Mind is more than the brain?

Hi everyone,

I came across this article by Rupert Sheldrake:

Rupert Sheldrake Online

In this paper, Sheldrake suggests two interesting concepts:

1) The brain can be considered analogous to a TV set that is receiving information. I would extend this to also being a transmitter.

2) The mind uses the brain to tap into a universal set of information and memories, similar to the Jung concept of collective unconscious.

This is a very interesting article, and I particularly like the analogy which I quote here. Any comments are welcome.

Rich

I have to say your explanation was as clear as mud.

You must work on your OCB...

... perhaps rather than being abnormal, these people are supernormal-maybe it is people like you that are developing into that superhuman state naturally.

Sorry didn't know that failing to understand unclear writing is "obsessive-compulsive"

(protip: please read up on a neuroscience a little)

...But since you've levelled a direct insult at me, and a hideous one at that (calling someone "subhuman" is just begging everyone to invoke Godwin's law, but I won't because I'm not that tacky), I think I'll request moderator intervention.

Hmmm ... you don't like it when someone doesn't consider yourself normal. Maybe you might better empathize with other people and how they must feel when you suggest that them may be abnormal?

Rich

On topic, it could be the case that mind is more than brain, but there's really no evidence, so why indulge in idle metaphysical speculation? It's not going to lead anywhere.

Does this help??? I hope it helps better than empty analogies...

"When you suggest that ... them ... may ... be ... abnormal"

Well, I'm not really concerned with the distinction between "normal" and "abnormal" and so I don't use this distinction to criticize people.

And to be perfectly honest, Rich, I'm not really pissed because stock insults aren't terribly offensive. But breaking forum rules just isn't cool.

My brain functions ok. I live in the forward-looking, reality-based community. Where do you live?



I wasn't even posting in this thread, just stumbled on it by chance.

I have no idea how you thought I was going to see this, actually. It was only through luck that I did.

But since you've levelled a direct insult at me, and a hideous one at that (calling someone "subhuman" is just begging everyone to invoke Godwin's law, but I won't because I'm not that tacky), I think I'll request moderator intervention.

No one has ever seen a thought in a brain. No one has ever seen an image in the brain. No one has ever heard a sound in a brain. In fact, the only thing that has ever been observed is some neurons firing off. I have yet to see one shred of evidence that the mind is limited to the brain. It is a totally made up idea. Just because something is happening in the brain doesn't at all mean it is the source. Heck, plenty happens in the spinal cord as well. And plenty happens in my heart. :detective:

i am infinitely sorry, oden-i was working on multiple threads and this belongs on your 'can we improve society by brain surgery' thread. you know, the one where you come out of the closet and extol your spaghetti noodle monster god? you remember, the one where you insulted a number of members?

"I didn't insult anyone."..............oden
ok, then neither did i!

"Also the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody.".................oden
aha, you are on the road to recovery!

No one has ever seen a thought in a brain. No one has ever seen an image in the brain. No one has ever heard a sound in a brain. In fact, the only thing that has ever been observed is some neurons firing off. I have yet to see one shred of evidence that the mind is limited to the brain. It is a totally made up idea. Just because something is happening in the brain doesn't at all mean it is the source. Heck, plenty happens in the spinal cord as well. And plenty happens in my heart. :detective:

Rich

---------- Post added 07-15-2009 at 10:16 PM ----------



Hi there,

My own viewpoint is thus:

1) Nature loves to hide [Heraclitus]

2) Life is about exploring and piecing together the puzzle. It is a fun game.

3) Analogies are as good as any other piece of the puzzle when trying to solve it. Call it a crossword puzzle clue. Not a direct look at but an idea that helps understand.

4) There are many paths toward understanding the whole puzzle. Different people get there in their own way. What works for you, what works for me, may not work for someone else. It is part of the fun and diversity of being human. Some people play tennis like this others like that. And it all works.

Rich

---------- Post added 07-15-2009 at 10:19 PM ----------



Yes, I think we can all learn how to be more tolerant of behavior that we may find unkind. After all it is only words and sometimes people just have to get something off their chest.

Rich

There's also a wealth of nitty-gritty detail about sensory input, for example how any given cell in the lowest part of the visual cortex (I'm being a little glib here because the even the sensory cortices aren't strictly hierarchical) responds only to a very specific visual primitive ... in another case, there was an experiment where some monkeys were conditioned to raise a paw if they saw a certain motion pattern of dots on a screen; the researchers stimulated the cells responsible for picking up on that pattern in another part of the visual cortex (V5) without actually showing it and the monkeys were tricked sure enough.

Nature loves to hide, in plain sight and behind itself...

Part of the problem with analogy is the problem with forms of any sort... We can't cut up living human brains, or hook car batteries to them for sport; but we can do that with monkeys and other primates.

And at the end, you still know nothing about human beings. What you know is only what your eyes wish to see - and from my vantage point it seems to be very cold.

My summation of all scientific literature:

Scientists have no idea what they are talking about but they say it with so much certainty, vague nomenclature, statistical gobbledygook, and overwhelming wordiness, that they hope no one notices. This way they can keep getting millions upon millions of research dollars.

Recently I read that one researcher wants to classify death as a disease, presumably to gather some research dollars to cure death. Now this is a big marketplace. Gotta hand it too him. Ain't nobody going to top death.

Rich

It never occurred to me that you might make a case against science by cherry picking disingenuous cases and jumping to an unfair generalization!

Well, I do agree, there are a few people working in the science business (and it is a very profitable and luxurious business) that aren't just scaring people, or creating unfounded hopes and predictions, or pretending that they know any more than anyone else, just to get some easy research money. But most spend most of their time thinking up new schemes to get more research dollars

Well, I do agree, there are a few people working in the science business (and it is a very profitable and luxurious business) that aren't just scaring people, or creating unfounded hopes and predictions, or pretending that they know any more than anyone else, just to get some easy research money. But most spend most of their time thinking up new schemes to get more research dollars. The latest of which is to declare death a disease. Crazy money in that.

Rich

Wow. One totally unfounded smear after another. I could respond to this post with a lengthy multi-paragraph rebuttal full of dry facts but that would just make me look flustered, so suffice it to say that this is the first thing that came to mind when I read your comment: