[ExI] Probability is in the mind.
Lee Corbin
lcorbin at rawbw.com
Sun Mar 16 03:24:35 UTC 2008
Terry writes
> Lee wrote:
>
> "Recall that the Germans don't even have a word for "mind".
> So are they just lost souls in examining these questions?
> No, it just means that we cannot---must not---put too
> much weight on any particular word."
> ________________
>
> Most of us often mistake a word or thought as the territory/reality.
Not the people I hang with, Terry. :-)
> We use the mind/map to navigate our way out of the forest of trees.
> However the map/mind or brain is flexible depending upon the
> circumstances of birth/genes and random events.
> The movement/behavior of the mind is affected by evolution as well as
> the movements of ions and electrons in the quantum world.
How right you are, though the behavior of the "mind" is affected at
"different levels" by those things, if you will.
> ______________
>
> Lee wrote: "Your last sentence
> "How do you test if the mind is a behavior of the brain?"
> really ought to have been followed by one sentence
> starting "That is, ..." which used different terms to try to
> say the same thing (the acid test of whether one is thinking
> clearly), and possibly even a second follow-up sentence
> starting with "In other words..."
> ____________
>
> Another way of saying it simply{ via occam"s razor}, without the brain
> there is no mind. How do you test this?
What does it even mean? I already pointed the finger of deep
suspicion at the word "mind". Maybe you're saying "without the
brain, there is (almost) no intelligence, volition, consciousness
and so on. In other words, the brain supports who we are
and our "minds"."
If so, a test would be, "remove the brain of an animal and see
whether it appears to display its normal activity, usual awareness
of its surroundings, reacts to stimuli in the same way, and so on"?
If that's the kind of test you have in mind, boy, I sure know how
I'd bet on the outcome!
> That would be removing the brain or putting you under general
> anesthesia wherein the five senses including the sixth sense/the mind
> located in the brain's uppermost layer /the cerebral cortex in
> suspended state of cognition.
Yes.
> In awareness or awakened state, the mind as a living matter
> observes thoughts as rising and falling like a wave, thus the
> observer is the observed.
Sounds right. Let me paraphrase. "In an aware or awakened state,
our intelligence, volition, sensory ability, responsiveness to stimuli
as living matter (of a very *special* kind, no other organ but the
brain can be put to this test, right?) is capable of learning about its
own reactions to not only outside stimuli, but of learning about
its own reactions to its own reactions". Am I doing okay here?
That is, does it seem like I'm reading you correctly?
> Hope that helps,
I think it did. Thanks, Terry.
But you do know how fraught with peril are statements involving
observers, and even statements involving "observed" things. Why,
in QM alone, the concept of the observer has brought about
incalculable damage and misunderstanding. So when I see a
statement such as "the observer is observed", it screams out
at me for further qualification.
Anyway, I seem to have lost track of your original point. Might
it be made in a new thread? Or not.
> P.S. Terry, sorry to be taking out on you a lot
> of criticism that could and should be directed at
> about 62.7% of the posts on this and related threads.
> _____________
> No need to apologize. I'm thankful for your posts and other related
> posts.
You're seriously too kind. Thanks again, though.
Sincerely,
Lee
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list