I've decided to become a Buddhist

Watermark said:
Yeah. Scientists have shown that there are extra dimensions on a subatomic level. Don't know how that proves the concept of dualism, but whatever.
Click to expand...
It doesn't "prove" anything. Just as simply repeating, but it IS, proves anything. The "mind" is an idea. Whether it is part of the gray matter or not really makes no bones nor changes the idea itself.

In Eastern philosophy the mind and the brain are not synonomous.
 
"Your mind's a programmer, your brain's a computer"

This is untrue. Your brain is a computer that is running a program.

If there were a programmer behind it, he would need a computer himself to process the information required to be able to program the brain, and therefore a program to run it, and then another programmer... etc... etc...
 
Damocles said:
It doesn't "prove" anything. Just as simply repeating, but it IS, proves anything. The "mind" is an idea. Whether it is part of the gray matter or not really makes no bones nor changes the idea itself.

In Eastern philosophy the mind and the brain are not synonomous.
Click to expand...

In almost any philosophy the mind and brain are not synonomous, whether you're talking about a "soul" or a "mind". This stems from an oddity in the brain, that is, an illusion which renders it sometimes unable to percieve itself as being one with the body.
 
Watermark said:
"Your mind's a programmer, your brain's a computer"

This is untrue. Your brain is a computer that is running a program.

If there were a programmer behind it, he would need a computer himself to process the information required to be able to program the brain, and therefore a program to run it, and then another programmer... etc... etc...
Click to expand...
Rubbish. One programmer makes the program to run on the computer, there is no need for another, then another ad infinitum. You are using a logical fallacy here. And it was again just an analogy trying to express a more complex idea that is fundamental to understanding Eastern philosophy. "Mind" and "Brain" do not mean the same thing in Eastern Philosophy regardless of "where" it might be "located".

(I am sure you noted the quotations earlier on the whole "location" idea. Where it is, not important, how the concepts are different is important.)
 
Watermark said:
In almost any philosophy the mind and brain are not synonomous, whether you're talking about a "soul" or a "mind". This stems from an oddity in the brain, that is, an illusion which renders it sometimes unable to percieve itself as being one with the body.
Click to expand...
The soul is another thing altogether in Eastern Philosophy.
 
Beefy said:
Actually, I think you're quite open minded.

I've tried to explain that the term "mind" describes an abstract manifestation of one's self. It is what makes people think of themselves as that particular person. The brain is the vehicle that the "mind" uses in order to make us us, or whatever we perceive or identify ourselves with.

We can use our minds as we see fit, or our minds can overtake us and hijack our identity.

My point is that people use minds, and brains to describe themselves, where it is actually possible and more honest to describe one's self using neither.
Click to expand...

I'm getting it at last - thanks. But I think the brain creates the mind. Bugger this is difficult for me.

Take a baby. The baby's brain runs the autonomic nervous system but that's about it, very basic model. As the baby's brain develops it begins to function above ANS level. The baby perceives sounds, bright lights, colours, shapes. The baby takes a while to develop cognitively speaking - the much-maligned Piaget did some experiments on baby abilities to perceive depth of field and noted that the ability wasn't there at first but came along later. The baby can make noises because it has the physiological capability but it can't speak because it doesn't have the brain ability to process sounds as words, it has to learn them and it's brain needs to be developed to such a point that it has the potential to learn. That baby becomes a child which becomes an adult. These are our names for the stages of physiological development of the human. Those names signify physical and brain/mind development as well. We don't expect a 2 year old child to behave like a 30 year old adult because they're not capable. They have to grow more cortex and absorb more experiences through their sensory organs and store them in long term memory so that the stored experiences can be called upon.

I am not solely the creation of my brain. I am the creation of my brain and my physical experiences in this body.
 
Diuretic said:
I'm getting it at last - thanks. But I think the brain creates the mind. Bugger this is difficult for me.

Take a baby. The baby's brain runs the autonomic nervous system but that's about it, very basic model. As the baby's brain develops it begins to function above ANS level. The baby perceives sounds, bright lights, colours, shapes. The baby takes a while to develop cognitively speaking - the much-maligned Piaget did some experiments on baby abilities to perceive depth of field and noted that the ability wasn't there at first but came along later. The baby can make noises because it has the physiological capability but it can't speak because it doesn't have the brain ability to process sounds as words, it has to learn them and it's brain needs to be developed to such a point that it has the potential to learn. That baby becomes a child which becomes an adult. These are our names for the stages of physiological development of the human. Those names signify physical and brain/mind development as well. We don't expect a 2 year old child to behave like a 30 year old adult because they're not capable. They have to grow more cortex and absorb more experiences through their sensory organs and store them in long term memory so that the stored experiences can be called upon.

I am not solely the creation of my brain. I am the creation of my brain and my physical experiences in this body.
Click to expand...
This is the first concept in the Dhammapada. I believe that I have quoted that first line of the Pairs, where you can find it in the Dhammapada, in my signature.

All that we are is a result of what we have thought, with our thoughts we make our world. One can deliberately choose to limit their world by simply limiting their thoughts solely to the notion of perception.
 
Damocles said:
We can perceive the reaction of things in those we can perceive to those that are outside of those we can perceive. Have you ever read how they proved there are other universes? They used light and its separation, and observing its reaction they were able to prove by its action in these perceived dimensions that others exist.

They also use mathematics and applied mathematics. There is much to this world that we cannot perceive with our limited senses, that doesn't make them not exist.
Click to expand...

Quite right, I can only sense what my brain and body allow me to sense. But I can imagine.
 
