Missing in action: Where is the mind?

@Cyracuz,

...the claim being by esotericists/meditators that the division of that substrate into individual minds is "an illusion". The fact that non-locality has now been established for "physicality" itself gives some support to such a claim.

1 Reply

@fresco,

" The short answer is "no" because both "explanation" and "physical phenomena" appear to be products of what we call "the mind". "

This is a good point because of the holographic nature of the universe and physical matter being the real illusion i think it is immpossible to locate the creator(mind) in the creation(physicality)

0 Replies

@fresco,

That makes sense to me, fresco.

I googled "conscious substrate", and the first hit was this pdf called “Vacuum States of Consciousness:
A Tibetan Buddhist View”

0 Replies

I resist the reductionism of physicalists who insist that minding is ONLY a function of braining, that thoughts and feelings are no more than operations of brains. I agree that physical/material brain phenomena are necessary for the experiences that define mind. Einstein's realization that E = mc2 did not happen merely as an expression of particular cerebral events. Those events were necessary correlates of Einstein's intellectual conclusion, but those activities cannot be reduced to physical events if one desires an adequate description/explanation. The arrows of causation in the connection between mind and brain must point in both directions. Otherwise I prefer the response: "No matter; never mind."

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

And as Fresco noted--as I recall--brain is a thought.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

And as Fresco noted--as I recall--brain is a thought.

surely a jest

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

I have recently begun exploring some philosophy about consciousness that is derived from quantum physics.
It's called quantum consciousness, and I am not about to suggest that I fully understand it, but it is interesting.

An interesting aspect of this idea is that consciousness is a more fundamental phenomenon to the universe than physical matter, which I imagine would not sit well with this reductionism you mention.
These are not new ideas, as we both know. I find it interesting that they have begun appearing in physics though.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

We know where the brain is. It has physical form and a location.
But where is the mind? Is mind merely a process, a result of the "brainengine" converting organic matter into conscious thought? If so, where does it take place? Heat from a fire has location. A speeding car has direction. Mind, as far as i know, has neither. It is not limited by physical conditions because it is not within the four dimensional space of physical existence. It is somewhere else. Where or what is this place?

If it were up your ass you would know it; or maybe you wouldn't... I wouldn't worry about losing it... As sick as you are it couldn't have gone far...

Might I suggest that any division from body and brain is theoretical, and any union of mind and body is entirely understandable... If you do not believe the mind has location, then hurt yourself... The more you are hurt the more you wish your mind to dwell on something else... Everywhere you have body you have nervous tissue... The size of the smallest capilaries in your body respond to nerves, for an example... Where you are is the seat of consciousness, though it is not the absolute limit, unless we die, when we presume consciousness dies..

1 Reply

@Fido,

Quote:

If it were up your ass you would know it; or maybe you wouldn't... I wouldn't worry about losing it... As sick as you are it couldn't have gone far...

What? Is this an attempt at humor or insult?

I am not asking where the brain is located. Seems you missed the mark a bit here, wouldn't you say?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
If it were up your ass you would know it; or maybe you wouldn't... I wouldn't worry about losing it... As sick as you are it couldn't have gone far...

What? Is this an attempt at humor or insult?

I am not asking where the brain is located. Seems you missed the mark a bit here, wouldn't you say?

You are your mind...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Well, if you want to look at it that way, I can go along with that.

I do not exist only within the confines of our four dimensional space.
My mind is not bound by linear time.
My mind can travel from Norway to India faster than it takes to write this.

My brain can't do that. I cannot do that.

I can understand the idea behind saying "I am my mind", but from our perspective it seems clear that I am something more than my mind too. And, as it seems to me, my mind isn't stricly speaking mine, in the sense in which my foot is mine.
There is more to it. It's not so easy to distinguish your mind from other minds, since most of what makes up the contents of your mind comes from other minds. Somes come from your mind, but it spreads to other minds, becoming part of them as well.

So I think the initial question is a good one.
Where is the mind? Does it have location? Do we all have one each, or is the brain a sensory organ allowing us to sense mind?
I do not know if there are any conclusive answers to these questions.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

We know where the brain is. It has physical form and a location.
But where is the mind? Is mind merely a process, a result of the "brainengine" converting organic matter into conscious thought? If so, where does it take place? Heat from a fire has location. A speeding car has direction. Mind, as far as i know, has neither. It is not limited by physical conditions because it is not within the four dimensional space of physical existence. It is somewhere else. Where or what is this place?

What do you feel??? Your mind is you, and you are your body which includes your brain....

3 Replies

@Fido,

But that doesn't really answer the question.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

What do you feel??? Your mind is you, and you are your body which includes your brain....

If what 'you' are saying is true then why does language naturally force 'you' to make the distinction between 'Your' and 'mind', 'mind' and 'you', 'you' and 'your body', 'your' and 'body', and 'your' and 'brain'.

Some other natural things you say are: "my finger", "I broke my leg", "I have a headache", "I stubbed my toe", and "I exercised (my body) today.

'My' and 'finger' are not the same. If they were the same you would say it differently, but you can't even dream up a way to say it differently, can you? That's an obvious hint. You can't say it any other way because 'you' are not 'your' finger, you are the 'My'. 'My' is not a measurable (length, width, depth, locality, mass), definable 'thing'. 'My' is who you are. 'Finger' is some 'thing' that 'My' has.

In the case of "I stubbed my toe" are you really trying to tell everybody that you are the "stubbed toe"? If you are the stubbed toe, why is 'I' and 'my' in the sentence?

