100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Mind your brain..... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I would give you a piece of my mind but I think I need as much as I have left.   most would say baby its not a piece of your mind i am after     
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 11/24/08 11:58 AM
|
|
The decision of self. (Note: Mind is dependent upon self for it’s existence. If I gave the impression that it was not, I’m sorry for misleading you. Mind is created by self. But body is not dependent upon either. It can exist without mind or self. In this sense, it sort of has “a mind of its own” which is what science refers to as the mind. It is the aggregate of the stimulus response mechanisms built into the DNA and altered over time at the cellular level by the environment.) plz explian looks contradictory to me Mind is dependent upon self for it’s existence, because self creates the mind. Sort of like you might build your own computer. Body is not dependent upon either mind or self. It can exist without mind or self, similar to how a plant can grow and live without a gardener to tend it. There are stimulus-response mechnisms build into the DNA of the plant that determine how the plant will react to things in it's environment. That could be thought of as a primitive mind, although it has no capability for original thought. Just reaction to stimuli. Does that help? to me mind is self mind are your thought processes self is who you are who your are is determined by your thought process ---------------- brain is a vehicle for function i think we pretty much agree on that one As to "self".vs."mind": "who your are is determined by your thought process" is one way of viewing things. I just happen to view them differently. I see "self" as being the cause of thought processes. That is, when I want to make a choice between, say, one food and another in a restaurant, I do a lot of mental processing: what foods have I had before that are similar, what do I know about how this restaurant prepares foods in general, how much will it cost, do I have a craving for anything in particular, how hungry am I, etc. Once all those computations are complete, then "I" make the decision as to what to order. This is a key point. The mind does not make the decision. The mind is simply a calculating machine. It takes input data, processes it, and produces output. But it does not decide. It is the "I" that decides. Like a computer. It takes input data, processes it, and produces output data. But the computer does not decide how the operator will use that data. It is the operator that makes that decisions. Expanding on that computer analogy, a computer game illustrates my view of the relationship between the self, the mind and the body. Self would be the player. Mind would be the computer. Body would be the game character. The computer (mind) acts as a communication and control device between the player (self) and the character (body). The computer(mind) cannot "initiate" anything. It can only react to input (mouse/keyboard) from the player (self). Anything the computer(mind) does, must have it's origins in an action of the player(self). The rules of the game world (physical universe) dictate what the character (body) can and can't do within the game world(physical universe). And the player (self) cannot control anything but a few of the functions of the character (body). As far as the character (body) goes, the rules of the game control everything that can happen in the game world (physical universe). The character (body) has no free will of its own. It can only do what the player (self) tells it to do . Anything else the character (body) does is simply an automatic function of the game world (physical universe). Note that computer(mind) can tell the character(body) to do something as an automatic response to some event in the game world (physical universe) without the player (self) having to make any decision or take any causative action. The sequence of events in a case like this would be: An event happens in the game world(physical universe). The character(body) detects it. The computer(mind) then causes the character(body) to respond to that event. This is a completely stimulus-response process. The player(self) has no part in it. The player(self) may notice it and do something about it after it has happened, but he has no control over the stimulus-response mechanism itself. Shoot I got into a rant there. Well anyway, this is very Matrix-esque, I know. But it is truly a very acurate analogy for my beliefs about mind, body and self. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The decision of self. (Note: Mind is dependent upon self for it’s existence. If I gave the impression that it was not, I’m sorry for misleading you. Mind is created by self. But body is not dependent upon either. It can exist without mind or self. In this sense, it sort of has “a mind of its own” which is what science refers to as the mind. It is the aggregate of the stimulus response mechanisms built into the DNA and altered over time at the of cellular level by the environment.) plz explian looks contradictory to me Mind is dependent upon self for it’s existence, because self creates the mind. Sort of like you might build your own computer. Body is not dependent upon either mind or self. It can exist without mind or self, similar to how a plant can grow and live without a gardener to tend it. There are stimulus-response mechnisms build into the DNA of the plant that determine how the plant will react to things in it's environment. That could be thought of as a primitive mind, although it has no capability for original thought. Just reaction to stimuli. Does that help? to me mind is self mind are your thought processes self is who you are who your are is determined by your thought process ---------------- brain