Diuretic said:
I'm getting it at last - thanks. But I think the brain creates the mind. Bugger this is difficult for me.

Take a baby. The baby's brain runs the autonomic nervous system but that's about it, very basic model. As the baby's brain develops it begins to function above ANS level. The baby perceives sounds, bright lights, colours, shapes. The baby takes a while to develop cognitively speaking - the much-maligned Piaget did some experiments on baby abilities to perceive depth of field and noted that the ability wasn't there at first but came along later. The baby can make noises because it has the physiological capability but it can't speak because it doesn't have the brain ability to process sounds as words, it has to learn them and it's brain needs to be developed to such a point that it has the potential to learn. That baby becomes a child which becomes an adult. These are our names for the stages of physiological development of the human. Those names signify physical and brain/mind development as well. We don't expect a 2 year old child to behave like a 30 year old adult because they're not capable. They have to grow more cortex and absorb more experiences through their sensory organs and store them in long term memory so that the stored experiences can be called upon.

I am not solely the creation of my brain. I am the creation of my brain and my physical experiences in this body.
Click to expand...

I'm not, nor have I ever discounted the physiological role of the bran with regard to humanity, or human development.

I'm suggesting that the concepts of the "brain" and the "mind" are two totally different things. The brain accounts for a plethora of functions in the body including but not limited to chemical distribution, motor skills, sensory perception and on and on.

The mind is something that manifests itself through the brain, and thus is something people identify with. It is not the essence of a person though.

The mind in a person needs the brain in order to exist. I am having difficulty explaining this properly. Cognitively speaking, the brain is essential, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
 
Beefy said:
I'm not, nor have I ever discounted the physiological role of the bran with regard to humanity, or human development.

I'm suggesting that the concepts of the "brain" and the "mind" are two totally different things. The brain accounts for a plethora of functions in the body including but not limited to chemical distribution, motor skills, sensory perception and on and on.

The mind is something that manifests itself through the brain, and thus is something people identify with. It is not the essence of a person though.

The mind in a person needs the brain in order to exist. I am having difficulty explaining this properly. Cognitively speaking, the brain is essential, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
Click to expand...


You think YOU'RE having difficulty :clink: Jeez I was overdoing the cortex something chronic.

But your point that the mind manifests itself through the brain explains it for me anyway.

I want to make one point. I know sod-all about this stuff and my agreeing with someone's point (or disagreeing with it) is only my thought, I'm not trying to tell someone they're right or wrong. I hope that makes sense.
 
Wow, left to debate gonzo on ID some more and come back to see Diuretic is understanding the concept of mind!

I'm going to try another example of mind here in hopes that others can understand.

Water, through past experiences, likes to make fun of people. When he created this thread, it didn't seem dishonest as if her were mocking Buddhism, but my initial thoughts were that he was doing just that. Through past experiences, I associated Water as a devious individual. I can choose to limit my perception as just what I have percieved of him through experience, or I can choose to look at this thread as something more enlightening, and Water started it. Thanks to him, we are having a great discussion of 'mind'. Now, instead of thinking of him as a devious individual, I see him as an enabler of a great discussion. That long term memory will get lodged in my brain. Now I will look at his future posts as possibly turning into something more, even if he doesn't agree with the concept. Actually, ignore what I just said because it isn't enough to describe the function of mind. I think it's somewhat close though...
 
The post wasn't a "mockery" of buddism. I'm interested in learning about buddist thought, actually.

I don't know. Whenever I looked at that smiley I was just reminded of love and getting along and peace and understandin, but you know, maybe that's what I associate Buddhism with? And whenever I talk about love and getting along, I may do so with a humorous tone, but I don't consider the concept trivial.
 
Diuretic said:
I don't want to sound difficult but whether or not you choose to think beyond any confines is up to you. But they will simply be your thoughts, your ideas, until you can provide proof that they exist outside of your mind.
Click to expand...
This is not true, whether or not I could provide actual "proof" that you existed, you would still exist.
 
Damocles said:
This is the first concept in the Dhammapada. I believe that I have quoted that first line of the Pairs, where you can find it in the Dhammapada, in my signature.

All that we are is a result of what we have thought, with our thoughts we make our world. One can deliberately choose to limit their world by simply limiting their thoughts solely to the notion of perception.
Click to expand...

Ah, you're wanting to get metaphysical. I was banging on about brains and now we get the Pali Canon?
 
Diuretic said:
But if I were a product of your mind could you prove I existed?
Click to expand...

Very interesting Gedankenexperiment.

Proof itself is elusive. There is only evidence, and there comes a point that evidence becomes insurmountable, but it is still only evidence. That is a principle within which we operate.
 
Beefy said:
Very interesting Gedankenexperiment.

Proof itself is elusive. There is only evidence, and there comes a point that evidence becomes insurmountable, but it is still only evidence. That is a principle within which we operate.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with that - I'm being tentative because I have no idea what a Gedankenexperiment is. But I can agree with proof is elusive. I suppose a proof is available in certain areas - mathematics? Hah, that's rich, ME referring to mathematics when I can barely do mental arithmetic. Godel's Theorem comes to mind, only because I heard it discussed on a radio programme some time ago - I haven't a clue what it means and I don't want to sound like I know what I'm talking about because I certainly don't. But they have proofs.

In reality, that is outside of the abstract world of mathematics you're damn right, there's only evidence and inference. I hope I got that right, I always get confused when I use the word "inference". I fear someone might point out my ignorant usage of the word and the concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top