The Mind Is A Secondary Organ

[Phaedrus]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Well, I guess it depends whether you think thought can be a passive process or not. Plants are not self-aware, but humans are, and self-awareness exists in thought, irrespective of which one comes first.

Self awareness can exist in thought but thought is not dependant on it. Animals think without self awareness. A dog can recognize a door and know it has to be opened before he can go through it. He doesnt walk into it when it is closed. He knows its a door (although language doent enter into it) and how it works, or at least when it will allow him through.

I have seen them use the door lever to open it themselves but he does not know he knows and so is not self aware. He cannot step aside the thinking process that lead him to the use of the handle and judge it. He may have come unpon the knowledge accidentally through his scratching at the closed door and simply repeats the action like a successful hunting technique. He may have learned it through observation, seeing me open it repeatedly, but in either case he would not understand the process that lead him to the success.

[Play_Dough]

"Mind" is the context within which all phenomena exists.
"Mind" is NOT physical. The 'brain' is a physical organ.

Mind is to brain as water is to spigot.

.

[Phaedrus]

Mind is to brain as water is to spigot.


I like that

[Rasputini]

Hey, I'm kind of new to philosophy (in terms of terminology and known philosophies out there), but I'm finding myself more and more attracted to it, so forgive me if i seem like I dont know what I'm talking about. I've read through the last 3 pages of your discussion, and it seems like you guys have aggreed upon some kind of dualism; in that there is the Mind (as a spiritual/soul-like essence) and there's the Brain (the physical orgain). Please correct me on everything i got wrong in there.

Personally, I can't buy into any form of dualism regarding the mind/body. I recently saw something on the Discovery channel that was discussing the evolution of mammals, and was saying that the body evolved to accomidate the brain. The show also was explaining how the evolution of the ear from 1 to 3 bones then required a larger cerebral cortex to comprehend the more complex information. Though this special was discussing a pre-historic rat, I think it holds validity for higher mammals too. Based on that theory that the cortex expanded with the evolution of the senses, would it not make sense that our sense of consiousness, and even self-awareness is a product of sensory input? If that's the case, which i believe it is, then that discredits the concept of the soul (if defined with a sense of self-awareness), and instead suggest that "the soul" is just a product of our self-awareness, which is a product of an enlarged cortex for sensory input.
So based on the comment above this about Phaedrus' dog, yes your dog can learn and re-act, but the dog's cerebral cortex differs from that of a human. It will have larger sections dedicated to smell and hearing. Ultimately I'm suggesting the degree in which the cerebral cortex determines self-awareness, not some kind of soul/spirit.

HAHAH in case I rambled, and what i just wrote made no sense, let me know. I'm on about 3 hrs of sleep and have no idea how coherent I am right now.

[Phaedrus]

Rasputini,

Welcome to the forum, I am fairly new as well...

This is where we get into trouble, because it is impossible to empirically "prove" the soul's existence (yet). What I "believe" is that you have the cart before the horse. The brain and in this case the cerebral cortex is a physical manifestation of the expanded consciousness, not vice versa. Our physical structure is the outer shell of what we are, more of a reflection on the physical plane of an inner reality. The release of the energy of the atom has shown that science was right in asserting that all is energy. Material the size of a baseball can level a city if it is acted upon in a certain way. If left alone the energy would just slowly dissipate but shows no outward sign of the potential power within. We are similarly Plato's "shadows on the cave wall", or Narcissus' reflection in the pool of water. If consciousness was the product of physical form rather than the directing force behind it than we would be able to re animate someones body after repairing the physical structure damaged by a gunshot or other injury. Just put the blood back in and we are ready to go...

The human being is a combination of the animal consciousness of the body which we have in common with all animals and is responsible for things like muscle memory and autonomic functioning and then there is the soul which is the observer or self consciousness. That, the rat or the dog does not have. Animals have been taught sign language and in this have differentiated consciousness of a sort but they do not gain any awareness of their awareness. That is the difference. Now whether you think that is a product of the brain or the brain is a tool of it comes down to belief because it can't be proved one way ore another.

There have been medical cases I know of anecdotally where brain function is inhibited but the awareness is not. These people are trapped in a malfunctioning body. They cannot express what their consciousness is experiencing. An autistic person, under your framework would not be as human because consciousness is a product of the brain which is cross wired, for lack of a better term. For me that is a human consciousness trapped in a prison unable to penetrate the walls in the same way you or I can and in a sense the "veil" is thicker between them and reality.

[Rasputini]

Well, I aggree with you as far as we cannot emperically "prove" any of this. And you are totally right that it ultimately comes down to faith on the whole soul/spirit matter. However, i belive it was in this thread that someone stated faith is a decision made without reason. So i suppose i ask, if there is no emperical evidence of a soul, is it reasonable or rational to assume its existance? It would appear to me, that when trying to approch such a matter, it would be best to error on the side of caution to suggest that what we see and think we know of the brain's function is the source of consciousness. (if it sounds too aggressive, i mean it totally for the sake of discussion, and no offence hehehe)

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

The brain and in this case the cerebral cortex is a physical manifestation of the expanded consciousness, not vice versa.

