18 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm tempted to answer that this is due to cultural "baggage". Another answer is that it is a way to circunvent the issues being discussed here when they are immaterial to a particular conversation.
Never mind the soul, why do we talk about the mind and not just the brain?
More interestingly (well...for me), it could be that the mind is a result of the functioning of the brain, i.e. the output, and not the brain itself.
18 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI'd agree with that. Maybe. (Brain as interface: convertor).
More interestingly (well...for me), it could be that the mind is a result of the functioning of the brain, i.e. the output.
Any comments about 'soul' by me are idly speculative. I mean, I don't have faith in such, but I'm open to the possibility that such might exist.
But anyway. For me, soul (not 'the soul'đ would be the ground of being -- the Ain Soph of the Kabbalists, if you like -- upon which mind rests. But that way lies double-talk, paradox and the demonstrably undemonstrable. Can I interest you in some Zen literature ... ? đ
(Actually you might just be interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_Goswami ).
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by PalynkaYou tend to say "I think" not "my brain thinks" and for some reason "I" tends not to identify with "my brain".
I'm tempted to answer that this is due to cultural "baggage". Another answer is that it is a way to circunvent the issues being discussed here when they are immaterial to a particular conversation.
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by PalynkaYes, people used to believe that the mind cast a sort of light on the objects of its perception ...
In that view, the brain would not be an interface, it would be the source.
Data is converted by the brain into -- information. The mind uses this -- information -- as the basis of its perceptions -- by interpreting it. (That's my hand!)
Does the brain have a will of its own?
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBecause the "I" and "my brain" are the same.
You tend to say "I think" not "my brain thinks" and for some reason "I" tends not to identify with "my brain".
Your brain's will and your will are one and the same. I don't see how those are separate items.
It's just like we don't say "my hand picked up that hammer", we would say "I picked up that hammer".
It's a manifestation of our awareness that we are a total being as a whole that when I say "I think..." it means "My brain thinks.." implicitly, just like saying "I picked up that hammer" implies that I picked it up with my hand. I could have picked it up with my feet, but we assume the most often situation in our interpretation of the language.
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFrom the links that I found searching (and frankly didn't read in depth), it seems the explanation was that the blood drained from their brain and caused the NDE.
Presumably not fraudulent experiences. Autosuggestion?
Many different things can cause someone's brain to see things that aren't there - peyote, LSD..etc.. - also apparently, a loss of oxygen.
It also makes sense that in the case of specifically heart attack patients that some would. There is a blockage in an artery so the blood flow (including to the brain) is impeded - hence the same symptom as the pilots in the centrifuge.
You could make the same argument that people actually dying could be autosuggesting. For example, they know they are dying and they believe there is an afterlife so they convince themselves it's happening.
19 Mar 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAvoiding the questions again.
Why can they replicate? Why does information exist? What holds it together?
Properties are properties ... They're there or not, nothing 'special' about them.
I'm hypothesising supernatural beings? Nope. Your projector is working overtime.
Genes are not subject to gravity? News to me ... Tell more.
You appear to think that there is something special about replication. You are a little vague about it though. So please make it clearer. Is that your claim?
My challenge is that there are many far more complicated chemical processes, so why pick on replication.
Copying DNA is relatively simple and can be done in a petri dish without any life being involved.
Far more complex are processes like creating proteins from a gene, or pumping chemicals through the cell wall etc etc. Why pick on the DNA copying reaction and single it out as special?
19 Mar 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhat do you mean by 'a will'?
Yes, people used to believe that the mind cast a sort of light on the objects of its perception ...
Data is converted by the brain into -- information. The mind uses this -- information -- as the basis of its perceptions -- by interpreting it. (That's my hand!)
Does the brain have a will of its own?
I don't see the brain as a passive filter, which is what I tend to visualize when someone sees it as an interface. The brain itself interprets it and what we call the mind is the end result, in the sense of output. Note that the output is not just the set of final ideas or the conclusions, but the whole process of arriving to them.
Change the brain and the mind will change, even with the same input. Is this due to different filtering or processing? I think it's more akin to the latter.
19 Mar 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadJust stick it. Put me on your list or whatever you please. It's an interesting topic, but you're an insufferable interlocutor.
Avoiding the questions again.
You appear to think that there is something special about replication. You are a little vague about it though. So please make it clearer. Is that your claim?
My challenge is that there are many far more complicated chemical processes, so why pick on replication.
Copying DNA is relatively simple and can be done in a pet ...[text shortened]... hrough the cell wall etc etc. Why pick on the DNA copying reaction and single it out as special?
19 Mar 08
Originally posted by Palynka'Will' in the ordinary meaning of the word. "I do it because it is my will".
What do you mean by 'a will'?
I don't see the brain as a passive filter, which is what I tend to visualize when someone sees it as an interface. The brain itself interprets it and what we call the mind is the end result, in the sense of output. Note that the output is not just the set of final ideas or the conclusions, but the whole process of arriving to ...[text shortened]... put. Is this due to different filtering or processing? I think it's more akin to the latter.
A better question would probably be what is the locus of the will in the brain.
So far you're persuading me. "I am my brain" -- is that correct?
19 Mar 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI apologize if I offended you. I am merely trying to understand your ideas regarding the soul, yet whenever I ask questions that I believe will help me better understand your position, you do not answer them. I know my communication skills leave much to be desired, so feel free to let me know where I can improve.
Just stick it. Put me on your list or whatever you please. It's an interesting topic, but you're an insufferable interlocutor.
All I want to know is:
1. Do you think that replication is special in some way.
2. If so, why?
19 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage"Will" is a harder concept to pin down. I'd say it's part of how we perceive our own thoughts. The catch is that we can only perceive this through thinking! This sounds too circular... Any ideas?
'Will' in the ordinary meaning of the word. "I do it because it is my will".
A better question would probably be what is the locus of the will in the brain.
So far you're persuading me. "I am my brain" -- is that correct?
"I am my brain" -- is that correct?
Again, a similar problem. Is not the "I" that you refer to* a mental construct itself? Then "I" cannot "be" my brain, but am again a product of it. Note that this is coherent with a combination of nature and nurture. Although the processing machine that creates the "I" is the brain, the different inputs (experiences, perceptions, etc) are also an integral part of the final product, i.e. an integral part of my own "I".
*If you mean the physical entity, then it would be simply the state of one's body, non-essential parts included. Not a very enticing viewpoint...
20 Mar 08
Information is a first-step abstraction of the pattern formed by matter. Since it is an abstraction, information does not actually exist. If two computers store the same information then we have two sets of physical entities, but the abstract information is the same.
We view the mind in an abstract way, just like we do with information. Thus, one would not say the mind exists. The illusion that it does exist, and the confusion that follows, is caused by the uniqueness of our minds. It is easier to see that information is abstract because we can picture it being copied etc.
The mind is an abstract version of the physical interactions in the brain.