The well known Mind vs Brain.

Forums: Science And Math, Science, Brain, Mind, Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

You've all probably had this discussion at one point in time, so here I am bringing this topic up since I've yet to see this on this forum.

Here exists the brain, it's tangible and is more or less the mainframe of the human body. You all probably know this.

Then there is the "Mind", said to exist above the brain in an intangible state ( I don't really know the correct terminology in which to describe where the "Mind" dwells)

What we know? The brain controls all our physical movement and does all the processing of inflow information.

THe mind? is our personality, likes and dislikes, and is our individuality.

and please excuse any wrong use of terms or if you have suggestions or know of the right or better terms that could be used in any of my statements please tell me, im always open to learning to vocab.

Heres what I think. Our personality is created by our brain and the mind is inexsitent. All brains are designed generally the same, with pathways leading in all different directions and with all these pathways in different positions making every brain unique. The different combinations, splitting of pathways, locations, size and thickness, crossovers, and routes of these pathways determine who we are and our personality. This is leads to a near infinite amount of possibilities for differetn personalities. This is why we all share common likes and dislikes with other individuals. We are all unique based on our combination of these likes and dislikes, but yet everyone shares the same likes and dislikes with someone else in the world. I think it would be safe to say that No one on earth doesnt share a common like or dislike with someone else. It is for this reason that I think our personalities are based on the makeup of our brain and not the intangible "mind." So the basic point im trying to get across is, is that all our brains process information differently and our brain waves all run through our brain pathways differently. So everything we are is basically a mechanism of our brain. Hence minds dont exist lol

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 6 • Views: 21,469 • Replies: 49

No top replies

crayon,

that is all correct, except that it is not necessary for every "like" of one person to be shared by another person. as you said yourself, there is a near infinite number of combinations, but only a finite number of people.

0 Replies

I don't think I said "Every" , as far as what I can remember from my post. However, I did say that they can share a like or dislike, not all but at least 1. So does my thesis hold true? If that is even a thesis to begin with or theory or w/e please correct me on this. I'm pretty sure you won't find someone who has no like or dislikes that are common with someone else, since that would more or less make him/her an outsider. Even if you were to try to become the most unique, the farthest you'd get would probably be wearing your undergarments in the streets, and I don't even think that's original. If anyone has an idea please share it, or else.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't think I said "Every" , as far as what I can remember from my post.

So you read my response, didn't recall saying "every," didn't bother to check if you had said it even though the words were right in front of you, and replied to disagree? If you want people to take your ideas seriously, you should take yourself seriously first. Here you go Mr. Lazy:

"...but yet everyone shares the same likes and dislikes with someone else in the world."

It's not a thesis -- a thesis is something that you spend a lot of time and effort to derive. For example, the primary focus of your research that you use to get a Ph.D is a thesis...

It is an idea, at most a hypothesis, and a theory only under the loose definition of the word -- but not under the scientific definition of theory, which is much more rigorous...and you are in the science forum.

Intangible, abstract concepts, are still real concepts. The concept of a mind is very real, even though it is based in reality.

Obviously I cannot tell you definitively that your idea is true, because I am not God am I? All I can say is that the core of your idea, as I have interpreted it, makes sense to me.

0 Replies

Ah I see, I was just testing to you to see whether you read, in detail, what I wrote. I try not to take anything I say too seriously, that way I can avoid conflict. I was just testing you .

0 Replies

You're not a very good liar.

0 Replies

says who?

0 Replies

Quote:

says who?

You did, when you said that you had lied about not knowing what you thought you had said.

0 Replies

No way

0 Replies

A lie is when you say something that you know is not true. There's no point in arguing about having commmitted the act or not -- based on what you have already said, it can be concluded from basic logic.

0 Replies

crayon851.

One of the reasons why this topic tends to be avoided here is its complexity. Here for example is just one multi-disciplinary archive:

http://consc.net/online.html

You should be able to see from this sample that issues range from Cartesian dualism to quantum mechanics and involve significant excursions into ontology (theories of existence) and epistemology (theories of knowledge). Just the single issue that "logic" appears to be only one aspect of "meaning" should be sufficient to deter superficial discussion.

0 Replies

What brain is to neuroscience, mind is to psychology.
Infact mind is akin to brain. If not all, most of the intricacies of the mind are now being unravelled on the molecular level by neuroscience. You can say that psychology is applied neuroscience.

0 Replies

spidergal

Mind is to psychology as a smile is to customer services.
Psychology is to neuroscience as alchemy is to chemistry.
Neuroscience is to brain as Newtonian mechanics is to particle physics.

0 Replies

We can avoid the dualism inherent in the framework: mind VERSUS brain. It seems to me that "mind" is a function of brain and the IDEA of "brain" is a construction of mind. Like ying and yang, each is interdependently determined by the other

0 Replies

JLN,

The nondualistic picture is certainly valid, but perhaps does not give the reductionists sufficient "cause for pause". I think Ryle's concept of "category mistake" serves that purpose (University=Mind).....naive tourists having been shown arround the colleges and libraries of Oxford asking "but where is the University".....i.e. "Neuroscientists" are restricted to studying the internal mailing systems or the catering arrangements!..."Psychologists" trying to work out the function "a university" in "epistemology"!

0 Replies

Fresco, are you comparing the "category mistake" of the naive tourist to a failure to understand "mind" as the feelings, thoughts and sensations pertaining to that summary category, and the neural functions and structures (and their systemic interactions) within our skulls to belong to the summary category, "brain"? But that there are no such "things" as universities, minds and brains?

0 Replies

JLN,

Sorry, I was in a rush this morning.

A reductionist is not going to "buy" transcendental non-dualism....only material non-dualism. So the argument of the "category mistake" is an attack on materiality. Examination of the brain is equivalent to examining the architecture and plumbing of a university, The concept of the university functionally informs details of its physical structure like the concept of "mind" " functionally informs" details of "brain" but both strucures may be necessary but not sufficient for the function they serve.
Universities are part of interwoven social systems spanning localities which extend beyond their physical structures. "Mind" too is socially extended via its use of language (irrespective of any transcendent properties which might also apply).

0 Replies

He means it's a business proposition. You have to speculate to accumalate. Asserted speculations being worthless of course.

0 Replies

When aa scientist examines a persons brain and asks him to thhink about a tree the scientist sees parts of the brain light up. He does not see a tree. Same thing foor all thoughts. I think there is more to the mind thaan we know or even than we CAN know.

0 Replies

Fresco, let me try again. So the category mistake points to "transcendence" in the sense that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The "brain" is a system, more than it is a collection of parts.

I agree, NickFun. But I take it even further to say that everything is more than we can (completely) know. But we may be able to find answers to OUR questions, bit our successful answers may merely reflect the dullness of our questions.

0 Replies

The well known Mind vs Brain.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know