Mind a no-brainer?
damscot at my-deja.com
damscot at my-deja.com
Fri Jan 7 14:38:08 EST 2000
In article <38754D2A.9566814A at earthlink.net>,
kenneth Collins <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote:
> damscot at my-deja.com wrote:
> > Brain and Mind are different species as are hardware and program. I
> > Mind (program) as purely an abstract (non-physical) entity; Brain
> > (computer) as a purely physical entity. Thought is a physical
> > 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
> > 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.
> Forgive me, please, what you say is False.
> the only thing, with respect to 'mind', that is not completely
> Biological is the energy-flow that comes to the nervous system from
> external experiential environment.
Your saying that it's all physical? What then is meaning? Surely it is
not physical, in a 3D-time framework. You can't measure it, locate it,
dimension it, or even describe it, except in terms of other meaning.
Yet, it is all that we have to think with and all that's worth thinking
about. It's our only reality! I can't buy your thesis here on this
> and the brain (nervous system) is capable of understanding how the
> (nervous system) processes information, just as it's capable of
> understanding anything else within physical reality.
Yes, and that capability is limited.
> what it cannot do is predict the entirety of the energy-flow that
> to it from the external experiential environment.
Your right here, I feel. But, don't forget, the brain is itself
external to the mind, which is what limits its capability as re. above.
This explains why we are forced to separate brain from mind and why
mind can't ever completely understand brain or mind.
> and as far as the 'change' that seems to occur as one observes more
> more closely, such 'just' occurs as a function of learning which
> within the brains of both observer and observed.
> brains are like anything else that's studied, and typically, the more
> one studies, the more one comes to see what was in-there all along.
I disagree here. I think There is a fundamental difference between
brains and all else external which we may analyze. The difference
being that there exists a feedback loop between the brain and mind
which is not present with other external realities we perceive. The
mind affects the brain which in-turn affects the mind. We can't break
the loop without affecting/changing either/both. But, we subjects can't
objectively analyze the brain without breaking the loop. Thus, it is
impossible for us to understand either component of our duality.
> with respect to such, it's important to realize that, sometimes, the
> observed 'change' occurs as a function of the observer's learning.
> ken (K. P. Collins)
Despite our different views, I greatly appreciate your thoughts and
efforts in discussing these matters.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
More information about the Neur-sci