I liked this video quite a bit. The surreal video tied into the epic background music really played into the theme of the mind. Very Freud. It demonstrated that if one really wants to, they can water the human mind down into a list of basic concepts: relationships, entertainment, religion, etc. But if somebody wants a complete understanding of the human mind, they must disregard the blunt, obvious concepts that we hold to be true about the mind and observe the mind based on the person it belongs to. Yes, relationships are an important part of the human mind. But they depth of said relationships and what is considered necessary in a relationship is based on the person, not the physical mind.
"Mind" itself is a highly general term. I was speaking (albeit unlclearly) of the comparison between the general mind and the technical sections it is comprised of and the emotional mind that makes one who they really are. The two of us, for example, each have two different "minds." One is physical; the grey gooey ball of slime that resides within our cranial cavity. Scientifically it is known that certain parts of our mind focus exclusively on biological necessities such as food, sex, shelter, etc., other parts focus on social necessities such as love, friendship, "group" or "posee." And even another part (the frontal lobe, I believe, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is exclusively for decision-making and proper choices. That's all fine and dandy. The other "mind" of which I speak isn't necessarily physical. I suppose that scientifically it would really just fit into other sections of the brain, but the complexities lead me to prefer to think of it as a separate concept. This more advanced "mind" consists of concepts such as personality (the non-biological aspects of it, I'd assume), fears/phobias, interests, artistic preferences, etc. This "mind" is, in my opinion, what really makes the person. Sure, everybody may have that exact same part of the brain that focuses exclusively on social necessities, but it is the second "mind" (the one I am most definitely more attached to) that decides what type of social situation one would prefer.
I'm not sure that I was particularly clear on any of that. I'm currently in a bit of an NIN/Radiohead trance and do not quite know if my thoughts are being properly portrayed through the keyboard. Oh well!
What nonbiological aspects? Besides scientists' assertionts that your genome controls quite a bit of who you are (more and more, the more studies they do - but the more studies they do, the more complex the mechanism of expression), the stuff that's going on in your head is going on in your brain - that's biological function. So say you did manage to find some trait that has nothing to do with your genes - it's mode of expression would still be in your actions and interests. These actions and interests, of course which spring from and recieve feedback from the mind.
In other words, I'm saying there's no difference between a person and a mind - the robot figured that out when it realized that having a thinking mechanism is what made in a person, not person-like behaviors.
(Also, while the frontal lobe controls rational thought, decision-making is also heavily influenced by glands producing various hormones like dopamine and seratonin and all the more primitive mind-systems that produce emotions, from simple ones like fear to complex ones like greed. Sort of like an old machine that keeps getting new parts added to it).
Obviously, that's science, so who knows? I've noticed that one of my problems is reading to heavily into all these journal articles. Like this brain scientist told the Dalai Llama about how when people have various thoughts that they can see through brain scrans which pattern of neurons firing triggered the thoughs. And the Dalai Llama was like, what if the thoughts triggered the neurons firing?
In any case, I'm going to be more skeptical, if not a skeptic, from now on, though I stil think brain/thinking organ = person is the most viable theory for self.
"I'm saying there's no difference between a person and a mind" "brain/thinking organ = person"
There is definatly a difference between person and mind.
The general definition of person is "a human being regarded as an individual."
While the definition of mind is "the human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination."
Therefore an individual human being with or without a mind (such as the unborn and dead) can be considered a person, as the presence of a mind isn't what defines person-hood.
5 comments:
I liked this video quite a bit. The surreal video tied into the epic background music really played into the theme of the mind. Very Freud. It demonstrated that if one really wants to, they can water the human mind down into a list of basic concepts: relationships, entertainment, religion, etc. But if somebody wants a complete understanding of the human mind, they must disregard the blunt, obvious concepts that we hold to be true about the mind and observe the mind based on the person it belongs to. Yes, relationships are an important part of the human mind. But they depth of said relationships and what is considered necessary in a relationship is based on the person, not the physical mind.
AX - very thoughtful :)
"...the mind based on the person it belongs to...based on the person, not the physical mind."
What distinguishes person from mind, physical or otherwise?
"Mind" itself is a highly general term. I was speaking (albeit unlclearly) of the comparison between the general mind and the technical sections it is comprised of and the emotional mind that makes one who they really are. The two of us, for example, each have two different "minds." One is physical; the grey gooey ball of slime that resides within our cranial cavity. Scientifically it is known that certain parts of our mind focus exclusively on biological necessities such as food, sex, shelter, etc., other parts focus on social necessities such as love, friendship, "group" or "posee." And even another part (the frontal lobe, I believe, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is exclusively for decision-making and proper choices. That's all fine and dandy. The other "mind" of which I speak isn't necessarily physical. I suppose that scientifically it would really just fit into other sections of the brain, but the complexities lead me to prefer to think of it as a separate concept. This more advanced "mind" consists of concepts such as personality (the non-biological aspects of it, I'd assume), fears/phobias, interests, artistic preferences, etc. This "mind" is, in my opinion, what really makes the person. Sure, everybody may have that exact same part of the brain that focuses exclusively on social necessities, but it is the second "mind" (the one I am most definitely more attached to) that decides what type of social situation one would prefer.
I'm not sure that I was particularly clear on any of that. I'm currently in a bit of an NIN/Radiohead trance and do not quite know if my thoughts are being properly portrayed through the keyboard. Oh well!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11Genome-t.html?pagewanted=1&hp
What nonbiological aspects? Besides scientists' assertionts that your genome controls quite a bit of who you are (more and more, the more studies they do - but the more studies they do, the more complex the mechanism of expression), the stuff that's going on in your head is going on in your brain - that's biological function. So say you did manage to find some trait that has nothing to do with your genes - it's mode of expression would still be in your actions and interests. These actions and interests, of course which spring from and recieve feedback from the mind.
In other words, I'm saying there's no difference between a person and a mind - the robot figured that out when it realized that having a thinking mechanism is what made in a person, not person-like behaviors.
(Also, while the frontal lobe controls rational thought, decision-making is also heavily influenced by glands producing various hormones like dopamine and seratonin and all the more primitive mind-systems that produce emotions, from simple ones like fear to complex ones like greed. Sort of like an old machine that keeps getting new parts added to it).
Obviously, that's science, so who knows? I've noticed that one of my problems is reading to heavily into all these journal articles. Like this brain scientist told the Dalai Llama about how when people have various thoughts that they can see through brain scrans which pattern of neurons firing triggered the thoughs. And the Dalai Llama was like, what if the thoughts triggered the neurons firing?
In any case, I'm going to be more skeptical, if not a skeptic, from now on, though I stil think brain/thinking organ = person is the most viable theory for self.
"I'm saying there's no difference between a person and a mind"
"brain/thinking organ = person"
There is definatly a difference between person and mind.
The general definition of person is "a human being regarded as an individual."
While the definition of mind is "the human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination."
Therefore an individual human being with or without a mind (such as the unborn and dead) can be considered a person, as the presence of a mind isn't what defines person-hood.
Post a Comment