If Mind is different than Brain, how would you describe it?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by AspiringDirtbag, Nov 15, 2014.

  1. I just read a thread debating the question of whether or not "Brain" and "Mind" were equal, which made me really consider how, exactly, you would describe the Mind if you consider it separate from the brain..
     
    Like.. Does it die with you or is it recycled like an atom? Is it a part of a greater whole (Like Alan Watt's INKBOTTLE theory or Eckhart Tolle's idea of a 'State of Being')? Is it one consciousness being recycled through everyone (Like THE EGG parable @ http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html)? Is it just an illusion created by the mind? A product of our own egos and desire to not be forgotten? Our attempt at feeling elevated above nature?? I WANT IDEAS PEOPLE!!
     
    Here's my idea:
    The brain is a muscle of the body, a tool of the mind that is manipulated the same way that you can close your hand or point your toes. It has a purpose in regulating the other muscles and supplying information to the mind, it's an effective calculator and in terms of our physical reality it facilitates our decisions and physical experience as a whole.
     
    The mind on the other hand is the true hand on the wheel and is responsible for building our own personal moral systems and values. It control's whom we love in the case of true, unyielding love. It's the pool that creativity is drawn from, anything from music to painting to writing is a joint effort of the brain and the mind. Our life path and ambitions are the product of the mind.
     
    The mind is something that can't be seen on the physical plane, it's at a separate level we've yet to discover or understand fully (Quantum level?). All minds are connected and are actually just a part of a larger consciousness, we can access this higher state of consciousness through meditation, yoga and any number of spiritual practices. Being in touch with the mind is crucial to living the ideally fulfilling, loving and growing experience we call life.
     
     
     
     
     
    Damn I'm high, that was exhausting towards the end

     
  2. Brain: Biological "human experience" filter
     
    Mind: Consciousness as seen through the brain
     
  3. That's a long post. My brain wants to read it, but my mind is too busy.
    My brain is really smart. My mind is dumb as fuck. My mind made me say fuck. My brain says it's naughty to say


    Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
     
  4. Mind can't be defined or given rise to by anything we can see. In a sense, nothing physical can define it because it is nonphysical. The brain is the brain and the mind is the mind.
     
  5. I read that our thoughts are chemical reactions and exchanges, meaning it is physical.
     
  6. Easy, Consciousness.
     
    Your brain can function without it but your mind can't.
     
  7. I think of the mind as "thinking" part of the system where as the brain is more mechanical, sending messages to arms, legs, spine....

    the mind is where it's at, cuz
     
  8. The brain certainly appears to be a pre-requisite for ''mind'', just as legs are certainly a pre-requisite for ''walking'', the difference between the two is the difference between a physical mechanism, and the action/s of that mechanism. (Or that's the most reasonable position to take, at least, although I don't necessarily adhere to it.) :p.
     
  9.  
    A body may be a pre-requisite for loco-motion, as extended legs are a pre-requisite for "walking", i.e., a kind of loco-motion, but, to be clear, they are not a pre-requisite for "walking" as the WORD is understood (or represented) to denote a self-intiated act (seeing as extended legs themselves cannot, and do not, intiate the act of walking) and, the feeling/consciousness/idea/sensation of walking (i.e., a man may posses extended legs, a war veteran, we could say, without any feeling in them).
     
    "For if I say, I see, or, I walk, therefore I am; and if I understand by vision or walking the act of my eyes or of my limbs, which is the work of the body, the conclusion is not absolutely certain, because, as is often the case in dreams, I may think that I see or walk, although I do not open my eyes or move from place to place, and even, perhaps, although I have no body; BUT, if I mean the sensation itself, or consciousness of seeing or walking, the knowledge is manifestly certain, because it is then referred to the mind, which alone perceives or is conscious that it sees or walks" - Descartes
     
  10.  
    Who is seeing through the brain? Can the spectacles really look at themselves?
     
  11. A boat can look at itself through the reflection of the water as it sails through the seven seas.
     
  12. #13 Dvaita, Nov 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2014
     
    Ah, but the point is, what is seen is a reflection, and not the thing as it is in-itself - which transcends the reality of the contingent reflection (seeing as there must be a "thing" prior to the reflection of a "thing); and that the reflection itself (the brain as it is perceived) cannot see! Consequentially, the notion of a brain that exists prior to how it appears in reflection, or as it is in-itself, is itself merely an idea entertained and discerned within the intellection and conceptual activity of a mind (a thinker, perceiver).
     
