Are you defining an individual’s mind as subjective experience, which is not publicly accessible? That would make sense of course. But are you limiting mind to that? Doesn’t my mind regulate my heartrate? Or is that a biological function of the brain, and not part of what you would call mind?
Debaitor, I agree with Statik that “this would likely be true if not for interpretation. Those thoughts are yours, and only yours, as an interpretation of your input. The resulting perspective is bound to be unique in some way.”
Also, I’m not sure I understand a lot of what you had to say, such as “Because thought becomes lost in (written) translation” and “Not necessarily, memories are projected events.”
Not if you’re not physically pointing. I tend to agree with your first sentence, but… I’m not so sure. I can point to a tree and call it part of the ocean (and provide some compelling logic to back up the claim), but I’m not really going to change anybody’s minds about it. Everyone knows a tree is not part of the ocean.
Late last evening my Mind was on the mid-blue wall under my son’s bed, breathing the fumes of projectile vomit while I attempted to clean up the addition to the decor. I have herewith made accessible some mental content of me, mine mind, as “I” re-member it, membrane wise, presently. I would take it, though, that most would prefer I had continued to call it my own, and not share. Nonetheless, my mind is now that much more out there. Where “there” is, might be a question somehow connected to “this”.
All I need do now is press Submit.
Always a pleasure, Oughtist. 
not all thoughts are publicly accessible; not our immediate perceptions and emotions, which are ours alone and which we may not pass on. However, once we express them or speak about them to others, be it our feelings or our ideas, they are passed on.
The functioning of the physical/biological organism is supplied with its own intelligence carried out by genetic drive in order to survive through replications. Very complex survival machines we are. Genes jump from body to body down the generations, manipulating body after body in its own way and for its own ends.
Btw, the heart has its own closed system of operation separate from the brain let alone mind. It has a built-in nerve supply that sends out messages for contraction. It does this independently of the rest of the nervous system.
Source?
i thought this was about the Pixies song
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrdpliMfoAM[/youtube]
It is of course!
… then go to ‘about us’, then ‘Medical Advisory Board and Editorial Team’
Interesting. I typically hear otherwise, such as:
childrensheartinstitute.org/educ … ainhrt.htm
It’s all so complex…
anon
the only way I can answer this is to say that to me the mind is almost like a ‘living’ thing…like a river that flows. A note on a piece of paper is not the mind or a part of the mind but like residue from the brain/mind connection. Totally separate from.
I think a memory is more like residue produced by the brain, in a certain part of the brain. Mental content is in the Now, I think…memory is the past as we interpreted it.
I think of the mind as being in connection with the brain in the same way as I think of my body, my self, in connection with the air/space, externals, that surrounds me. They are separate but have influence on one another. The brain consists of matter but the mind is more ethereal,is ethereal, like the breath that flows out of us.
I suppose that I myself would say that because i feel my mind is not a physical part of my brain, but is influenced by/works with it, our minds are accessible to each other. I think of the universe as highly interconnected. Yes, we have minds of our own; at the same time, there is something universal that connects them all. Weird maybe but this is the way I feel. Have you ever seen a mob, have you ever seen mass hallucination? At the same time, that uniquely individual personal brain/mind influence is what keeps us autonomous and separate at the same time we are connected. Does that make any sense?
Correction–
The same that psychological factors may have the ability to disrupt proper heart function. The question posed was a good one though: Is the ‘mind’ limited to only the intellect, or is it inclusive of other kinds of ‘intelligence’ (specifically biological) by which we operate?
Also, Finishedman’s link addressed only the contraction [beat] of the heart, saying there is a nerve system in place to regulate. However, Anon’s link digs deeper, in my opinion. The purpose of heart contraction is to pump, and circulate, blood – but to what end? The pumping of a heart is useless if it is not pumping for a reason. This is where I agree more with Anon’s view inasmuch as the beat of a heart is no less important than its communicability with the brain and other organs to determine what needs to go where and when.
This is my contention as well. The notion of public accessibility holds a few implications that people tend to overlook. First, we would all share a common standard of ‘knowledge’ – we’d have access to the same information and all be limited to the same conceptions. Second, All knowledge gained throughout the history of humanity would become potentially accessible, regardless of its fate. So, say for example, the people a hundred years ago became iconoclasts which resulted in a piece of their culture being discarded and forgotten. Public accessibility would suggest that we can still potentially ‘know’ what they did about their culture before the iconoclasm. That is to say, all ‘knowledge’ attributed to the ‘mind’ would be accessible by anyone. No need for books, libraries, historians, or …gasp… Internet forums.
