What Is The Mind?

 
I have one question, and this question, imo, should elucidate what is I'm saying...
 
U say, that science says, that conscious activity occurs in the brain -- okay, so who and what is consciously bringing about this activity in the brain? Who and what is freely and autonomously bringing about nerual processes that doubt and deny everything...? Surely it cannot be any one of the senses or the brain, i.e., mechanical entities... for a machine cannot freely and autonomously doubt and deny everything (including its own existence).
 
The reflective and conscious "I" or the mind is different than the mechanical and unconscious brain... they are both forms of energy, they just operate and manifest in different ways.  

 

Here is another yahoo answer :
 
'The mind is defined as the complex functions of the brain that give rise to consciousness, morality, rational thought, etc.

Since we are able to identify things that have consciousness, morality and rational thought, and we know these functions are part of the brain, then yes, the mind exists.'
 
The concept of a 'mind' is nothing more than the respresentation of the functions of the brain. The mind does not exist as a seperate entity, it is a way of simplifying the processes of our brain.
 
As I said earlier, the ability to doubt physical reality is a by-product of our ability to assess and predict our environment, it is not a phenomena that is seperate from our brain.
 
If a machine has programming that allows it to deny everything, then yes it can. As I said earlier, it's much more rational to speculate these exact processes and how they occur in the brain, than to hypothesize that they occur outside of the brain because we don't currently understand them. Our lack of knowledge in one specific area does not discredit what we already understand, nor does it give a green-light to unsubstantiated speculation that lacks any ties to our current understanding.

 

 
We're almost there...
 
Now, can a machine program itself to doubt and deny everything...?

 

I like how you're cherry picking my long responses and ignoring 99% of what I'm saying just so you can support your own narrative.
 
No a machine can't program itself to doubt, humans didn't program themselves. Natural selection programmed us. If a machine has evolved over millions on years and developped the ability to assess and predict it's environment, then it will be able to doubt it(once again using imagination). Please see my previous post explaining imagination.

 

 
So, what and who is imagining? I have a feeling ur gnna say the brain, but that's not the question, the question is -- what and who is causing the brain to imagine? And if u say the enviorment, as I presume u will with ur reference to "natural selection", then how is possible that humans can react differently, in terms of imagniation and cognition, to the same environment?

 

 
And I'm not cherry picking... I'm responding to the points of ur post that are important to ur argument; and that are, ultimately, the summations of ur whole post.

 

What is causing the brain to imagine :When we imagine, according to recent discoveries, it appears that a reduced part of our sensory cortex is activated, i.e. when imagining how a tree looks, some of the same cells that would represent that tree if we saw it are activated in the visual cortex. It also works for actions: when we imagine kicking, some of the same cells in the motor cortex which activate when actually kicking activate when imagining it. The study of this is known as embodied cognition.

We also know that we store information about objects in a manner than is not sensory-modality specific, i.e. abstract schemas. So if you imagine "a cat ran up a tree" you might not specifically imagine what type of tree it is: it's enough to know trees are tall, climbable, and has branches and leaves. This is an abstract schema, based on the properties of objects/things and how they can be interacted with, and is not stored in the sensory areas of the brain.
 
Who is causing the brain to imagine: You, as the sum of your parts, through the cognitive process that is refered to as 'thinking'.
 
How it's possible that different humans react differently : Because no two humans(with the exception of twins)  have indentical DNA, therefore our hardware is different. Also, since no two humans have the exact same experience, we will not react the same way to everything.
 
 
Just out of curiosity, do you accept natural selection? Because if you don't then everything I'm saying is useless.

 

 
There are a few things to address...
 
1.) I believe in evolution, but not the notion of "natural selection". There is much more to evolution than the old idea of "survival of the fittest".
 
2.) So, ur telling me the reason why someone likes a song and the reason the next person doesn't, or the reason someone likes a certain place on earth or the reason the next person doesnt, has to with their DNA, really? Are u honestly suggesting that all subjective thought is a product of rigid strucutres, i.e., that subjective thought is mechanical and pre-determined?
 
