| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Brian Ambrose
|
|
 |
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | The prequel to what I concluded: The mind can choose to imagine anything, and it can choose to do anything with the body. |
That's some mind you've got. |
Thank you!
| The mind is not natural, it is a-natural. The mind can choose to enjoy a natural fresh breeze, or it can choose to enjoy a breath of cigarette smoke. |
Sounds natural to me. If you mention a couple of natural ones, I could better appreciate why these two are a-natural. |
Breathing cigarette is not natural. In order to ‘enjoy’ smoke you need first to teach your body to accept it (with the accompanying warning coughing) but even so, body will be damaged. Other things that are natural are laughing, eating, sleeping.
| In the latter, the mind first needs to train the body and once it has learned how to do that, it becomes natural to the body - it has no choice. |
That's not how I remembered it. |
Please explain.
| The mind may know that that choice will harm the body, but it’s not that the body doesn’t care - it can’t know of the danger. It cannot complain. However mind does become aware from the symptoms from body. The millions of the unconscious jobs done every second of the body works to keep you as healthy as possible; the most primitive force in nature. Despite that, in an extreme contrast case of an unhealthy idea versus body, mind may decide to ride a bike, or jump off a bridge. I don’t know if this bollocks is orthodox, unorthodox, or nutjobbodox. But it’s my bollocks. |
It's none of these things, it's off-topic. We're dealing with mind and brain not mind and body. |
You wish. It is not off-topic, the fact that mind controls the body is very relevant. I think what is off-topic is the idea that Mind is the Brain therefore the topic would be Brain and Brain.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | I knew the brain must have communication nets with the body to carry out its function. I don't accept this means the brain is not only in the skull. |
Neuroscientists have proven the existence of neural stem cells outside the brain. Which means the neural network is larger than the brain. It's distributed processing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Brian and Borry wrote: | It's none of these things, it's off-topic. We're dealing with mind and brain not mind and body.
You wish. It is not off-topic, the fact that mind controls the body is very relevant. I think what is off-topic is the idea that Mind is the Brain therefore the topic would be Brain and Brain.
I knew the brain must have communication nets with the body to carry out its function. I don't accept this means the brain is not only in the skull.
Neuroscientists have proven the existence of neural stem cells outside the brain. Which means the neural network is larger than the brain. It's distributed processing. |
Let me put it another way. You are are just chatting about various aspects of orthodox theories about how the brain operates. I'm sure it's all very interesting and certainly I haven't seen anything I would disagree with.
I'm pushing things on a bit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| assume the orthodox definition of mind |
Before assuming anything, it would be useful to know what that orthodox definition is, if you wouldn’t mind.
| part of the ordinary brain function |
What does ‘ordinary’ mean, scientifically. You are talking about a brain that is self aware, think, appreciate beauty, learn, use language, well, you know. Can you talk scientifically about the brain if your starting point is the ordinary stuff - things like functions and processes that ‘just do it’? An amazing result emerges from an ordinary calculator?
| allowing space for a new definition of mind |
By all means start defining, if it makes sense I’ll chip in.
You are are just chatting about various aspects of orthodox theories about how the brain operates. I'm sure it's all very interesting and certainly I haven't seen anything I would disagree with.
I'm pushing things on a bit. |
A few posts back we were madmen, now I hear we are just boring orthos and haven’t seen anything you would disagree with. Good, agreeing with that, do push on a bit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
|
Have we yet defined how Consciousness is (or is not) differentiated from Mind?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
We haven’t, and I would define it as a transcendent of mind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
Having said, I’d be open to the suggestion that consciousness is just another mereological fallacy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
Opinions please, for this nice gentleman who wandered into the clinic this morning:
Highly intelligent male suffers long term severe difficulty with ‘technical stuff’ such as mathematics and technology. He complains of lack of support from friends and asks what can be done?
Opinion (MH): This patient clearly has a defective part of his brain. I recommend strong drugs and, failing that, replacement of likely areas of brain tissues. The issue with friends will almost certainly disappear.
Opinion (BA): This patient clearly has a healthy brain but his mind has a long-term habit of avoiding any learning of technical matters. However with strenuous effort, a change of mind will cure the ailment and his complaints will reduce.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
|
Opinion (B): Try a transplant?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Opinion (B2): Try remedial therapy, starting with classes run by children.
As Harpo's brother once remarked:
Why a four year old child could understand this.
Run out and get me a four year old child,
I can't make head or tail out of it. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
I'm saving the mathematical stuff for later.
Like this for example:
Where mathematics comes from.
How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. |
Because, despite how it is taught as an "objective" science, mathematics does not exist in nature, it starts in the mind.
The shocking, shocking, irony is (whisper it quietly) this might actually lend credence to the Wokerati that say mathematics is a symbol of White Oppression. Perhaps best not tell them that the best of it was invented in India and Persia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Brian wrote: | assume the orthodox definition of mind
Before assuming anything, it would be useful to know what that orthodox definition is, if you wouldn’t mind. |
I was just assuming it. Was I wrong?
part of the ordinary brain function
What does ‘ordinary’ mean, scientifically. |
Everything except the bit I have been trying to isolate.
| You are talking about a brain that is self aware, think, appreciate beauty, learn, use language, well, you know. Can you talk scientifically about the brain if your starting point is the ordinary stuff - things like functions and processes that ‘just do it’? An amazing result emerges from an ordinary calculator? |
I'm a big fan too.
allowing space for a new definition of mind
By all means start defining, if it makes sense I’ll chip in. |
You haven't so far. There is an old rule in AE: the title comes last, not first. I had no idea where I was going when I (I?) started off. All I knew was that I was dissatisfied with this idea that the mind was 'merely' the control unit of (in?) the brain.
You are are just chatting about various aspects of orthodox theories about how the brain operates. I'm sure it's all very interesting and certainly I haven't seen anything I would disagree with. I'm pushing things on a bit.
A few posts back we were madmen, now I hear we are just boring orthos and haven’t seen anything you would disagree with. Good, agreeing with that, do push on a bit. |
You're welcome to come along. Especially as I have run out of ideas. I was pleased with the autism angle but I haven't got any further than that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| I was just assuming it. Was I wrong? |
When it comes to the orthodox definition of mind…
Nobody knows.
(cf. Saturday Night Live, George Washington’s dream)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| Boreades wrote: | I'm saving the mathematical stuff for later.
Like this for example:
Where mathematics comes from.
How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. |
Because, despite how it is taught as an "objective" science, mathematics does not exist in nature, it starts in the mind.
The shocking, shocking, irony is (whisper it quietly) this might actually lend credence to the Wokerati that say mathematics is a symbol of White Oppression. Perhaps best not tell them that the best of it was invented in India and Persia. |
Nah, it’s all perfectly orthodox (I assume).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | Nah, it’s all perfectly orthodox (I assume). |
Correct, it's all perfectly orthodox Careful Ignoral.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
