Bloxy's at hotmail.com
Wed Nov 4 20:19:38 EST 1998
In article <71qpgr$qoh at ux.cs.niu.edu>, rickert at cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) wrote:
>"Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net> writes:
>>Neil Rickert wrote in message <71ofsg$p01 at ux.cs.niu.edu>...
>>>The problem with this is that it conflicts with ordinary usage. The
>>>usual idea is that the soul is spiritual or immaterial, whereas the
>>>mind might well be material - something like an executing process or
>>>virtual machine. Since I don't believe in souls, I prefer the term
>>What is "ordinary usage"? "Mind" is widely used among religious people (the
>>majority by any reasonable count) to refer to the part of the soul that
>>thinks and reasons. They would say that the soul also feels and decides. and
>>is thus more than just mind.
>But mind is widely used by non-religious people, many of whom deny that there
>is such a thing as a soul.
They can deny all they want. But it does not matter a bit.
They can not disprove it.
They can not even distinguish the brain from the mind
at the moment.
>>"Might well be material". The brain is certainly material and one who has no
>>use for soul might easily limit himself to "brain" when others say "mind".
>Some people might say that a virtual machine, as created in a
>computing system, is not material. It depends on how strictly you
>use the word "material". In any case, it is no threat to science if
>the mind is thought of as something like a virtual machine.
Well, the question of identity arises.
Mind does have identity.
Mind is self image.
A set of ideas, that constitute a particular identity,
having its own goals, and carrying out some specific
tasks, directing the perception and things of that nature.
More information about the Neur-sci