joy for me... these days, I just have to
smile... I've found an 18 x 20 storage shed that goes for under
$5000.00, and if I can find a piece of land that's commensurate, I'm
going to build one of those, and live in it :-) At least I'll be able to
have a dog (I Dearly-Love 'em.) If I can afford it, I'll add a second
unit at another "time". I Love Simplicity, and when I was a Child, my
Mother told me how my Father had dug a cellar by hand... pick, shovel
and wheelbarrow... and I've kinf-of always wanted to do the same... it's
not "weird"... I just like to "make stuff out of as little as
possible"... like Dad, when he'd make all sorts of excellent, un-fancy
stuff out of skid- and box-wood... to see only a pile of "worthless"
stuff, through the work you're Willing to Do, become =Something= Does-It
for me. (I've an "unfair-advantage" in this... un-fanciness right from
the beginning, so I never need much... which is probably why I've not
been able to win-any-"Heart" to-walk-with-me :-) ...because folks've
never talked to me, folks've got all kinds of "imaginings" about me...
but I just Love to Experience the Work I can do Becoming Something...
Other than my research materials, which I've got to maintain as part of
my Obligation as Scientist, I've always Given away everything I've
had... it's just in-me that that's the thing to do with stuff... get
such from my Mother. It was Her Way... didn't Understand 'til She was
Gone... it's more-than-"magic" stuff.

Anyway, I gave my Word of Honor, years ago, that I'd never accept any
"awards"... nothing against "awards" (as long as the Awardee's feet stay
on the ground), but I Saw that I could do nothing that'd give folks
reason to think, "Well, see? He was only in it for [such-and-such]."
When I was Young, it was Hard, because I wanted to have something to
Offer to a Woman with whom I could Celebrate Life... but after I "Died",
it got a lot easier. So "no 'awards'" is alright with me, especially if
that'll get the Understanding to the Children quicker... and it's for
the Best, anyway, 'cause I'd've wanted Simplicity, and Simplicity is
Hard-to-find these days... so, somebody'd be "unhappy" in-there... so
it's for the Best.

Experience also Taught, long-ago, me, however, that I =Must=
Stand-Against any who'd withhold the Understanding from the Children for
the sake of "profits"... and I'll Successfully =Do= So (over the years,
I've spent great quantities of energy working to Admonish folks who'd
try to take-and-whithhold the Understanding's stuff... folks've
Misinterpreted such as "indicating" (just like the misinterpretation of
the theory's title) that I'm some sort of "gold-digger"... which has
been the thing that's Hurt, if not the most, at least the longest.) It
doesn't even need me Alive anymore... but I'd like to make it to my

I'm not against doing the Science for a salary. But, since I'll
Countenence no "co-opting" of the Understanding, there's no special
benefit in-it for the folks who'd pay my salary, so I'm not expecting
such to ever happen.

So that leaves me Free to make sure the Understanding reaches the
Children in Fullness... that's What's Going-to-Happen. There's No-Help
for any who'd Transgress Such. Cheers, John, and G'd Ay, Might, ken
(gotta Sign it... K. P. Collins)

John wrote:
> Nigel & Julie Thomas wrote in message <36710B55.6EBBCD78 at earthlink.net>...
> >
> >
> >This, of course, is the metaphysical position known as dualism. Most
> >contemporary philosophers reject it as incompatible with a scientific
> approach
> >to reality.
> Incompatible may not quite be the correct word. Dualism lies beyond
> scientific investigation, in that sense it is incompatible. If thinkers of
> the calibre of Eccles and Popper "The Self and its Brain" (a failed attempt
> to give scientific credence to dualism) are any indication, I would be
> reluctant to say that being scientific entails a repudiation of dualism.
> Someone else can put forward the idea much better:
> The Metaphoric Process: The Creation of Scientific and Religious
> Understanding
>    Mary Gerhart and Allan Russell.
> p. 176
> "We can see that scientists and religious theories differ, then,a in the
> frequency with which their theories point beyond themselves
> Dualism asserts that there exists aspects of consciousness that lie beyond
> our current understanding. No-one can deny our current ignorance. To assert
> that consciousness will be understood without reference to a dualistic
> perspective is to, at present at least, engage in a metaphysic speculation
> as unwarranted as the claims of Popper and Eccles in their fine but flawed
> work.
> >Real intellectual work is hard, isn't it. Requires study, and careful
> thinking,
> >and even some humility and respect for people who have devoted their life
> to a
> >subject.
> >
> >[Quantum mechanics confuses me. Gotta be nonsense, eh? I've spent years
> studying
> >(other) difficult subjects, sciences even. Bet I could come up with a
> better
> >theory and put it on a wesite.]
> Could still be nonsense but only in the sense Newton's cosmology is
> nonsense.
> >> Man lacks the intellectual equipment to understand the relationship
> between
> >> body and soul (mind).
> Yeah but we're getting better all the time. Perhaps in time, until then we
> simply must accept it as scientific faith that one day we will explain these
> things scientifically.
> We build theories, we destroy them, we build ...
> >By the way, Galileo and Newton were, and considered themselves to be,
> >philosophers, not scientists. They knew their Aristotle and their Augustine
> at
> >least as well as they knew their Copernicus (and they *needed* to know them
> to
> >succeed in what they were doing). The word "scientist" and the distinction
> >between philosophers and scientists, does not go back before the mid 19th
> >century and has more to do with the conveience of university administrators
> than
> >with any real intellectual divide. To treat philosophers and scientists as
> >entrenched intellectual enemies with radically divergent aims is simply to
> show
> >ignorance of the history and the nature of both disciplinary areas.
> Excellent point. History will one day have us all looking stupid. We can
> only work with what we've got.
> John.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list