• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Brain Vs. The Mind

ilikeitlikethat

You're unbelievable ...
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
2,158
MBTI Type
xNTP
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
We know it's in our brain because we don't think out of our butt.




I believe it was Rene Descartes who first realised what we take for granted today; and that is... I exist.

We know, somehow, that our mind is in our brain and our brain is in our head...
So what trouble Descartes I guess was, was the brain the organ for the mind, and what is reality. He deduced that, we're here, and even if there is something saying that we're here, even that, is a form of existence, so if you think you exist, then you are.

What if... I, ilikeitlikethat wonder, but, what if... He had a point, and the brain wasn't the mind but just a tool for the mind, then what if, we can live outside our bodies, what is the mind? It seems to be the one thing, that truely is you; your being here; otherwise, you'd just be a mindless thing.
 

Eugene Watson VIII

Senor Membrae
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
824
MBTI Type
xxxP
Enneagram
?
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
i tried to obe and live the rest of my life as a astral projecting musician. life is pretty grim when you cant be an astronaut, so i thought id drop out and jam with the aliens. i am currently obeing now
 

Daemon Corax

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
70
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp
Gee, I have to agree with [MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION] . Even though I see it's been stated already, I don't see any logical point that your text could make. Pointless will be my remarks, as well, but it seems I couldn't help dropping a line. Or more.

We know, somehow, that our mind is in our brain and our brain is in our head...

The phrase above is utterly useless and simply "doesn't sound right", especially since you included the word "somehow", which adds absolutely nothing to the main idea. "The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do." —Thomas Jefferson. Your piece of reasoning can only be deemed as superfluous.

I believe it was Rene Descartes who first realised what we take for granted today; and that is... I exist.

Theories concerning existence have been developed by every major philosophical system that has been around. They all offered theories regarding reality, as well. I believe Descartes is better known as having correlated thought with existence, hence "Cogito, ergo sum". On a similar note, it's not the only thing we take for granted today.

What if... I, ilikeitlikethat wonder, but, what if... He had a point, and the brain wasn't the mind but just a tool for the mind, then what if, we can live outside our bodies, what is the mind? It seems to be the one thing, that truely is you; your being here; otherwise, you'd just be a mindless thing.

I'll have to bring my skepticism around and ask for proof that the brain is not the mind. Oh, there's none, that's why the "what if..." question. If there's none, you may consider the mind in a similar way many religions consider the soul. So you're modifying this idea by replacing the world "soul" with "mind". I've yet to be convinced about how the body can be separated from either our mind or soul. I could further pledge for the lack of differences between "soul" and "mind" in this context. You could not consider the mind as purely rational, since emotions are also strictly related to the brain and neurotransmitters, so if the brain is simply a tool for the mind, it's a tool for both the rational and emotional component. Which, imho, pretty much fits the Christian idea of a soul, idea that doesn't appeal to me at the very least.

Oh, and the statement with which you have begun your argumentation is logically fallacious, as well. I'm an admirer of a more eloquent style in such pieces of text. You could say "We know it's in our right leg because we don't think out of our butt." and the arguments, in your case, would be the same.
So...yep, clutter.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Another more interesting frame of thought...what if we had multiple minds. When my elbow is hit right it jumps. Is that not a simple mind of its own. Only focused on one thing? We would never know because even though its within "us"..."body" its seperate from our brain and our brain is self because its contained within itself. What if emotions was not part of the brain...yes thoughts are a part of emotions, but does thought actually affect its processing or is it nothing more then an input that must be processed just as we can analyze our feelings into thoughts. How many selfs does a single person have?
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Umm... you mean the mind is in the energy we emit?

Hard to understand the OP, but I think because of what little we know about the brain, it is a good possibility that it is complicated enough to tell our consciousness that we are here and we exist and we're not just a big pile of condensed molecules, (and all the other things that make us seem "complicated" as humans/ or animals).

Edit: Have you ever had depersonalization or out of body experience during a trauma or something? That's kind of what the OP makes me think of. Or like when people die and come back to life and claim that they watched themselves die.
 

Daemon Corax

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
70
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp
Another more interesting frame of thought...what if we had multiple minds. When my elbow is hit right it jumps. Is that not a simple mind of its own. Only focused on one thing? We would never know because even though its within "us"..."body" its seperate from our brain and our brain is self because its contained within itself. What if emotions was not part of the brain...yes thoughts are a part of emotions, but does thought actually affect its processing or is it nothing more then an input that must be processed just as we can analyze our feelings into thoughts. How many selfs does a single person have?

The idea of having multiple selves is something that can easily develop into an interesting discussion or heated debate. It engages the mind and that's enough to consider it a valuable subject. And so is consciousness as a general notion (or only particular aspects of it, as there'd be much to say on this subject).

However, stretch reflexes (since that's what the elbow part is about) are pure science. Why would anyone attribute something that's already been explained long time ago to "a mind of its own"? The concept of multiple selves does have potential, an elbow having "a mind of its own" isn't much, though.

Quite interesting that you are a Thinker, since you clearly see emotions as a "primary component" and thoughts as a secondary. Or is that only valid in the case of thoughts being a component of emotions (as you seem to have considered them), as opposed to general thoughts, which you could see as...equal and parallel to emotions?