is a vehicle for function i think we pretty much agree on that one As to "self".vs."mind": "who your are is determined by your thought process" is one way of viewing things. I just happen to view them differently. I see "self" as being the cause of thought processes. That is, when I want to make a choice between, say, one food and another in a restaurant, I do a lot of mental processing: what foods have I had before that are similar, what do I know about how this restaurant prepares foods in general, how much will it cost, do I have a craving for anything in particular, how hungry am I, etc. Once all those computations are complete, then "I" make the decision as to what to order. This is a key point. The mind does not make the decision. The mind is simply a calculating machine. It takes input data, processes it, and produces output. But it does not decide. It is the "I" that decides. Like a computer. It takes input data, processes it, and produces output data. But the computer does not decide how the operator will use that data. It is the operator that makes that decisions. Expanding on that computer analogy, a computer game illustrates my view of the relationship between the self, the mind and the body. Self would be the player. Mind would be the computer. Body would be the game character. The computer (mind) acts as a communication and control device between the player (self) and the character (body). The computer(mind) cannot "initiate" anything. It can only react to input (mouse/keyboard) from the player (self). Anything the computer(mind) does, must have it's origins in an action of the player(self). The rules of the game world (physical universe) dictate what the character (body) can and can't do within the game world(physical universe). And the player (self) cannot control anything but a few of the functions of the character (body). As far as the character (body) goes, the rules of the game control everything that can happen in the game world (physical universe). The character (body) has no free will of its own. It can only do what the player (self) tells it to do . Anything else the character (body) does is simply an automatic function of the game world (physical universe). Note that computer(mind) can tell the character(body) to do something as an automatic response to some event in the game world (physical universe) without the player (self) having to make any decision or take any causative action. The sequence of events in a case like this would be: An event happens in the game world(physical universe). The character(body) detects it. The computer(mind) then causes the character(body) to respond to that event. This is a completely stimulus-response process. The player(self) has no part in it. The player(self) may notice it and do something about it after it has happened, but he has no control over the stimulus-response mechanism itself. Shoot I got into a rant there. Well anyway, this is very Matrix-esque, I know. But it is truly a very acurate analogy for my beliefs about mind, body and self. Self would be the player. Mind would be the computer. Body would be the game character. The computer (mind) acts as a communication and control device between the player (self) and the character (body). The computer(mind) cannot "initiate" anything. using your analogy it would appear to me that as you explian the function of the above listed items you cross the mind into brain territory brain is the vehicle for function processing (whether voluntary or involuntary) {such as heart beat or walking}between mind and body mind = comunication and control device (imo that is done by the vehicle that mind would use (brain) self would be player correct imo but self is determined by thought processes thus the mind but body Body is not dependent upon either mind or self. It can exist without mind or self, in the game analogy body being game character yes it can be there but it would be in a comatose like state if mind(self) give no input your description is a good one but the computer (processes) to look at a computer as the processor makes it the brain it is worthless without a body and a mind (and can not exist on its own) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 11/24/08 07:46 PM
|
|
The decision of self. (Note: Mind is dependent upon self for it’s existence. If I gave the impression that it was not, I’m sorry for misleading you. Mind is created by self. But body is not dependent upon either. It can exist without mind or self. In this sense, it sort of has “a mind of its own” which is what science refers to as the mind. It is the aggregate of the stimulus response mechanisms built into the DNA and altered over time at the of cellular level by the environment.) plz explian looks contradictory to me Mind is dependent upon self for it’s existence, because self creates the mind. Sort of like you might build your own computer. Body is not dependent upon either mind or self. It can exist without mind or self, similar to how a plant can grow and live without a gardener to tend it. There are stimulus-response mechnisms build into the DNA of the plant that determine how the plant will react to things in it's environment. That could be thought of as a primitive mind, although it has no capability for original thought. Just reaction to stimuli. Does that help? to me mind is self mind are your thought processes self is who you are who your are is determined by your thought process ---------------- brain is a vehicle for function i think we pretty much agree on that one As to "self".vs."mind": "who your are is determined by your thought process" is one way of viewing things. I just happen to view them differently. I see "self" as being the cause of thought processes. That is, when I want to make a choice between, say, one food and another in a restaurant, I do a lot of mental processing: what foods have