What is the mind?

Re: What is the mind?


I don't believe the mind is separate from our brains. Somehow our brains manage the cute trick of reflecting on its own processing. That gives us the feeling of mind, I believe. Some philosophers think this is an illusion of the brain. I don't. Just that our brain thinks and reflects on its own thoughts.

I also put a lot of emphasis on our unconscious brains, that I believe does a lot of thinking that never gets to consciousness. Sort of like a neighborhood gossiping about someone, and that person never knows he/she is being talked about. To complicate things, we have a right brain and a left brain. Nature might have originally intended us to be two brains/minds in one body, but then opted for the perception consciously of one brain/mind.

We were born too early, I believe, since in time much will be answered by science.

Gilbey, interested to know who the "me" is in that sentence if the mind is separate? Also, what was it you thought about that gave the appearance of the mind being separate?

I don't think the mind is separate from the brain. When the brain stops processing, the "me" of the mind is gone. In effect, the belief in a spirit mind, or soul, is fiction, I believe. Nice if it was true, but, in my opinion, just wishful thinking.

maybe this will become a thread about foofie's materialism. we already had a thread about idealism (kind of the opposite of materialism) so i guess this makes sense.

I don't think of it as "materialism," which makes it one of many "isms." I think of it as objective truth. Brain stops functioning, self (whatever that is) is gone, kaput, fini, nada. Naturally, I should say this is my opinion, since I can't prove or disprove my beliefs.

But, while many people don't like the thought that it all may be over, when the brain stops firing neurons, I like the idea, since then I don't have to give credence to those that profess this or that religion, and its respective promise of an afterlife. As far as I'm concerned they can all live for eternity in their respective version of a heaven, with fat little cherubs feeding them mallomars.

Re: What is the mind?
perhaps you should mind your own business

most "isms" are the product of confusing opinion with objective truth.

it makes more sense to you that the mind is in the brain, that's fine, and perhaps it's true. but this is the essence of materialist philosophy, regardless of what you call it.

the essence of idealism is that the universe is foremost an idea, which is the opposite of all ideas exist in grey material. what i was pointing out is that you're simply reiterating one side of one of the oldest philosophical debates there is.

there isn't a conclusion to it, except the one you've declared for yourself- there's nothing wrong with that, but it's worth being aware of.

"Mind" is a function of brain (i.e., you never have thoughts and consciousness without a brain), and "brain" is one of the many objects in the content of mind (i.e., there could not be the thought of brain without consciousness).

What is The Mind?

This is a question that is presented only to those species that have "achieved" self-awareness.

The quotes derive from the fact that there are any number of keen minds on the subject of evolution who believe that evolution does not incorporate the concept of progression.

Whether achieved or fallen upon, self-awareness separate the self-aware from the great mass of Life on this planet.

Self-awareness is either a cruel joke or an opening to greater Truths.

See my other posts.

It depends, I suppose, on whether one believes all Existence is the product of Random Choice or Intelligent Design (Oh No - I've said it!) and/or God's Will.

It is entirely possible that "The Mind," "Self-Awareness," "Individual Identity" is a cruel Cosmic joke (Which erroneously presupposes that the Cosmos that has a particular regard for Human Life and therefore finds its existence to be, at best, ironic)

Since all we really have is our minds, we should treasure them and advance them. This should be the goal of humankind.

As it so happens, God wants us to follow this path. God want us to reach the pinnacle that Stephan J Gould contend will never be achieved.

Return to the Godhead is the ultimate goal of Life.

Finn d'Abuzz, it seems to me that given the presumed absolute power of God, if the creationists and ID'ers are correct God is the SupremeUnderAchiever.

I agree with you that our principal goal in life should be the advancement of consciousness/mind. And this includes the realization of our oneness with the Godhead. But I must add that we don't have to "return" to the Godhead; we are already there, but we must--perhaps this is what you meant--realize it. This is what I call the really Good News.

rubbish, you've been reading too much science fiction.

The ultimate goal of life is life itself. Nothing more nothing less.

The ultimate goal in life is not life itself, I believe the ultimate goal in life is the search for knowledge, and trying to discover everything we are able to discover. Human beings are the exception in the sense that are able to understand the world around us, we are able to invent things using our minds, so with this the ultimate goal in life is not life itself

Like me, you are both (partially) right.

I don't know if everyone has the aptitude to have the same ultimate goal in life. For some it is just maintaining a job. For other it can be more expansive.

I don't know what a Godhead is? Why assume there is one, whatever it is? It sounds mystical to me. Perhaps, preposterous to be candid.

I guess The Godhead refers to the ultimate level of Reality, if there is such a thing. It is clearly a mystical concept and it has the problem of not being empirical or rational such that it is useless for everyone except mystics who use it as symbol for whatever is fundamentally (or really) real. I take it to be a metaphorical tool of mystics; it stands vaguely FOR everything but points TO nothing in particular.

The term (Godhead) sounds like what 1960's hippies would say if they were having a good day and wanted to share it with someone who would likely respond, "Like wow!"

I do hope, Foofie, that nothing I say is interpreted as New Age ideology.

"new age" is more like a second look at older ideas. there's nothing new under the sun, right? people want to look at the sky, and they want nature to be full of magic. this desire lead to christian missionaries, it's natural that overzealous missionaries would lead to people thinking about alternatives.

i think jl just thinks for himself. cool, more people should try that, rather than trying to fit everyone into boxes and labels. those boxes catch up with us sooner or later, and imprison us. "are you a christian?" "atheists are evil," "PAGAN," "heathen," and thrashing people for naming teddy bears. no good. jl is just jl i think, but he can label himself if he likes.

Rubbish, you've read too much Dawkins and Hitchens.

What you are really contending is that life has no goal. It is a chinese finger trap which settled to the bottom of a suspension of infinite possibilities.

If there are infinite possibilities, God is one.

If there are finite possibilities, existence, the universe, reality, or however you choose to call it is a defined set, with defined limits; a beginning and an end.

For anything with a beginning and and an end, valid questions are:

What was before?

What is after?

What caused the Big Bang? Where will entropy ultimately land us?

I suspect that you may have difficulty with the concept of Godhead, because you perceive it to insist upon a personalized relationship between the individual and the Godhead, and this seems too childish or primitive an idea for your rational mind.