Also, out of body experiences are caused by changes within the brain, which change our perception. If the body was actually separated from the mind, these changes would actually turn us to the default state, while our brain as it is stops us from seeing the reality as it is. Certainly not my point of view, by the way.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The idea of having multiple selves is something that can easily develop into an interesting discussion or heated debate. It engages the mind and that's enough to consider it a valuable subject. And so is consciousness as a general notion (or only particular aspects of it, as there'd be much to say on this subject).

However, stretch reflexes (since that's what the elbow part is about) are pure science. Why would anyone attribute something that's already been explained long time ago to "a mind of its own"? The concept of multiple selves does have potential, an elbow having "a mind of its own" isn't much, though.

Quite interesting that you are a Thinker, since you clearly see emotions as a "primary component" and thoughts as a secondary. Or is that only valid in the case of thoughts being a component of emotions (as you seem to have considered them), as opposed to general thoughts, which you could see as...equal and parallel to emotions?

Also, out of body experiences are caused by changes within the brain, which change our perception. If the body was actually separated from the mind, these changes would actually turn us to the default state, while our brain as it is stops us from seeing the reality as it is. Certainly not my point of view, by the way.

My elbow example was at the most basic...it has an input...you tap it in the right spot...something says oh crap(hence processing)...and it makes your arm move.

I dont see either emotions/thought as primary or secondary, its dependent on the person, situation, life experiences, etc. that determines what each person has as primary/secondary. I actually see it all intertwined as opposed to completely seperate entities, but operating seperately as well.


edit: self is at the most basic level "The Thing" self can be one cell, it can be the body, it can be a group of people. Maybe thats to complicated for people to wrap there mind around as "self" is to much tied to a person as opposed to something that processes.
 

Qlip

Post Human Post
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
8,464
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Hardware vs Software.
 

Daemon Corax

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
70
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp
My elbow example was at the most basic...it has an input...you tap it in the right spot...something says oh crap(hence processing)...and it makes your arm move.

I dont see either emotions/thought as primary or secondary, its dependent on the person, situation, life experiences, etc. that determines what each person has as primary/secondary. I actually see it all intertwined as opposed to completely seperate entities, but operating seperately as well.


edit: self is at the most basic level "The Thing" self can be one cell, it can be the body, it can be a group of people. Maybe thats to complicated for people to wrap there mind around as "self" is to much tied to a person as opposed to something that processes.

In the elbow example, that something that processes is the brain and that's the situation in most situations that imply human beings. I, for one, do not see "self" as something that processes. A cell does not necessarily process, a part of the cell does and that would be a system/component that processes. If "self" is rather tied to something that processes, does your question become "how many processing units does a single person have?" ? On the other hand, you asked about selves and about a person, which is why the concept of "self" should be considered tied to the person.
 

Qlip

Post Human Post
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
8,464
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Someone has to program the hardware to do what we want

If we're making a tech analogy, the mind is more like firmware witten into programmable logic circuits. In a limited way, the mind modifies the brain and the brain defines the mind. That's why we're such fascinating mechanisms.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
In the elbow example, that something that processes is the brain and that's the situation in most situations that imply human beings. I, for one, do not see "self" as something that processes. A cell does not necessarily process, a part of the cell does and that would be a system/component that processes. If "self" is rather tied to something that processes, does your question become "how many processing units does a single person have?" ? On the other hand, you asked about selves and about a person, which is why the concept of "self" should be considered tied to the person.

Reflexes bypass the brain. They reach the spinal cord and bounce back.

My questions revolves around "self" and how even within ourself we may have multiple selfs(and I dont mean personalities) that control semi-independently of each other...our brain and thought is one of those and that is what we think with and what I am using right now though there may be another "self" that is not thought that I cant directly control or see with thought though it is present, my thoughts can sense it through some type of means, but they process independently of each other.

never mind. I really dont care how many processing untis we have. Or what defines them, but its the boundaries and the paradigms that a "self" is stuck in.
 

Daemon Corax

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
70
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp
Reflexes bypass the brain. They reach the spinal cord and bounce back.

Then replace my "brain" with "nervous system" and it works fine.

our brain and thought is one of those and that is what we think with and what I am using right now though there may be another "self" that is not thought that I cant directly control or see with thought

If you can't control, nor see it, does it manifest itself in any way? Also, you should be using at least two selves. I don't see how you could post on forums without using your thought, as well.
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
I just read about some research at MIT that suggest that blood my help us think, that it does more than simply convey nutrients and oxygen. It may be intrinsic to the formation and transmission of information at the axonal level.
This suggests that ‘tech analogies’ are reductionist and therefore inaccurate.
 

Qlip

Post Human Post
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
8,464
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I just read about some research at MIT that suggest that blood my help us think, that it does more than simply convey nutrients and oxygen. It may be intrinsic to the formation and transmission of information at the axonal level.
This suggests that ‘tech analogies’ are reductionist and therefore inaccurate.

It just extends the archetecture. Of course it's reductionst, it's an analogy, but it's a useful one.
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I just read about some research at MIT that suggest that blood my help us think, that it does more than simply convey nutrients and oxygen. It may be intrinsic to the formation and transmission of information at the axonal level.
This suggests that ‘tech analogies’ are reductionist and therefore inaccurate.

I did try to think without blood once and it was really hard.
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
It just extends the archetecture. Of course it's reductionst, it's an analogy, but it's a useful one.

I understand that, but it tests the limit of the analogy, and all analogies, which are just a means of reducing the real phenomenon to terms that are more easily understood.
 
Top