What Is Mind?

Introducing people of all ages to mythology... in pre-college educational curricula, youth orgs, the media, etc. Share your knowledge, stories, unit and lesson plans, techniques, and more.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

boringguy wrote:
are you saying that mind being a function would entail that mind merely projects an image of forward moving time on what it perceives to be 'context' - which is a function based on the mind's ability to mimic the soul? – Eva

I think it is mostly a matter of clarifying, or modifying definitions, for me. I’m not sure I would affix Mind into time, but that equates somewhat, I think, to your affixing soul into time, which I don’t think you do either. As for the chicken and the egg, does time project function or does function project time, since they are both the one context, the more interesting question is does the mind mimic the soul? That is interesting considering the context, but I’m ok with that too, in so much as the context is symbol. Basically on the same page though.
Well, my thinking was that as soon as there is perception, the order of what is prior to what else becomes significant. So too reflecting ... :? so indeed,
Would you tell me some more about : 'I'm ok with that too, in so much as the context is symbol." Do you mean that there is no qualitative separation of soul and mind at that stage just yet?

:)
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

boringguy
Associate
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:36 am
Location: Idaho

Post by boringguy »

But BG you describe the very nature of science and perhaps people's misunderstanding of it. – rom
:)

We probably have a lot more common understanding of science than you might think.

Of relativity as an example of science, it’s a work in progress as say questions about gravity still indicate, but I guess I wouldn’t so much expect it to be toppled, as just seen to be as an ever smaller piece in an ever bigger puzzle.

Will some of the faerie stories ever be verifiable? – rom
It might be safe to assume that not all stories might be relevant to a scientific view, but come on rom, I might have been born at night but it wasn’t last night . I’m not gullible enough to even hazard a guess as to which ones. There are too many cases where a dismissed hypothesis was, in light of later data and understanding, deemed to be the relevant one. Or maybe the atom as an example, first hypothesized in India and then Greece around 2500 years ago and based purely on philosophy, illustrates, that the story evolves in ways that couldn’t have been imagined. And that even before the likes of say, Penrose, Einstein, Planck, Newton, Galileo, or even Democritus, I’m confident that there were, and always will be, those saying, ‘yea that’s a nice story but…’. They have lost sight of the intrinsic value of the story for its own sake. So anyway in my view, science doesn’t require me to rule out much, if anything it helps me understand how very very little is known. I like that.

Maybe we should have a "Discovery Institute" for Mystics? –rom


Maybe ways that the Dalai Lama lends his support to science, is a step in this direction. That’s a good thing, it is science’s mandate to continually push the bounds and see as far as it can see. I can hardly imagine anything more fun than for it (scientific discovery) to shock me.


bg
_____________________
in the light i do life ................... but in the dark i find life

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

romansh wrote:
Evinnra wrote: Perhaps in the near future we will have scientific proof that consciousness is a fundamental feature of reality. Can there be any doubt that there are many different levels in states of awareness? :)
An interesting consequence of this position is that it leads to similar questions as if consciousness were an illusion.
Why worry about the non physicality of consciousness if not even tangible physical reality is taken for being more than an illusion? A good description need to relate the 'what', 'why' and 'how' regarding consciousness. By the way, I am not one who thinks that consciousness in non-physical at all.
Are rocks conscious, are they alive, do they have free will? Neo would normally use this smiley :shock: at this point. Being surprised that we can't tell the difference.
Is that what you think Neoplato means when he uses the :shock: smiley? My interpretation is ... different .

So this is essentially the same question I have been asking all along, eg is a water molecule that has been doubly distilled and run through a deionization column somehow fundamentally different from a water molecule in my brain?
Sorry but I really do not understand the question here. Would you word it for me in another way?


And finally, science does not deal in proof - it deals with evidence and in hypothesis.

Using the "proof" word simply perpetuates the myth that science is dogmatic. This remark is aimed as much at scientists who think that science somehow proves things, as anyone else.
:shock: What is your problem with proof, Romansh?! Honestly, I can not see what is wrong with having an 'exit strategy' for our inquiry by nominating what is sufficient (useful) proof fo r proving something being the case. If I want to measure a five minutes length of time, I can nominate a clock as a perfectly good proof provider. If, on the other hand, I keep telling my self that the most accurate clock in the world is one that I draw on a paper with little hand and big hand showing a particular time, I will never get to make my measurement or make use of the information that five minutes 'feels' exactly THAT long.
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

romansh wrote:
Evinnra wrote: No Romansh, I would know that you've read 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' and happend to find it meaningful. That's all. :lol:
So if I said I know there is no free will would you believe me?

