In article <hTHc4.15$fTc.170741760 at news.telia.no>,
"Patrik Bagge" <pab at neramd.no> wrote:
>> >Lets try again. Let's say the brain does generate the mind; and that
> >mind then correctly perceives the brain which creates it.
> >If this were true, then the brain would actually perceive itself (via
> >the mind which it generates.) This is what I mean by (directly). But,
> >again (if Kant is right), the mind would not know the truth about its
> >own brain which it perceives. Thus, in this sense, the mind must view
> >itself to be independent of it's brain. But we (our minds) already
> >that it depends upon the brain for its very existance. Thus, it
> >we have some sort of inherent contradiction.
> >I hope this helps. But, perhaps my views are still not well
>> Why do you separate 'brain' from 'mind' ?
> To me there is no special distinction, it's somewhat like separating
> hardware (computer) from software (programs) that run on it.
>> One could perhaps say that 'mind' is a subset of brain, which
> runs the software (electrical/chemical/connectivist activity)
>> The fantastic part is that the brain is probably the first
> 'machine' capable of understanding itself.
>Brain and Mind are different species as are hardware and program. I see
Mind (program) as purely an abstract (non-physical) entity; Brain
(computer) as a purely physical entity. Thought is a physical (Chem.,
elec) process, but "meaning" is not. Mind is the meaning of thought.
This is my own understanding of such. Yes it is amazing to me that
brains can process thoughts, even of thought itself. But, I don't think
brains can understand themselves, not ever. That would require
understanding understanding itself. As you approach it, it changes.
Your very observation modifies it. Like the uncertainty Principle.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.