IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Mind a no-brainer?

kenneth Collins kpaulc at earthlink.net
Fri Jan 7 20:21:03 EST 2000

damscot at my-deja.com wrote:
> 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
> 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.
> >
> > 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
> the
> > external experiential environment.
> Your saying that it's all physical? 

i'm an amateur Scientist. i'm saying that all i can Explain is within
the realm of what's physical, because that's the realm in which Science
pursues understanding.

if you care to know, i Believe more, but cannot underpin my Belief with
experimentally-derived evidence.

my Belief does, however, dovetail in an unusual way. i can demonstrate
that Jesus Knew how nervous systems process information. i cannot
explain how Jesus could know how nervous systems process-information,
only that He did.

>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.

'meaning' is measurable, locatable and 'dimensionable', and so is it's
correlation to other 'meaning'. doing exactly all of this is in the work
that i do as a Scientist.

> 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
> point.

that's be-cause i've understanding that you've not yet acquired (through
no lack of my working to make it available to you, and everyone else).

> > and the brain (nervous system) is capable of understanding how the
> brain
> > (nervous system) processes information, just as it's capable of
> > understanding anything else within physical reality.
> Yes, and that capability is limited.

within the bounds of individual nervous systems' capacities for doing
information-processing work, and within the volitionally-imposed
'bounds' of individuals' actually doing such information-processing

but, when the capacities for nervous-systems' sharing of their
capacities for doing information-processing work, and communicating
such, over the course of generations, no 'limit' can be assigned to the
sum of such information-processing dynamics.

i do agree, however, almost all of the summed-across-all-of-Humanity
information-processing capacity goes to Waste.

it's in that Waste that the things you address gain the illusion of

> > what it cannot do is predict the entirety of the energy-flow that
> comes
> > 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.

how can i 'forget' that which has never been established :-)

> This explains why we are forced to separate brain from mind and why
> mind can't ever completely understand brain or mind.

forgive me, please, you're conceptualizations are unfounded in reality.

yes, there are physical infinities, but nervous system function is
rigorously coupled to the same stuff as are the physical infinities,
which allows nervous systems to 'go' anywhere, within the physical
infinities, to the degree that they do information-processing work.

> > and as far as the 'change' that seems to occur as one observes more
> and
> > more closely, such 'just' occurs as a function of learning which
> occurs
> > 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.

then let us agree to disagree.

> 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.

i expect that, if i ask you to explain this so-called 'mind-brain
feedback loop', you'll say you can't, and that that is what supposedly
'prooves' your position.

but, using the experimental results produced by my colleagues in
Science, i can explain what you refer to as the (paraphrase) 'mind-brain
feedback loop'.

what i can't explain is all of the variation that's possible within the
external environmental energy-flow upon which all of the nervous
system's information-processing dynamics are completely dependent, and
everything that determines that external energy-flow variation.

such requires Omniscience.

> We can't break the loop without affecting/changing either/both.

individual nervous systems can. it's when two, or more, nervous systems
get caught-up in undoing each other's information-processing work, as i
pointed out above, transforming the net 'information-processing'
dynamics totally into waste, that such happens.

this's why i long ago Chose to work in solitude.

> 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.


all one has to do is do the extra work entailed in avoiding getting
caught-up in Wasteful 'information-processing' dynamics.

> > 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.

forgive me, please, i mean no 'offense', but just the opposite. it's
been, largely, Waste as far as i'm concerned.

there's Sorrow in-it.

K. P. Collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net