No, I'd ask you to explain why you think that something so counter intuitive is true.
Evinnra wrote: ... what can be considered a thing and what can be considered no-thing. Perhaps philosophers are a bit stricter on them selves than scientists when it comes to finding proof of a thing is being? :shock:
Again the proof word
Mathematicians, logicians and some philosophers all use the concept of "proof", but they can do so because they use the concept of axioms, self evident t[ruths or definitions if you like. This is not to say scientists don't use axioms, it's just that they understand that the foundations their house are built on sand.
OK.
So what can be considered a thing? Perhaps whatever we choose to define into existence? Our axiom if you like.
There is a well known joke about the wisdom of contemplating what can be considered a real thing while we are in the path of an oncoming train.

[

Evinnra wrote: Indeed, we are thinking in different paradigms, Romansh. For me, spirit is not a metaphore but the active principle of life, and matter can have no mass, temperature or any quality without this active principle manifesting through it. In other words, I can understand your atomist perspective of the world but my own explanation of how the world is remains closest to the Stoics explanation.

I'm not familiar with the stoics explanation.
Nevertheless - if something is completely separate from physical world then how does it interact with the physical world?
The Stoics did not claim that spirit is completely separate from physical world, they cliaimed the precise opposite, that the active principle is mixed with passive matter through and through.
Evinnra wrote:
rom wrote: Whilst you're at it if you could define life - that would be interesting.
Care to see the vine list? :lol:
No - I was not asking what we have defined into the category of life - I was asking what is your your definition of life.
Sorry but I did not see your definition of life. Whilst you're at it, would you direct me to it?
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Quote:
Are rocks conscious, are they alive, do they have free will? Neo would normally use this smiley at this point. Being surprised that we can't tell the difference.
Yes...Rom is right, I would use the :shock: when comparing the human mind with a rock.

Although...there are some people I work with... :wink:

Probably comparing a rock and an acorn would be better. However an acorn will grow under the right conditions, ever try planting a rock? :shock:

Yes...I couldn't resist. :P
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

boringguy
Associate
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:36 am
Location: Idaho

Post by boringguy »

That is why I think it is so important to find precisely what causes our fear and deal with the cause. - Eva
A lifetimes endevour for me I guess, but then it’s the lucky ones who even start, no?


Would you tell me some more about : 'I'm ok with that too, in so much as the context is symbol." – Eva

My thinking at the moment goes something like this. The context can not be separate or outside of the source, in that all things are the one thing. So that the trickle down or limited parts, that can be our perception as context, can only be symbolic of the whole, it can not be different from that. A subset by definition has to be included in its entirety within the set. Or put another way, life transcends but includes matter, mind transcends but includes life, soul transcends but includes mind, and spirit transcends but includes soul. Hope that’s clearer.


bg
____________________
in the light i do life ............. but in the dark i find life

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

And now back to the intriguing notion of broken brain and broken soul.

First, I see there may be a definitional issue with “reincarnation” and “rebirth” so let me use the Dalai Lama’s term “continuity of consciousness” (which is what I translate as the “recycle bin” approach).
What about a scenario in which the brain gets physically healed and since it haven't lost memories of its experience it can retrace the qualia of pure mind? That scenario wouldn't require reincarnation, right?

Indeed, the soul can not be faulty only the mind's connection to the soul can be faulty ... so, the healthy mind can work only on fixing this connection to the soul.-Evinnra
Actually, I think we’re back to the old Phaëtōn myth of the sun chariot. Both the brain (Phaeton) and the soul (horses) have to be functioning properly. Unfortunately, when we’re born, we can’t tell the “breed of horse” we’re getting. Are we getting a pair of wild stallions or something of a better nature?

I’m not convinced that the soul can’t be faulty. Eckhart Tolle talks about the “Pain Body” which I can equate to a “Broken Soul”. Maybe a more common term would be “Demon”? :twisted:

So when we “slay our demon” we are actually using our brain to “tame the horses”? :shock:

But how about if our horses aren’t that wild (more angelic) but the brain is broken? This may be an example of a person living a good life but being totally oblivious to what is going on around them? In this case the horses must make the driver aware that (s)he’s on a chariot.

And I guess we could make it even more interesting by being born with a horse of each type and a mediocre brain? :idea:

Or is that the standard allocation? :shock:

Just thinking out loud…. :?
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Evinnra wrote:
No, I'd ask you to explain why you think that something so counter intuitive is true.
OK, so for this hypothetical me, if I tell you I know that I have free will, you don't believe me. If I were to tell you I don't know whether I have free will, would you believe me?
Evinnra wrote: The Stoics did not claim that spirit is completely separate from physical world, they cliaimed the precise opposite, that the active principle is mixed with passive matter through and through.
So when we exhale do the carbon dioxide and water molecules have spirit? Does a diamond have spirit?
Evinnra wrote: Sorry but I did not see your definition of life. Whilst you're at it, would you direct me to it?
Evinnra I was not claiming that life exists per se. I'm saying it is a just a definition and I was wondering what is your definition.