That doesn't make any sense. Take away someone's consciousness and their brain will still be there. But take away their brain and their consciousness will not.

If consciousness was the product of physical form rather than the directing force behind it than we would be able to re animate someones body after repairing the physical structure damaged by a gunshot or other injury. Just put the blood back in and we are ready to go...

Sure, if we actually technically knew how to do that and could do it before damage was irreversible. Guess what, we CAN. I have a patient right now who passed out because of hypoglycemia this morning -- he was given intravenous glucose and he regained consciousness. Another patient of mine was unconscious because of hypotension -- restoring blood flow to the brain with IV fluids and vasopressors restored the patient's consciousness. We can even reverse acute strokes now -- if someone presents with an acute stroke, giving thrombolytics that restore blood flow to the brain can actually abort the stroke (but it only works if done within 3 hours -- beyond that the damage is irreversible and we do not have a way to repair it).

There have been medical cases I know of anecdotally where brain function is inhibited but the awareness is not. These people are trapped in a malfunctioning body. They cannot express what their consciousness is experiencing.

Are you referring to "locked in" syndrome? That is because their motor and language areas, which are in the cerebral cortex are impaired, but their consciousness which is largely in the brainstem is not.

An autistic person, under your framework would not be as human because consciousness is a product of the brain which is cross wired, for lack of a better term.

Hmm, all the autistic patients I've had have been completely conscious. You can't even diagnose autism in someone who is unconscious. Full blown autism is characterized by severe language and social impairment and by idiotypic behaviors. It's a disease state, which almost certainly has a genetic basis.

[Phaedrus]

Wow. I should be clear here. I'm not a doctor of any kind and was working with the idea as I went to a degree. I certainly cannnot discuss physical consciousness to the level that you can. I did predicate my statements on belief but have a tendancy to be a bit matter-of-fact in presentation. My apologies. I don't have any expectation of convincing you of anything. I am just another guy with another opinion. We each get one.

I am not talking pure faith either, except in that the people who have experienced hightened levels of awareness have to be believed. The experience cannot be imparted, but with enough people reporting that this can be achieved, and the soul apprehended consciously through meditiation. Ken wilbur likened this discussion to looking through a telescope. You have to look for yourself or believe the people who have looked. Saturn has rings. If you don't look you don't get a vote. Thats the way this pesky apriori stuff works.

The way this fits in with other theories and correlations is a part of how we form our world view. When we see things represented on many levels we can at least work with the idea that they exist where they can't be immediatly evident. Its an assumption but not an outright guess. Death is as big as it gets for a human.
The idea of the observer is as old as man himself. It doesn't make it right or wrong but something that is either sought or not.

If I achieve knowledge of my own soul separate from my body you are either going to believe it or not (my guess is not). If I could show yours to you then Rasputini would have to believe you. I got my head handed to me for calling it a hypothesis once because its doest'n qualify scientifically but it represents one possible and plausable theory.

How many people have to report an out of body or death experience? That is consciousness without what we call physical form. Most people believe that some form of consciousness does survive physical death. What survives is conscious or they would not be able to report it when they were revived. Are they all lying to prop up their belief systems? I guess that is plausable, but not provavble.

We all have our own view and we come here to discuss it. If I was out of line, espeacially on the autim thing, my bad. My understanding has always been that there is more going on than can be expressed. I don't know what you consider fully conscious or its clinical definition but I wass not intending a clinical analysis, just speculation.

[Dustin]

Originally Posted by Aedes

It's a disease state, which almost certainly has a genetic basis.

Aren't the characteristics of autism and mercury poisoning nearly identical?

[Rasputini]

Hmmm, well I'm no doctor either, hell I dont even have my under grad yet, but it's interesting that you keep mentioning out-of-body-experiences. Personally, I see those as such an attatchment to one's self, that under certain circumstances, which i presume to be the influence of a general anesthetic, someone could, in their "mind's eye" see themselves as they would imagine themselves say laying on the operating table. You're totally right. There's no way someone can really prove these (not that im aware at least) unless you experience it. However, I still think these reports should be looked at from a logical, reasonable point of view. To simply jump to the conclusion that there must be a soul just doesn't do it for me. In addition to that, I believe the reason for so many people reporting such experiences is similar to a phenomeon that i've read about regarding death. It was some report of this guy who was being mauled by a lion, and he reported that at a certain point he stopped feeling any pain, and actually had a sensation of euphoria and described it as "nature's mercy kill for prey." Again I'm no doctor but i believe its the release of dopamines? or some other kind of chemical in the body. Anyway, the point being that wide spread reportings of such a feeling may be similar.... The body's way of killing the animal (in this case a person at the operating table) in a, dare i say "pleasant" way. However, the body has no notion of modern medicine and technology, and therefore does not know that it will be revived at a later point after the prosedure.

You're view's are totally yours Phaedrus, and i dont think anyone's trying to change your mind. Good times. It's only been a few hours since i've joined this forum, and I'm having a blast!