Mind a no-brainer?
kpaulc at earthlink.net
Sun Jan 2 15:25:20 EST 2000
just in case... i'm 'tired' of explaining it, but Neuroscientific
Duality Theory (NDT) is a 'monist' theory in Biology.
the 'Duality' in the theory's name is all Biology, and was selected to
emphasize the way that cognition, affect and behavior are produced only
as 'blindly'-automated =by-products= of TD E/I-minimization.
i Chose to emphasize things in this way be-cause the fundamental thing
that NDT is all about is the way that the 'blind'-automation Ravages
the 'duality' 'exists', needlessly, be-cause Abstract Ignorance exists,
be-cause 'mind' requires more than the Biology (namely,
externally-derived energy-flow), trying to 'cram' 'mind' into the
biology is non-sensical.
i expect nobody'll comprehend what i'm saying, here, but am 'tierd' of
being treated, superficially, as if i'm some 'freak' who is 'unworthy'
of 'normal' Human interaction, while, in actuality, folks given over to
Greed are sucking the Life out of my Being, so that they can enable the
"Beast's" continued, Ravaging existence.
K. P. Collins
[P. S. it's my Analysis that the lingering after-effects of the Indian
highjacking Need =Immediate= Attention. (the Indian Leadership is having
'difficulty' coming to terms with the fact that they set a 'precedent'
with respect to 'rewarding' highjacking, and they're 'firing from the
hip' in an 'effort' to 'slip' the fact. which is 'nuclearly'-relevant.
dag.stenberg at helsinki.nospam.fi wrote:
> damscot at my-deja.com wrote:
> > If Monists were right, then any brain would then be both objective to
> > and functionally generative of its own subjective mind, if it had one.
> > That is, the brain itself would have to directly perceive and yet
> > subsume itself as mind, and thus be both subjective/superior and
> > objective/inferior at the same time - which seems obviously
> > contradictory - and therefore, impossible.
> Your reasoning does not have to be right. If the mind emerges at the
> result of the action of numerous nerve cell elements, it is still
> something that the individual cells did not produce before they got
> interconnected and generated the mind (the whole is more tan the parts).
> Now as the mind emerges from the consorted action of the cell
> elements, it creates an environment that was not in the original
> ementary functions. Whatever results from the operations of the mind
> (goal-seeking behavior, awareness, memories, speech and communication
> and whatnot) will influence the cells in the brain, thus changing their
> mode of operation, which will feed back upon the mind, etc.
> To me, there is no contradiction in this. But I never thought it out
> for myself before reading Roger Sperry, who was definitely a monist, and
> who has put the principle into words more clearly and in detail.
> Dag Stenberg
More information about the Neur-sci