3.) So, the "sum of my parts" thinks? Really? The "sum of my parts" doesn't have a specific or unified function, sure, they function in unity, but their unification isn't an actual thing with certain abilities. Yes, each part has an ability, i.e., the eye sees, the nose smells, the ear hears, and so on..., but the sum of my parts doesn't have an ability, i.e., the sum of my parts CAN'T think! This is a very ill-logical assertion...

 

1) Please explain how there is much more to evolution than natural selection.
 
2) I have no idea why people like different types of music. I'm not a cultural anthropologist. You asked how people react differentely to different situations, and I said it is a combination of no two people having the same DNA, as well as no two people having the exact same experience(nurture).
 
3) The 'sum of your parts' is you. You are doing the thinking.You are the unification. Each part has an ability, and when they come together they form you. I'm not sure why you're trying to define yourself as being anything more than the sum of your parts.

 

 
1.) Ever heard of natural disasters? Climate change? Diseases? There are a lot more factors to evolution than just the fittest surviving...
 
2.) So, is this "sum of my parts" something tangible as a whole? U will surely say yes... because u can experience each one of ur five senses, by way of the very same senses, but, huh, I can't experience "the sum" of these five senses by way of my five senses...? Why is that???

 

1) What? That doesn't make any sense. Natural disasters fit right in to natural selection. The dinosaurs couldn't avoid or survive a asteroid impact, so they died. If a species can't adapt to it's climate, it'll perish. If a species can't survive a disease, it'll be wiped out by the disease. That is the definition of natural selection.
 
2) And I told you. They all have different DNA and life experiences, which shapes their perspective.
 
3) You're experiencing the sum of your senses right now! If you are conscious, you are by-default experiencing the sum of your parts, which includes your senses.

 

 
1.) I'm denying the idea of the "survival of the fittest" version of natural selection; for there is much more to evolution than the "survival of the fittest".
 
2 & 3.) "You're experiencing the sum of your senses right now" -- lol, and this is what ur missing. If I'm experiencing the sum of my senses, doesn't that make me separate from the sum of my senses? For I'm experiencing and asserting it as an object of experience, and not as the experiencer itself...! And that's what allows a sentence such as this, "you're experiencing the sum of your senses", to make sense; becasue the "you", i.e., the experiencer (the mind), is different than the "sum of my parts", i.e., the experience (the physical).

 

If you deny the reality of 'survival of the fittest', then I will no longer be replying, as you are choosing to ignore basic science in favour of your own belief, which may be comforting to you but is ridiculous in a science debate.
 
It doesn't make you seperate from the sum of your parts, how does that make any sense? You are the result of your parts acting together while confined by your body.
 
Your denial of science is nonsense, and had I known you do not accept basic science I wouldn't have had this conversation in the first place. Nothing I say will make any sense to you because you do not accept the scientific laws through which I am trying to answer your question.

 

 
All scientists dont ascribe to "surivial of the fittest" version of evolution theory, but they still believe in evolution, so ur attempt to debase my position because it's not within the domian of dogmatic science just goes to show how dogmatic and mechanical ur thought is... It's not survival of the fittest, it's the survival of those who gets the most  benefits. How is a sloth a product of the crude survival of the fittest?
 
 
But, back to the topic at hand, u asserted... "You're experiencing the sum of your senses right now" -- <span style="font-size:18px;">Now, u say that I am the sum ofmy senses, but that I also experience the sum of my senses. So, I am the sum of my senses experiencing the sum of my senses, really? That is exactly what ur saying, and it's nonsensical and ill-logical. </span>

 

The mind is what we use to think with. It's different from the brain. *GIANT BONG RIP*
 
So we think with our brain but we use our mind to um.....*GIANT BONG RIP*
 
And the mind is connected to the brain's thought process to.....*GIANT BONG RIP*
 
 
Zzzzzzzz...........