Throughout history 'spirit' and 'soul' have been used to communicate a distinction between who you are and the body. 'Spirit' and 'soul' are concepts (a combination of characteristics) created to represent Be-ing. Whether you agree with 'spirit' or 'soul' is not the issue here. The issue is that without 'you', Be-ing, there would be no concepts like 'spirit' and 'soul'. One other thing, 'you' don't have a 'spirit' or a 'soul', they represent who 'you' are. 'Spirit' and 'soul' are inaccurate representations of 'you', Be-ing.

When you die, some religions say that you go to what they call heaven and then your body is buried (or cremated) on earth (ashes to ashes, dust to dust).

Isn't it obvious by now that 'you' have a body and that 'you' are not 'your' stubbed toe?

I don't understand why is this still an issue for some people.

BTW - I'm working on something called "Deconstructing the Mind". You should read it when I post it. 'You' are not 'your' mind either. As a matter of fact, you don't even have one. - LMFAO

1 Reply

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

Fido wrote:

What do you feel??? Your mind is you, and you are your body which includes your brain....

If what 'you' are saying is true then why does language naturally force 'you' to make the distinction between 'Your' and 'mind', 'mind' and 'you', 'you' and 'your body', 'your' and 'body', and 'your' and 'brain'.

Some other natural things you say are: "my finger", "I broke my leg", "I have a headache", "I stubbed my toe", and "I exercised (my body) today.

'My' and 'finger' are not the same. If they were the same you would say it differently, but you can't even dream up a way to say it differently, can you? That's an obvious hint. You can't say it any other way because 'you' are not 'your' finger, you are the 'My'. 'My' is not a measurable (length, width, depth, locality, mass), definable 'thing'. 'My' is who you are. 'Finger' is some 'thing' that 'My' has.

In the case of "I stubbed my toe" are you really trying to tell everybody that you are the "stubbed toe"? If you are the stubbed toe, why is 'I' and 'my' in the sentence?

Throughout history 'spirit' and 'soul' have been used to communicate a distinction between who you are and the body. 'Spirit' and 'soul' are concepts (a combination of characteristics) created to represent Be-ing. Whether you agree with 'spirit' or 'soul' is not the issue here. The issue is that without 'you', Be-ing, there would be no concepts like 'spirit' and 'soul'. One other thing, 'you' don't have a 'spirit' or a 'soul', they represent who 'you' are. 'Spirit' and 'soul' are inaccurate representations of 'you', Be-ing.

When you die, some religions say that you go to what they call heaven and then your body is buried (or cremated) on earth (ashes to ashes, dust to dust).

Isn't it obvious by now that 'you' have a body and that 'you' are not 'your' stubbed toe?

I don't understand why is this still an issue for some people.

BTW - I'm working on something called "Deconstructing the Mind". You should read it when I post it. 'You' are not 'your' mind either. As a matter of fact, you don't even have one. - LMFAO

Language is a matter of convenience... What good has it accomplished for us to divide mind from body, soul from body, and divide even the mind into so may parts... It is not a physical reality, but a moral reality... It is not real at all except as a whole, since, if the life fails so does the mind, and if the mind fails it often takes the life, meaning the body, with it...So, If you ask what is the point, I would say indeed: What is the point, since we have plenty of therapist and more neuosis than ever, and as much mistreatment of the mentally ill as ever.. What do they treat: Behavior and symptoms??? Throw them in jail, or hand them anti depressants, but do anything rather than give the healthy individual the help of a helathy community..

1 Reply

@Fido,

William James said that the world contains consciousness as well as atoms—and it's just as essential that the one be acknowledged as the other, that the exclusion of one results in as much a distortion of the truth as the other.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

William James said that the world contains consciousness as well as atoms—and it's just as essential that the one be acknowledged as the other, that the exclusion of one results in as much a distortion of the truth as the other.

Atoms one may possibly prove... Consciousness would be about impossible to prove... It exists because we exist... You should be careful of when you are reading well expressed cant... The common sort is easy enough to tell, but when some one of authority says something beyond belief, don't believe it...

1 Reply

@Fido,

All I said is that 'you' are not your body.

Nothing more, nothing less.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido

How do you relate to the description of matter that quantum physics provides?
What is an atom? You can describe it in even smaller components, and then it doesn't really fit the description "matter" at all. It's all vibrations of something.

This, to me, serves as further indication that within consciousness is the only place physical, solid matter can exist, as proposed by other, more mystical and alot older approaches to understanding reality.

I am not saying that there is nothing outside of consciousness, merely that within it is the only "place" where any distinctions of this kind are meaningful.

So I would not say that the physical world is a place in which consciousness exists. I would say that consciousness is a phenomenon in which physical reality exists. Because any attribute you can assign to any object to classify it as belonging in physical reality, has that attribute as a counterpart in a relationship established in consciousness by observation.

I realize these are somewhat controversial ideas these days.

But there are many assumptions to be questioned. Do we produce thoughts, or do we sense them in some way similar to how we recieve sensoral input from our eyes and ears?

What is observation?
Does it require consciousness, or can it be described as a phenomenon?
And what is consciousness? Can it only happen in living organisms? Is it an ability or is it perhaps merely information?
Are our current "acceptable" answers to these questions supported by logical reasoning or fact, or are they assumptions seemingly so fundamental that they appear self evident?

0 Replies

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

All I said is that 'you' are not your body.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Well, it has come to my attention that I am not any body else's body...

1 Reply

Missing in action: Where is the mind?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know