On existence of Mind and Soul

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Dear karoly aczel,
Why use words like Eastern Psychobabble ?
Is the West endowed with superior knowledge of the functions of Mind and Brain? Are western people more in control of their arguments i.e they don't babble but talk with mellifluous voice in a sweet reasoning manner ? A look at the exchanges in the forums will convince any unbiased observer th ...[text shortened]... e.
In case you are interested in Eastern philosophy esp. reg. Mind,I will be glad to oblige.

Oh no, you have me quite wrong.
I have always admired eastern thought much more than the standard one-upmanship that passes for intelligent thought in the west.

"eastern psychobabble" is just a description for western minds, it is not intended as a put down. Perhaps an attempt to be humble on my part gone wrong, eh?

(obviously you haven't read one of my many pscho babble filled posts that I often churn out in the Spirituality Forum😉 )

Originally posted by andrew93
Are these threads (this one and the one on natural selection) an attempt to persuade others there is a God?

Not from my comments. Though I post frequently on the Spirituality Forum, I try to stay out of the science ones and just read, but every now and then...
I like to talk about the world as I have experienced it, some say I am talking about God(s), but I'm really just talking about the universe as I percieve it.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Oh no, you have me quite wrong.
I have always admired eastern thought much more than the standard one-upmanship that passes for intelligent thought in the west.

"eastern psychobabble" is just a description for western minds, it is not intended as a put down. Perhaps an attempt to be humble on my part gone wrong, eh?

(obviously you haven't read one of my many pscho babble filled posts that I often churn out in the Spirituality Forum😉 )

I am sorry if I have misunderstood you! The problem of miscommunication arises often between westerners and easterners. Also,I was getting a bit riled because of some nasty comments. I offer my sincere apologies once again
My main points have not been clarified/refuted i.e. a) The Brain is an organ comprising neural cells separated by synapses across which micro electric currents leap whenever communication between various parts of brain and body or within the brain takes place. But this leaves out who or what directs the passage of currents. b) My position was that brain is controlled by Mind-a factual entity. c) Nobody has discovered the location of this OS of the Brain. d) Scientists e.g. Dr. Wilder Penfield thought that Mind exists out of the body.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I am sorry if I have misunderstood you! The problem of miscommunication arises often between westerners and easterners. Also,I was getting a bit riled because of some nasty comments. I offer my sincere apologies once again
My main points have not been clarified/refuted i.e. a) The Brain is an organ comprising neural cells separated by synapses across whi ...[text shortened]... S of the Brain. d) Scientists e.g. Dr. Wilder Penfield thought that Mind exists out of the body.

You are simply assuming there is a mind, nothing in the brain suggests that there is one.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I am sorry if I have misunderstood you! The problem of miscommunication arises often between westerners and easterners. Also,I was getting a bit riled because of some nasty comments. I offer my sincere apologies once again
My main points have not been clarified/refuted i.e. a) The Brain is an organ comprising neural cells separated by synapses across whi ...[text shortened]... S of the Brain. d) Scientists e.g. Dr. Wilder Penfield thought that Mind exists out of the body.

“....The Brain is an organ comprising neural cells separated by synapses across which micro electric currents leap whenever communication between various parts of brain and body or within the brain takes place. But this leaves out who or what directs the passage of currents. ..”

don't understand what you mean: What “ directs the passage of currents” is the semi-permeable membranes and neurotransmitters.


“...My position was that brain is controlled by Mind-a factual entity. ...”


what is “ Mind-a factual entity”?


“....Nobody has discovered the location of this OS of the Brain. ...”

by “OP” you mean “Operating System “

I am a semi-expert on computers of sorts and I certainly know what a “Operating System “ is. It is software, consisting of programs and data that manages computer hardware and the running of application software. Unlike a conventional computer, the human brain is made of neural networks that do not require that kind of software to function. Unlike conventional computers, the human brain is not made to run application software and so no OP would be require to run such application software. The human brain has hardware that is asynchronous and doesn't require a central computer clock nor any 'software' to coordinate the various neural networks because they are self-organised. Have you heard of “neural computers”? They function without any OP thus proving no OP is required in the human brain. You could argue that the human brain is, in a sense, its own OP, but I personally think that is stretching the meaning of “OP” a bit to far.


“...Scientists e.g. Dr. Wilder Penfield thought that Mind exists out of the body. ...”


I see no mention of this at; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilder_Penfield

Also, anyone scientist that claims that mind can exist outside the body is a crank and would be dismissed as such.
The vast majority of scientists would not claim that mind can exist outside the body as there is no scientific bases for such a thing.

P.S. I don't know what went wrong but the first time I posted this, my post suddenly disappeared! I had to start it again.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
P.S. I don't know what went wrong but the first time I posted this, my post suddenly disappeared! I had to start it again.

A little off topic, but what I usually do after typing a long post is while the cursor is in the post (before I click the Post button), I CTRL-A (select all), CTRL-C (copy).

That way, if something drastically goes wrong, I can paste the post again (CTRL-V).

EDIT: Alternatively, type the post in notepad first, and copy/paste into here.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You are simply assuming there is a mind, nothing in the brain suggests that there is one.

A bit late in this discussion but the real issue about the brain and mind centers for me about the undeniable fact of awareness itself. This awareness is not only aware of the outer world, but is also aware of the thoughts, dreams and inner mental processes and imageries. This has been described by scientists as the "little man in the machine" observing deciding etc.