 

 
I don't quite think he was absolutely denying the idea of "survival of the fittest", but rather implied that it is a rather rudimentary aspect of evolution. He probably means to point out the idea that "survival of the fittest" isn't the absolute force dictating the direction of evolution.
 
If one truly regards the nature of existence itself, the theory that "survival of the fittest", explains the true nature of evolution in it's entirety, then you lack a broad-minded and logical perspective.

 

http://www.nourfoundation.com/media-gallery/videos.html
 
 
Im honestly still sifting through their videos and podcasts. But the part you're all going to be most interested in is the "Aware Project". If you can handle reading scientific journals, here's a link to some of the group's publications http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_nav_pages.php?cat_id=13

 

 
We don't think with our brain, our brain produces affections, sensations and sensory experience... the brain itself cannot contemplate and reflect about its own production; this is nonsensical, because the brain is rigidly structured and purely mechanical (there is no yes or no with the brains reaction's, it just reacts determinedly) . It is something other than the brain that freely and not mechanically, i.e., subjectively, affirms and denys, in the moment, the manifestations produced by the brain.
 
Okay, I'll give an example which should highlight how the brain and the mind are different. The brain, as I said, is purely mechanical... its reactions to stimuli are out of its own hand, for the sensory-reactions of the brain are already determined; a brain can't consciosuly decide to perceive an orange as a blue pinneapple, i.e., a brain cannot hinder or transmute its own sensory-processes, for its reactions are, again, purely mechanical, determined, and out its own hands. A brain is sort of like a computer (soo many make this comparison), by the virtue of them both being entites that are already pre-hardwired in their reactions and actions, i.e., their machines. A computer cannot help but display and play my Nas cd when I put it into my cd-rom, i.e., the computer's reaction to the stiumli of my laser CD is mechanically determined. My ears, by way of the brain, cannot help but hear the song that's playing at the moment. My brain cannot alter and change the song I'm hearing right now, i.e., the brain's reactions the stimuli of these current soundwaves are mechanically determined.
 
Now, here is where the distinction between the brain and the transcendent "I", i.e., the mind, can be made...
 
Okay, so if u have two computers, one being a dell and the other being an apple, and were to place the same cd, Nas' I am, in their cd-drives, would the computers react differently to the information/stimulues of the cd, and would u end up hearing two different cds playing? No.
 
If u have two brains, one being a brain inside of a body from Idaho and other being one from Michigan, and u were to place them in front of a speaker that's playing "The real slim shady", would the ears, by way of the brain, react differently to the stimulus of the soundwaves and manifest two different songs to the subjects (would one hear the "the real slim shady" and the other "guilty conscience")? No.
 
If u answered both in the negative, as I did, then it remains to be asked, that how is it possible for two people to have two different subjective opinions about the same stimuli they experience? Reflective thought, contemplation, and conscious decision making are not the actions of a mechanical brain, but of an autonomus mind that consciously reflects in the moment. Reflection stiumlates certain neural activities in the brain.. just as hearing a song stimulates certain nerual activites. The brains reaction's or the neural activities that are triggered from the stimulus of a song/soundwaves are mechanical and determined, i.e., the brain cannot control how it reacts to the soundwaves of the song, as was shown; but the neural activities that are triggered when one reflects after hearing and experiencing the song/soundwaves are not reactions that are mechanically determined by the external stimuli, on the contrary, the "I", or the mind, reflects and thinks, autonomously and internally, i.e., not mechanically, about the song it hears, and then it decides if it likes it or not. An ear cannot decide if it likes a song or not... sure the ear caputres the soundwaves, but it cannot have an opinion about the soundwaves.
 
The brain reacts mechanically and determinedly to stimuli within the construct of 3 dimensional space and time, but the mind is different, it acts and decides subjectively and autonomously not within the construct of 3 dimensional space and time, but its actions and decision are about things within the contruct of 3 dimensional space and time...