Excellent question, and one I’ve failed to consider as such (up to this point). I would naturally lean more toward the ‘mind’ being constituted of purely intellectual and conceptual function. But I can’t deny that is likely not the limit of our overall ‘intelligence.’ Our bodies are adaptive, so I’d assume there is some biological intelligence at work. However, our intellect and biology can, not only work in conjunction, but also over power one another under the right circumstances.
As a couple examples–
-
People can literally be scared to death (stopping the heart psychologically), so the heart is not altogether independent from the ‘mind’, but may act as such if neither is disrupted.
-
Passions, or ‘emotions’, can raise blood pressure, elevate or decrease heart rate, cause autoimmune disorders, and even disrupt organ function.
-
Lastly, I’m sure most of us have heard of natural adrenaline surges that take place in dire situations, resulting in an apparent exponential increase in focus, drive, strength, endurance, etc. However, this could be seen a couple of ways:
[list][*]The body as overpowering the ‘mind.’ Everything in your intellect would tell you it is impossible to lift a car to save your child, but something biological (nature vs. nurture) might drive you to successfully lift the car, without a thought, as a natural response.
- On the other hand, perhaps the ‘mind’ is overpowering the body in a case such as a runner in a marathon. The body becomes fatigued, stressed, and even painful; yet people push through it with mental diligence.
[/*:m][/list:u]
Anon, m’friend, you have once again blown my mind. I’m going to have to ponder this one for a bit…
Nice posts arcturus and Statik. I have a long weekend starting now and I’m not sure if I’ll be responding to them very soon or not. But I’ll try to get back to them, probably next week.
I read a lot, don’t post much, saw this and it intrigued me. Very interesting indeed. There are some things I wanted to point out. Rather than seperate this into two groups and accept it, I would think something else is going on here.
You see I am a consumer of knowledge, but that doesn’t stop me from also producing it, as you are witnessing now. And it seems logical that anyone that produces thoughts and information must first consume related information to what is being created. So a mathemetician that creates a new formula would first need to know some things about math. Just like how this information which i’m creaitng now, is a direct result of the interpretation of the words in this thread.
Interpretation is really the production of knowledge. The complexity, accuracy, reliability, and consitency of that information is completely dependent upon the interpretation. In reality we are all producers of knowledge. Just like digestion, without a doubt, will produce energy and/or waist.
interpretation would be based on analytical skills and understanding. (their also might be some other things i’m missing, but hell, I don’t know) Like if someone is writing a book. They create a piece of information for their story, they then interpret their own peice of information and through self reflection of their own information they can then create something that sounds so different, it’s considered original. For science, it’s research and the inTerpretation of that research. Every subject has it’s own process of creation that involves this fundemental process of information. And it’s this very process that makes producing a difficult and complicated task because everything is localized. To the scientists, to the writer, to the artist, until they release it to the hounds(as you put it) it will be localized. Without the World to judge it, it always seems like a shot in the dark.
you can see then that what is produced depends on what is consumed. unlike food, which has only a few potential ends,(piss, dumps, vitamin c, proteins etc.) information and knowledge leave potential ends to be practically limitless. This, combined with the subjectivity of the mind, means that the reason for producing what and when is just as subjective.
That last statement might have thrown you off a bit but stick we me on this. A scientist can be a hardcore bible thumper one day, accepting religion at face value, whilst the next he’s researching and formulating a plan to create a powerful explosive of which the likes the world has never seen. So the will of the individual, who they are, their ideas, and ideals will have an effect on how much is produced, and when. Producing takes time and effort, you wouldn’t want to needlessly produce. A biker may have as much production skill as a scientist, but may only use it to understand his current situation about life and his friends, never really thinking about the World and it’s mysteries.
So then, How much reflection, how much analytical skill, and understanding does it take to draw the difference between a producer and a consumer, or is the line better drawn when comparing the will of the individual and not their ability. and what do these differences mean for the individual?
Agreed, however it still seems you are creating 2 groups which overgeneralize the human populous. Over-gernealizations are fine and all, as long as you know what they are for. Like sterotypes are for categorizing people and making quick judgment calls. Making these generalizations become really hard when objectively looked at, in your case it might even be impossible because their are too many factors, and the factors that are included are extrmely hard to objectively measure. What you mean might be true, but without underlining the intricate process that makes your generalization true, it becomes baseless.
It might be better to use a leveling system. Or if you really want a distinction, use a Go leveling system, where at first you start at a high level, move down to level 1, before leveling your title at which point the level moves in the opposite direction. (that might be hard to understand so here’s an example:
lvl 20 consumer does not produce as much as a lvl 10 consumer. A lvl 1 producer produces more than a lvl 1 consumer which produces more than a lvl 10 consumer.)
Nice idea, might be true, answering some of these questions might help you define what you mean, because no matter what you believe to be true, if you can’t get at least one other person to understand, than nobody will ever know. And the more you udnerline, the more people you’ll get to understand.