No locus for this faculty has as far as I am aware ever been found.

It appears to exist even when there is no content for the awareness, simply the state of being aware, per se. Not knowing what it actually is or its source has led some to believe (including me) that it is a universal quality that does not have its source in brain tissue, but is focussed, tuned into or used by brains of all sorts and levels. Brains of course have many other bodily related functions, most of them unconcious.

Without awareness, for all intents and purposes, nothing is. some even equate this universal field of awareness with "God", although I am not a theist, in the usual sense anyway.

Neither I can prove it, nor you disprove it. So science must remain silent, neither for, nor against. But more often they some scientists start saying something cannot be at all, because it cannot be disproven or measured or located. That is beyond the true scientific attitude and becomes personal opinion.

Originally posted by Taoman
A bit late in this discussion but the real issue about the brain and mind centers for me about the undeniable fact of awareness itself. This awareness is not only aware of the outer world, but is also aware of the thoughts, dreams and inner mental processes and imageries. This has been described by scientists as the "little man in the machine" observing decid ...[text shortened]... asured or located. That is beyond the true scientific attitude and becomes personal opinion.

This is what René Descartes meant with "Cogito ergo sum". The fact that we think gives us the awareness.

I agree that we are a long way from understanding it fully, but here is some food for thought:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You are simply assuming there is a mind, nothing in the brain suggests that there is one.

Nor in the rest of the body.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I am sorry if I have misunderstood you! The problem of miscommunication arises often between westerners and easterners. Also,I was getting a bit riled because of some nasty comments. I offer my sincere apologies once again
My main points have not been clarified/refuted i.e. a) The Brain is an organ comprising neural cells separated by synapses across whi ...[text shortened]... S of the Brain. d) Scientists e.g. Dr. Wilder Penfield thought that Mind exists out of the body.

I think mind is just a sense -our sixth one, that is
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I think mind is just a sense -our sixth one, that is
😵

Do you equate mind with awareness? What of that which observes the mind and its processes? The mind is another sense, I agree. But I do not equate it with the awareness of the sensing that happens.

Originally posted by Taoman
Do you equate mind with awareness? What of that which observes the mind and its processes? The mind is another sense, I agree. But I do not equate it with the awareness of the sensing that happens.

Methinks the observed awareness is established through a modification of the mind different from the observer that observes the observed awareness, therefore the observed awareness is not established by itself. Nor are the two modifications of awareness are established by each other, because the non-established cannot establish the non-established. Since these two modifications are empty for they are unfixed and mutually established due to the fact that they change constantly and they are mutually dependent, I conclude that both the observed awareness and “the man in the machine” are merely discriminations
😵

Originally posted by lausey
This is what René Descartes meant with "Cogito ergo sum". The fact that we think gives us the awareness.

I agree that we are a long way from understanding it fully, but here is some food for thought:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision

I query whether thinking is the equivalent of awareness of thinking. Was this what the honorable Descartes was referring to? To the thinking itself or the awareness of one thinking? From what I know of his works, and it is mainly around this, the principal and well known great differentiation he achieved, I do not recall him differentiating awareness of thinking from thinking itself. He appears to me have included the awareness with the thinking. The self-awareness of thinking is still the core that underlies our basic knowledge that we exist. He of course was right, but there still appears this greater differentiation within what he said.

From our own mental processes, it appears to me that awareness is prior to thinking and that it is there even when we are not cogitating.

The reference you gave is a fine and important one. Thank you. I have read of this finding elsewhere. I do not question it either. Rather it fits perfectly within the concept of a wider "field" of awareness, that our individual awareness is connected to and part of. Unconscious psychological processes were "discovered" by Freud and expanded on by Jung, who linked our unconscious processes to a greater "collective unconscious", because of recurring themes across diverse cultures. These unconscious aspects have been shown to have a far greater influence on our conscious decisions and actions than we generally give credit for.

I find the finding supporting of all this. It may be interpreted that our "free will" in overt decision making is deeper and has greater unconscious links than we think and certainly not as independent as we would like it, in our very Western way of thinking.

The assumption within the article is that the physical brain alone does all the work prior to our overt decisions. The 7 second delay is evidenced. The assumption that it is all due to the physical brain entirely is not proven thereby however.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
....The Brain is an organ comprising neural cells separated by synapses across which micro electric currents leap whenever communication between various parts of brain and body or within the brain takes place. But this leaves out who or what directs the passage of currents. ..

don't understand what you mean: What  directs the passage of current ...[text shortened]... ng but the first time I posted this, my post suddenly disappeared! I had to start it again.

Then under whose directions and control the "semipermeable membranes" and "neurotransmitters" work ? If your answer is "they work automatically", it will mean that the entire immense Treasury of Human Thought,so well evolved,focussed and directed towards search of Answers to the riddles of the Universe,is nothing but psychobabble! A Shakespeare written by a monkey having inexhaustible supply of time and paper etc.?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Then under whose directions and control the "semipermeable membranes" and "neurotransmitters" work ? If your answer is "they work automatically", it will mean that the entire immense Treasury of Human Thought,so well evolved,focussed and directed towards search of Answers to the riddles of the Universe,is nothing but psychobabble! A Shakespeare written by a monkey having inexhaustible supply of time and paper etc.?

Perhaps you are just lacking in imagination.