    Also, don't think that I forgot that you ignored my latest response directed toward you in the other "Brain/Mind" thread...
     
    I guess my response -post #157- really busted your naive bubble.
     
    http://forum.grasscity.com/philosophy/1339041-does-brainmind-how-valid-strict-materialism.html/page-8
     
  13. u know, if you really understood  the embodied position , then it should be pretty obvious that my metaphor was a joke and doesn't represent an embodied mind at all lol.
     
  14. #15 Dvaita, Nov 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2014
     
    You're a damn liar; and I know that for two reasons. For one, you tried to use it right now, again; and also, because I know that if I wouldn't have responded appropriately to your analogy in the other thread, you would've bolstered about, and insisted on the fact, that I, the one and only, have been muted by your acute analogy.-Which was, as you know, far from the case.
     
     
    Well, seeing as the embodied position is nothing other than a modern spin on old metaphysical doctrine, and that you did absolutely nothing, in the other thread, to limpidly elucidate how 'embodied cognition' is even slightly different from the most ancient forms of atomism, then you shouldn't be surprised as to why I haven't caught on to the nuances in your contemporary form of an old mold.
     
  15. #16 jayfoxpox, Nov 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2014
    Hey man chill out, I just like boats, plus in that thread all you did was ignore the point of my post pointing about why you're wrong that all materialist take the embodied position , but some how you complete missed that despite me repeating it  the fact that no all materialist take that position and infact is a minority. the three main positions are classical cartesian, connectionism and embodied, as I've already explained in the thread. Somehow all that went past you like it would , when a gust of wind passes through a boat with a broken sail. Or a bottle of vodka and hoes.
     
  16. #17 Dvaita, Nov 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2014
     
    Point being, the position is materialistic, and is ultimately derivative of, and traceable to, the primary principles of materialism.

    Peace, foxpox... don't mean to be too acerbic, sorry.
     
  17.  
    A body may be a pre-requisite for loco-motion, as extended legs are a pre-requisite for "walking", i.e., a kind of loco-motion, but, to be clear, they are not a pre-requisite for "walking" as the WORD is understood (or represented) to denote a self-intiated act (seeing as extended legs themselves cannot, and do not, intiate the act of walking) and, the feeling/consciousness/idea/sensation of walking (i.e., a man may posses extended legs, a war veteran, we could say, without any feeling in them).
     
    So you're saying that both a mind/subject and legs are required for walking? - It doesn't matter much - legs are still a pre-requisite for the activity of walking, likewise the brain might equally be considered as a pre-requisite for the activity of mind, which would mean that it is primarily a brain and legs that are the pre-requisites for walking..
     
  18. #19 Dvaita, Nov 17, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2014
     
    No, I'm saying that a mind is pre-requisite for the consciousness of walking - which is the only kind of "walking" there truly can be [SIZE=14.2857141494751px](e.g., the self-[/SIZE]initiated[SIZE=14.2857141494751px] act and the idea of)[/SIZE]; other than that, there is only, as my last should have indicated, externally induced loco-motion.
     
  19. #20 Account_Banned283, Nov 17, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2014
     
    ''The consciousness of walking is the only kind of ''walking'' there can truly be'' - ? My point is that legs are a pre-requisite for walking, which is an ''activity'', just as the brain is a pre-requisite for the mind, which may be an ''activity''..
     

Share This Page