I had before that are similar, what do I know about how this restaurant prepares foods in general, how much will it cost, do I have a craving for anything in particular, how hungry am I, etc. Once all those computations are complete, then "I" make the decision as to what to order. This is a key point. The mind does not make the decision. The mind is simply a calculating machine. It takes input data, processes it, and produces output. But it does not decide. It is the "I" that decides. Like a computer. It takes input data, processes it, and produces output data. But the computer does not decide how the operator will use that data. It is the operator that makes that decisions. Expanding on that computer analogy, a computer game illustrates my view of the relationship between the self, the mind and the body. Self would be the player. Mind would be the computer. Body would be the game character. The computer (mind) acts as a communication and control device between the player (self) and the character (body). The computer(mind) cannot "initiate" anything. It can only react to input (mouse/keyboard) from the player (self). Anything the computer(mind) does, must have it's origins in an action of the player(self). The rules of the game world (physical universe) dictate what the character (body) can and can't do within the game world(physical universe). And the player (self) cannot control anything but a few of the functions of the character (body). As far as the character (body) goes, the rules of the game control everything that can happen in the game world (physical universe). The character (body) has no free will of its own. It can only do what the player (self) tells it to do . Anything else the character (body) does is simply an automatic function of the game world (physical universe). Note that computer(mind) can tell the character(body) to do something as an automatic response to some event in the game world (physical universe) without the player (self) having to make any decision or take any causative action. The sequence of events in a case like this would be: An event happens in the game world(physical universe). The character(body) detects it. The computer(mind) then causes the character(body) to respond to that event. This is a completely stimulus-response process. The player(self) has no part in it. The player(self) may notice it and do something about it after it has happened, but he has no control over the stimulus-response mechanism itself. Shoot I got into a rant there. Well anyway, this is very Matrix-esque, I know. But it is truly a very acurate analogy for my beliefs about mind, body and self. Self would be the player. Mind would be the computer. Body would be the game character. The computer (mind) acts as a communication and control device between the player (self) and the character (body). The computer(mind) cannot "initiate" anything. using your analogy it would appear to me that as you explian the function of the above listed items you cross the mind into brain territory brain is the vehicle for function processing (whether voluntary or involuntary) {such as heart beat or walking}between mind and body Similar to the body, the mind can have “automatic” functions - things that it does automatically in response to some input. But these are not dependent upon the body. Some of the automatic functions may only be triggered by the body. But the mechanism is not dependent upon the body. (Like a computer mouse where the motion of the mouse cursor is dependent upon input from the mouse. If you disconnect the mouse, the cursor is still there, it just does not move.) mind = comunication and control device (imo that is done by the vehicle that mind would use (brain) Again, our different opinions about the roles and functions of the brain .vs. mind are at the root of our difference here. I don’t see the brain as being any more important to the overall system than the idle regulator mechanism is to an automobile. self would be player correct imo but self is determined by thought processes thus the mind This is really the major diversion in our opinions I believe. We have diametrically opposed opinions here. You believe the mind creates the self. I believe the self creates the mind. Let us salute the fact that we posess the free will to have such differences  but body All analogies must at some point fall apart because they are, by definition, “similar” and not “identical”. So yes, the game analogy falls apart at that point because there is no such thing as a “comatose state” within the framework of the game world. The character simply stops moving when the player leaves. But even there “stops moving” is not a terribly bad description of “comatose”. Body is not dependent upon either mind or self. It can exist without mind or self, [color] in the game analogy body being game character yes it can be there but it would be in a comatose like state if mind(self) give no input your description is a good one but the computer (processes) to look at a computer as the processor makes it the brain it is worthless without a body and a mind (and can not exist on its own) Yes, in your belief system, that would necessarily be true.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Mon 11/24/08 08:02 PM
|
|
can a computer think
as used in your post above |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 11/24/08 08:15 PM
|
|
can a computer think Boy, that's a major can of semantic worms. as used in your post above Loosely defined, a computer processes information. If you consider that the mind processes infomation too, then you could say that both a mind and a computer "think". However, a computer cannot choose what the input data will be. Only the operator can do that. So if you assign the label "thinking" to the action of "choosing the input data", then no, a computer is not capable of that type of "thinking". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Mon 11/24/08 08:17 PM