I don’t understand - if it’s not physical, it doesn’t exist in the same way as a tree. In asking “where is my mind?” you seem to be looking for a physical location.
The function to you may be the same in some circumstances - if you completely forget something, you have it stored somewhere like the tattoos in Memento. In most cases, it’s to jog your existing memories - what’s written on the paper isn’t connected to other symbols and associations except in your head. It’s something you observe and process and which you then have again available mentally. I’ve seen some theory (on ILP, no less) that mind includes everything that feeds cognitively into you - so your nervous system and any prosthetics/bionics.
But again, the paper is physical. The information on it, not - many people might agree that the information on it is part of your mind. But the paper is not. It’s a good illustration of the difference between brain and mind, though.
Your mind is lost inside a metaphor, scratching memories on the walls, to guide you toward reality.
Mind and brain are the same network service; the difference is in which services are being delivered where and for what.
The mind is as much a part of the brain as the heart is part of the brain.
The only difference is that the heart networks to the brain for the purpose of doing, without the part of the network that is used for active or passive assessment and engagement decision.
Systems that are inevitably needed for essential function of life run on the immediate assumption (not personified) that they do not require the information from the assessment and engagement decision section of the network (the “mind”) to determine an affirmation for their method.
Sometimes; this is a bad thing and we have abnormal biological functionality that can require adjustment, or in some cases causes death.
Most of the time, however, it’s fine that these systems run on this automatic assumption.
Systems which are for production of biochemical reaction (for a variety of purposes) only require passive assessment and engagement decision at most; though some (like the common “emotions”) can be actively assessed and engaged as well by the mind.
Essentially, they do not require the active assessment or engagement, but it can be useful at times to do so, thereby it is possible to patch the two networks together.
It is possible to patch multitudes of these networks together in tandem or unison (virtually), but some require dedicated focus actively to accomplish the creation of the network combination that allows for the “mind” to actively engage the less active to near “autonomous”-like parts of the network.
So the “mind” is wherever any human allows the passive and active assessment and engagement decision network to connect.
It’s processing centers are in the brain; that is all.
The “assessment and engagement” network of a drivetrain is inside the transmission.
But that doesn’t mean the drivetrain is only the transmission.
The exact schematic of the drivetrain is relatively up to each human’s engaged production of it’s own network.
We are not like clocks of cogwheel networks; we are more like networks of exchanging fluids.
The parts are not cleanly bordered.
In some cases; rather conceptually.
This reminds me of an excellent quote, out of Nietzsche’s “The Gay Science”, that I read other day–
It is explained that Turenne was a General known to tremble involuntarily before battle. In response he would talk to his own body. This, to me, is another great illustration of an apparent dichotomy between brain and ‘mind.’ He was not trembling as a reaction to something physical, but rather psychological. Defense mechanisms in his brain were likely flooding him with adrenaline and caution. And not only did he recognize that, but openly defied it. It seems his brain caused his body to tremble, but his ‘mind’ remained steady.
…… and this may lead to the question of how/where the “you” is conceived which may be involved in the question, “where is my mind?” The question, “where is my mind?” implies a separation between “my” and “mind.” If it were not separate, would the question arise?
So, there is an “I”, the subject (that has a vague conception of mind) asking the question to another part of its own self (“my”) that has a “mind” assumed to be separate form “my.”
What is this ‘you’, as you experience yourself?
The ‘you’ as you know yourself is a product of the momentum of knowledge that is passed on to us.
It has this question which you think is a very intelligent question. Through your demand for an answer to that question it wants to know how to add momentum to that knowledge.
It is not ‘you’, because ‘you’ don’t exist. There is no individual there at all. Culture, society, or whatever you want to call it, has created ‘you’ and ‘me’ for the sole purpose of maintaining its own continuity. But, at the same time, we are made to believe that you have to become an individual. These two things have created this neurotic situation for us. There is no such thing as an individual, and there is no such thing as freedom of action inasmuch as there is no action without thought (not talking about the innate autonomous functioning of the brain here). Thought in the sense that’s been shaped and molded to an outside agency’s purpose.
The function of the brain in this body is only to take care of the needs of the physical organism and to maintain its sensitivity, whereas thought, through its constant interference with sensory activity, is destroying the sensitivity of the body. That is where the conflict is. The conflict is between the need of the body to maintain its sensitivity and the demand of thought to translate every sensation within the framework of the sensual activity. I am not condemning sensual activity. Mind, or whatever you want to call it, is born out of this sensuality. So, all activities of the mind are sensual in their nature, whereas the activity of the body is to respond to the stimuli around it. That is really the basic divergence between what you call the mind and the body.