So what is your personal definition of life? Because I certainly do not have one.
Other than it is a little bit like pornography - I know it when I see it - Justice Potter Stewart
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Neoplato wrote: Yes...Rom is right, I would use the :shock: when comparing the human mind with a rock.
But again I'll ask (rephrased) how are the processes different in a rock as compared to life?

I'll agree the complexity within the smallest critter is greater than the largest rock. Having said that, what is the difference between a mind and a rock - objectively speaking?

When you give me your answer, I'll give you mine - subjective answers welcome

:)
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

Mind, Soul, Free Will... these are all concepts, basically. They do not "exist" outside of the definitions.

However, the main constraint in the human condition is that one can comprehend the world only through the entity one calls one's "self" - itself a creation of electrical impulses racing along the brain. One assumes that other human beings also share the same feeling of "self" - but one can never know for certain.

What one can know is that certain organisms are born, live, reproduce and die in contrast to certain other organisms which do not do this. Neo's acorn (or rather the tree on which it was born) is an example of the former: Rom's rock is an example of the latter. So we may loosely define the first type of organisms as alive, and the second type as "not-alive".

Now, for the organisms which are live, we can see a progression from the very low life forms to human beings. Exactly where on the progression does a mind (or let me go to my favourite term, "I") begin to exist? Well, it can only be a matter of conjecture in my opinion. One goes for a definition suitable to oneself - and in the end, it's all that matters.

BTW, anybody familiar with Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card will remember the alien Buggers, for whom individual self is non-existent.

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Nandu - agreed with your first two paragraphs. But I got stuck at the next sentence or two.
nandu wrote: What one can know is that certain organisms are born, live, reproduce and die in contrast to certain other organisms which do not do this. Neo's acorn (or rather the tree on which it was born) is an example of the former: Rom's rock is an example of the latter. So we may loosely define the first type of organisms as alive, and the second type as "not-alive".
Do we not define life into existence, just like mind, soul, and free will? So I'm far from certain that life exists or that I can truly know. I agree from a pragmatic I perspective it is a useful classification.

If not, what is life (or what is your definition, if you see what I mean)?
I could argue rocks are born (igneously, metamorphosingly :?: sedimentarily :?: ) They die by erosion and are reborn. Are they conscious? Not as much as I am. Am I conscious? Not very.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

Let me share this one.
Atoms are not Things. The electrons which form an atom's shell are no longer things in the sense of classical physics, things which could be unambiguously described by concepts like location, velocity, energy, size. When we get down to the atomic level, the objective world in space and time no longer exists, and the mathematical symbols of theoritical physics refer merely to possibilities, not facts. - Heisenberg
Life is a possibility that goes beyond the form of the senses and meaning. That is my take.
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Neoplato wrote:
Quote:
Are rocks conscious, are they alive, do they have free will? Neo would normally use this smiley at this point. Being surprised that we can't tell the difference.
Yes...Rom is right, I would use the :shock: when comparing the human mind with a rock.

Although...there are some people I work with... :wink:
Then you may count me among those people you mention above, because I haven't the faintest how your :shock: symbol means that you're 'surprised others can't tell the difference'. :?

Probably comparing a rock and an acorn would be better. However an acorn will grow under the right conditions, ever try planting a rock? :shock:

Yes...I couldn't resist. :P
:?: :shock: You've lost me ....
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

boringguy wrote:
My thinking at the moment goes something like this. The context can not be separate or outside of the source, in that all things are the one thing. So that the trickle down or limited parts, that can be our perception as context, can only be symbolic of the whole, it can not be different from that. A subset by definition has to be included in its entirety within the set. Or put another way, life transcends but includes matter, mind transcends but includes life, soul transcends but includes mind, and spirit transcends but includes soul. Hope that’s clearer.


bg
____________________
in the light i do life ............. but in the dark i find life


Wow, thank you bg. :)

You've just wet my appertite for a re-reading of Plato's Parmenides .
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

Rom,

It seems that we define entities that are born, live, reproduce and die biologically as "live". At least, that is the commonly accepted definition as far as I know.

You see that I use the qualification "commonly accepted". If you argue that a rock is also born, live and die (and reproduce in the sense that pieces from it may form other rocks), and that a rock is alive according to your definition, I can't argue, because you are using a different frame of reference.

While on this topic, let me ask a question:

If 8 = 12, then 12 = ? (no, I've not gone mad: there is reason behind these apparently absurd statements)

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

Locked