|
|
can a computer think Boy, that's a major can of semantic worms. as used in your post above Loosely defined, a computer processes information. If you consider that the mind processes infomation too, then you could say that both a mind and a computer "think". However, a computer cannot choose what the input data will be. Only the operator can do that. So if you assign the label "thinking" to the action of "choosing the input data", then no, a computer is not capable of that type of "thinking". that is my point exactly (computer/brain is the vehicle that transmits the input from the mind to the body) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 11/24/08 09:10 PM
|
|
can a computer think Boy, that's a major can of semantic worms. as used in your post above Loosely defined, a computer processes information. If you consider that the mind processes information too, then you could say that both a mind and a computer "think". However, a computer cannot choose what the input data will be. Only the operator can do that. So if you assign the label "thinking" to the action of "choosing the input data", then no, a computer is not capable of that type of "thinking". Where I have trouble with your analogy is with the idea that "the brain transmits to the body". To me, the brain is part of the body. So it can't transmit to the body. It can only transmit to other things within the body. But that is not a one-way street. Other things within the body can transmit to the brain. And other things within the body can transmit to other things within the body. To me it's all a closed system with different organs having different functions. The only significant difference between the brain and any other organ, is that it is a sort of central switching station for the transmissions. If anything, I think of the brain as being more like a receiver than a transmitter. The mind transmits, the brain receives, and the player controls the content of the transmissions. But as I said, any analogy will start to fall apart once you start going into fine detail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can a computer think Boy, that's a major can of semantic worms. as used in your post above Loosely defined, a computer processes information. If you consider that the mind processes information too, then you could say that both a mind and a computer "think". However, a computer cannot choose what the input data will be. Only the operator can do that. So if you assign the label "thinking" to the action of "choosing the input data", then no, a computer is not capable of that type of "thinking". Where I have trouble with your analogy is with the idea that "the brain transmits to the body". To me, the brain is part of the body. So it can't transmit to the body. It can only transmit to other things within the body. But that is not a one-way street. Other things within the body can transmit to the brain. And other things within the body can transmit to other things within the body. To me it's all a closed system with different organs having different functions. The only significant difference between the brain and any other organ, is that it is a sort of central switching station for the transmissions. If anything, I think of the brain as being more like a receiver than a transmitter. The mind transmits, the brain receives, and the player controls the content of the transmissions. But as I said, any analogy will start to fall apart once you start going into fine detail. To me, the brain is part of the body. So it can't transmit to the body. It can only transmit to other things within the body. now we are talking sematics does the steering wheel tell a car to turn or if it s part of the car what makes it turn the driver how does the driver do that ------------------------------------------- yes brain is the switching station and the mind operates the conscious switches while the unconscious switches are on automatic pilot operated by (the body????) ------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can a computer think Boy, that's a major can of semantic worms. as used in your post above Loosely defined, a computer processes information. If you consider that the mind processes information too, then you could say that both a mind and a computer "think". However, a computer cannot choose what the input data will be. Only the operator can do that. So if you assign the label "thinking" to the action of "choosing the input data", then no, a computer is not capable of that type of "thinking". Where I have trouble with your analogy is with the idea that "the brain transmits to the body". To me, the brain is part of the body. So it can't transmit to the body. It can only transmit to other things within the body. But that is not a one-way street. Other things within the body can transmit to the brain. And other things within the body can transmit to other things within the body. To me it's all a closed system with different organs having different functions. The only significant difference between the brain and any other organ, is that it is a sort of central switching station for the transmissions. If anything, I think of the brain as being more like a receiver than a transmitter. The mind transmits, the brain receives, and the player controls the content of the transmissions. But as I said, any analogy will start to fall apart once you start going into fine detail. To me, the brain is part of the body. So it can't transmit to the body. It can only transmit to other things within the body. now we are talking sematics (And on that note, I’d like to request a little more punctuation. It is often difficult for me to figure out your meaning because I can’t always tell where your sentences end and whether they are questions or statements.) does the steering