Re: Definition please

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Tue Dec 04 2001 - 07:08:26 GMT

  • Next message: Joe Dees: "Re: A Question for Wade"

    Received: by id HAA01608 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 07:13:19 GMT
    Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 23:08:26 -0800
    Message-Id: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Content-Disposition: inline
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
    X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116)
    X-Originating-Ip: []
    From: "Joe Dees" <>
    Subject: Re: Definition please
    Precedence: bulk

    ('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)

    > "Dace" <> <> Re: Definition pleaseDate: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:26:10 -0800
    >> At 10:09 AM 12/2/2001 -0800, you wrote:
    >> >If they're the same thing, how can one be aware of the other? Brains
    >> >have the trait known as "awareness." What you'll find in brains are
    >> >electrochemical transmissions, potassium channels, glial support cells,
    >> >things like that. Brains and minds are the same thing in the sense that
    >> >heads and tails are the same thing. One coin, two perspectives.
    >> The 'brain' as you describe it is an external description of the
    >> mind. Once neurologists have it all worked they will be able to describe
    >> what you label 'the mind' with these parts of the brain.
    >In that case, what will be the point of retaining the concept of "mind?" If
    >it's only been a useful illusion all along, as Dennett argues, won't its
    >usefulness have come to an end at that point?
    I hope and trust that my mind will retain its usefulness to me for the forseeable future.
    >> >We have internal senses to monitor what's inside our bodies just as we
    >> >external senses to monitor what's outside. But minds are not inside our
    >> >bodies. A surgeon can locate your appendix. The same cannot be said of
    >> >your mind.
    >> Where exactly is it located then?
    >As far as the mind has location, that location is the brain's. For the
    >mind, location is an accidental quality. At its essence, it is spaceless.
    >We already know of one natural object-- time-- which has no definable
    >spatial location, so it shouldn't come as a shock that another natural
    >object is similarly nonlocal.
    Actually, spatiotemporality as a single manifold has location, it is just universal (as in everywherewhen in the universe). Whether we perceive, remember past perceptions, or deconstruct past perceptions and creatively recombine them in our imaginings, these apprehensions are always from a prespective, or spatiotemporal point of view, upon the perceived.
    >The true "location" of mind is time. To have a mind is to act on the basis
    >of memory in the pursuit of goals. You can take the space out of mind, but
    >try removing the time and nothing's left.
    You can remove neither, for strictly speaking, 'they' are so inextricable intertwined that although 'they' may be abstractly distingushed, 'they' cannot be empirically separated (for 'they' are differing aspects of a single perceptual manifold).
    >> >Once your appendix has been removed, it's viewable by your external
    >> >Can the same be said of regret, of anxiety?
    >> I believe that there is a lot of evidence to indicate that if certain
    >> portions of the brain are removed cognitive and emotional function are
    >> impaired. It is possible that 'anxiety' does not map to an exact region
    >> the brain, much in the same way that a program can be located in different
    >> regions of computer's memory, but it is in the brain.
    >Are *you* afraid, or is it your amygdala?
    I cound not fear without it, and damaged amygdalas cause warped or flat affect. Likewise, I could no more see without my occipital lobe than I could without eyes.
    >> >When you speak of computers, your use of "internal" is strictly physical.
    >> >But when you speak of minds, "internal" takes on a metaphysical meaning.
    >> >You're using the same word to talk about two different things.
    >> I suppose if you believe that the internal observations of the brain point
    >> to a place somewhere other than the external location of the brain that
    >> might be correct. However, in the absence of that belief, it is a
    >> perfectly useful analogy.
    >> Ray Recchia
    >If the observations of the brain point to the external location of the
    >brain, then in what sense are these observations internal? The brain is
    >already inside. How much more "inside" can you get? Not spatially,
    >certainly. There's only one other option.
    Subjective mental point of view in sensory perception dovetails with and corroborates objective phyical substrate brain location.
    >This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    >Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    >For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL! compares book price at 41 online stores.

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 04 2001 - 07:19:34 GMT