wheel tell a car to turn Well obviously the car can do nothing by itself. It has no volition. No free will. No capacity from making choices. It can only do things that the driver instructs it to do – either directly or indirectly. or if it s part of the car what makes it turn the driver how does the driver do that If you are looking for a detailed engineering-style description of the “communication protocols” employed by the self, mind and body to communicate with each other, I can’t give you that. Maybe once the quantum physicists get to the point they can do that for quantum entanglement, I’ll be able to do it for self/mind/body.  yes brain is the switching station and the mind operates the conscious switches while the unconscious switches are on automatic pilot operated by (the body????) But if you’re talking about whether the automatic switches reside in the body or the mind, I’d say that both the body and the mind have automatic switches. They are just different types. The body’s automatic switches run things like heartbeat, endocrine balance and respiration. The mind’s automatic switches run things like emotional responses, compulsions and “trained” sequences of actions like riding a bicycle. But note that the “self” can override some of these automatic switches in both the body and the mind (e.g. you can change your respiration by holding your breath and you can change your emotional state through conscious decision.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Tue 11/25/08 12:32 AM
|
|
be well
and may much good come to you and yours double space between each sentence is to hard because of no .?! if you think it could ba a question it is if you do not think it is a question it is not i am sorry your mind can not get self to tell the brain how to process the information that your body scans you are not the first to say such a statement wont be the last this is not so hard to read to me and if you look through the threads their are many posting the same way and i find it ironic that the punctuation speech never comes into play unless it is a debate or discussion of ideas -- and the person using this style is making valid counter points that go unanswered it was enjoyable posting with you funny you did not mention the punctuation thing 20 or so posts ago i could use punctuation if i wanted the additional pain but it is not worth it to me my hands do not work properly thus i have typos and hit as few keys as possible so i will depart again be well and may much good come to you and yours |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
be well Well I truly hate to see you depart. It has been very enjoyable for me as well. I did not intend for punctuation to become a major issue. My only purpose in mentioning it was to attempt to increasing the speed and quality of our communication - nothing more. But if that communication speed and quality has reached a "natural limit" then we must both work within that limit. and may much good come to you and yours double space between each sentence is to hard because of no .?! if you think it could ba a question it is if you do not think it is a question it is not i am sorry your mind can not get self to tell the brain how to process the information that your body scans you are not the first to say such a statement wont be the last this is not so hard to read to me and if you look through the threads their are many posting the same way and i find it ironic that the punctuation speech never comes into play unless it is a debate or discussion of ideas -- and the person using this style is making valid counter points that go unanswered it was enjoyable posting with you funny you did not mention the punctuation thing 20 or so posts ago i could use punctuation if i wanted the additional pain but it is not worth it to me my hands do not work properly thus i have typos and hit as few keys as possible so i will depart again be well and may much good come to you and yours If you feel you have valid counterpoints that have gone unanswered, it may be that I did not understand them as counterpoints. As I said, it is difficult for me to understand the intended meaning in some cases. So I am willing to try and answer them if you wish to present them again. If not, then thank you again for the exchange. I enjoyed it very much. Be well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The decision of self. (Note: Mind is dependent upon self for it’s existence. If I gave the impression that it was not, I’m sorry for misleading you. Mind is created by self. But body is not dependent upon either. It can exist without mind or self. In this sense, it sort of has “a mind of its own” which is what science refers to as the mind. It is the aggregate of the stimulus response mechanisms built into the DNA and altered over time at the cellular level by the environment.) plz explian looks contradictory to me Mind is dependent upon self for it’s existence, because self creates the mind. Sort of like you might build your own computer. Body is not dependent upon either mind or self. It can exist without mind or self, similar to how a plant can grow and live without a gardener to tend it. There are stimulus-response mechnisms build into the DNA of the plant that determine how the plant will react to things in it's environment. That could be thought of as a primitive mind, although it has no capability for original thought. Just reaction to stimuli. Does that help? to me mind is self mind are your thought processes self is who you are who your are is determined by your thought process ---------------- brain is a vehicle for function i think we pretty much agree on that one As to "self".vs."mind": "who your are is determined by your thought process" is one way of viewing things. I just happen to view them differently. I see "self" as being the cause of thought processes. That is, when I want to make a choice between, say, one food and another in a restaurant, I do a lot of mental processing: what foods have I had before that are similar, what do I know about how this restaurant prepares foods in general, how much will it cost, do I have a craving for anything in particular, how hungry am I, etc. Once all those computations are complete, then "I" make the decision as to what to order. This is a key point. The mind does not make the decision. The mind is simply a calculating machine. It takes input data, processes it, and produces output. But it does not decide. It is the "I" that decides. Like a computer. It takes input data, processes it, and produces output data. But the computer does not decide how the operator will use that data. It is the operator that makes that decisions. Expanding on that computer analogy, a computer game illustrates my view of the relationship between the self, the mind and the body. Self would be the player. Mind would be the computer. Body would be the game character. The computer (mind) acts as a communication and control device between the player (self) and the character (body). The computer(mind) cannot "initiate" anything. It can only react to input (mouse/keyboard) from the player (self). Anything the computer(mind) does, must have it's origins in an action of the player(self). The rules of the game world (physical universe) dictate what the character (body) can and can't do within the game world(physical universe). And the player (self) cannot control anything but a few of the functions of the character (body). As far as the character (body) goes, the rules of the game control everything that can happen in the game world (physical universe). The character (body) has no free will of its own. It can only do what the player (self) tells it to do . Anything else the character (body) does is simply an automatic function of the game world (physical universe). Note that computer(mind) can tell the character(body) to do something as an automatic response to some event in the game world (physical universe) without the player (self) having to make any decision or take any causative action. The sequence of events in a case like this would be: An event happens in the game world(physical universe). The character(body) detects it. The computer(mind) then causes the character(body) to respond to that event. This is a completely stimulus-response process. The player(self) has no part in it. The player(self) may notice it and do something about it after it has happened, but he has no control over the stimulus-response mechanism itself. Shoot I got into a rant there. Well anyway, this is very Matrix-esque, I know. But it is truly a very acurate analogy for my beliefs about mind, body and self. Skyhook, I couldn't have said it better. I am in complete agreement with your descriptions above.  I find that strange and rare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Tue 11/25/08 07:58 PM
|
|
Skyhook, Alas, would that I agreed with it 100% myself. I couldn't have said it better. I am in complete agreement with your descriptions above. I find that strange and rare.  My reticence is only because I am familiar with the inner workings of the computer in intimate detail, and at that level, the analogy falls apart completely. But in any case, it's always nice to find some agreement and common ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a good mind to...........
...............laugh my bloody guts out!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So does all this mean, if I don't mind I don't have a brain? I sure hope not, I can't help but acting out sometimes. Maybe it's because I don't, like most men, always think with my brain/mind...damn this is confusins me lsrig sdfjvbZ:Sg hg zsgzs z/sldv...oops!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would give you a piece of my mind but I think I need as much as I have left. Ditto. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jess642
on
Wed 11/26/08 04:40 PM
|
|
So for all the inning and outing...the upping and downing....
the answer to my questions are............. (drum roll please........................) ..........none of the above! The closest answer would be throwing an esky at someone.. For all the cleverness and erudite prosetylising.... ...I suspect, the brain is an organ.... the mind, (is as the good poster suggested).... the seat (or sidearm) of ALL consciousness...and Self is the illusionary me. We suggest that the mind resides in the brain which is sat upon a stalk of nerves housed in a bony coffin....and self is the simple organic neuron firings.... BAH ! Pigs arse! When one's mind does runaway with itself, where does it go? When loses one's mind.... how does one find it? Having a brain snap... is that like a twig under too much pressure? And how would one fix the so called snap? Being mindful? Is that over indulged on mind gourmet? Ego is the ME part. Consciousness is the input and the mainframe, and the programmers and the engineers, and the ideas dude, and all the other components of collective memory.. Subconsciousness is the unadultered subtext.... and the brain is the organ that sits in a bony coffin.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..And who might the 'we' be in my previous post?
Self, mind, memory, brain, consciousness, subconsciousness, and various other facets of being a spiritual being having a human experience... (boy! it's crowded in here!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..And who might the 'we' be in my previous post? Self, mind, memory, brain, consciousness, subconsciousness, and various other facets of being a spiritual being having a human experience... (boy! it's crowded in here!) Then that would be the makeup of your mind, and thus, how you make up your mind? skkkrzt ... pthththk ... SPZzZFTTH!!! <brain shorting out> |
|
|
|
|
