...I'm simply a cranky, much-pained & slo-o-o-wly dyin' old man who lay in a med-bed unable to do much of...anything. A, "perfect candidate for to be a philosopher" -a Greek may quip back in Aristotles' time. Now, here on, U Toob, 'we' are fairly of, "one mind"(yet individual views) as concerning our hosts' topic: Though we are physically, many brains... Then after we leave the thread...this, "one-mind" separates & then resumes the more distinct characteristics of each persons' state of being...
@bubbamickmac the mind is indivisible because the mind, being immaterial does not have physical properties. Space size and mass are descriptions that simply cannot apply to the immaterial mind but only to the physical. To say you can "divide" the mind is like saying you can weigh the colour red. We can however divide the brain and cause tremendous confusion in the mind as well as disrupt the continuum of consciousness that is occuring within the mind.
I believe that people take the dividing of the mind out of context. Biologically the mind IS 1 with the body. It is a organ that function no different than any other organ, it does it's intended job BIOLOGICALLY in the physical word. You can not see thinking you can not cut thinking yet thinking exist so there for thinking is a lot more than physical interactions with the world around us. If u divide your thoughts in half u will not be capable of functioning in the world around us.
My mind controls my movements, if I want to lift my right hand, it is my mind that is directing that action. If I want to sit in this chair, my mind is what made that happen. My mind and my body are linked, but without my mind, my body would be nothing.
i think that the mind is whats thinking but every thing else is just acting to what the mind thinks. so what would that make me a dualist or a a monist?
You've missed the middle way. We are one being, but with 2 subsystems. One subsystem is the body, including the brain. The brain processes data, and if it is damaged or disturbed, then so will our data processing. The other subsystem is our intentional subsystem. It is aware of a part of what we process. Being aware of data is different from processing data. There is no theory of how brain generates awareness as opposed to the contents we are aware of. So, your model is incomplete. Peace, DP
One thing I like to meditate upon is what I call 'Divine Mind' - "which is like a perfect sphere, the circumference of which is nowhere, and the center everywhere - even at the center of our thoughts and being." This is a great focal point as it clears out any extraneous clutter that gets in the way of self "realization". Everyday we are bombarded with mental stimulus, so its good to step back and think about thinking and what it means to do so.
@StephenWebb1980 you wanna think? here's some food for thought: i am the future communicating with the past. not only so, we communicate without even knowing each other personally. therefore, i am a future thought communicating with your past thoughts via a present medium that links our thoughts together. here's one for the future - as soon as i hit "post"... this comment i am making will become a past thought in this present medium, called youtube. life is more magical than we give credit for.
Since two people can view an object in the same environment and describe it in like fashion, this also points to the idea that there exists one mind, a common reality, though there are two people with two unique perceptions [consciousness]. The world and beyond, as I see it, are Mind - if there were no data in the Mind, we wouldn't even know we exist. Mind is therefore in my view also the data that exists independent of the body and is interpreted by our brains physiology [consciousness].
Well, I have always considered that only one mind exists, but we each have a consciousness unique to our own brain chemistry and functionality. One example can be: "Look at an object in your environment. Now consider that it [the object] does not exist in the brain, but does in fact exist in the Mind." Mind, in its entirety, stretches far and beyond what our consciousness is capable of perceiving. The components of consciousness exist in cellular awareness on the individual stimulae level...
You can be a monist and still realize that mental processes are incorporeal and should be distinguished from the physical component. Mental events are the derivative of neural functioning; albeit consciousness is more of an epi-phenomenon of physical process that follow natural laws, than an actual substance itself.
I believe because the body can interact with the feeling in mind therefore the mind and body are one . but can be divided like when u get a cut and simply ignore it it seems the cut isn't even there anymore. an occupied mind is a divided mind . divided attention .
I'm pretty sure when he says divide the mind, he means thought. Not the physical brain itself. However I agree a mind can be divided, to hold 2 contradictory beliefs, and believe both, however if a divided mind exists within a person, ( without physical injury) that this person is not philosophically enlightened. George Orwell called this double think in his book 1984
Can philosophy be corrupt?Cause many people use to speak on and on about many things like philosophers do today same with sciencist.How can he become a free thinker or a man of reason if science back then was not as it was today and most calimed to have exact proof?science today and philosophy today may be seen as dumb and not understanding compared to what's layed ahead so can anyone answer me lol
thank you mike for making philosophy so much easier to understand instead of the complicated words on wiki!!!
i cant decide between dualism and monism but i dont agree with idealism
everyone's reality is different from other ppl as they are subjective and our senses limit and add observation bias to what we see and what we get from it
so i think that the mind is doing the thinking, not the body, but i think the mind is part of the brain as the brain enables the process of us thinking
At 14 seconds in, calling the brain the mind right off the bat leads to confusion. Most English speakers understand the word "brain" to refer to the physical, fleshy, grey organ inside the skull. The word "mind" refers to something else. We could say that "mind" is what the brain "does." If you mean mind, say mind and if you mean brain say brain. The terms get used sometimes interchangeably and sometimes distinctly throughout the video.
i believe in dualism, but i see the mind as a link between the physical body and brain and the metaphysical or spiritual entity of the soul, a sort of loop for translation if you will. :)
Materialism is not a good term to use when describing philosophy of mind to a lay audience, because people can easily get misled into thinking they are dualists because they accept things that have no mass. Physicalism would better describe the nervous-system-as-mind view. Technically you can get away with either, but I'd wager that photons sounds pretty "immaterial" to your average guy.
You cannot separate the body from the mind, because the mind has no singular point on the body. The brain is just the organ for sensory and motor-coordination. The discovery of Biophotonics has concluded that every cell is conscious and that the nucleus is a brain of every cell (the universe is organized primarily in fractals after all...). This has been something known for hundreds, possibly thousands of years by Occultists, especially that of Taoist Schools.
your mistake here was assuming a mind and a brain would be considered the same to all people. you ought to know, in philosophy many see the mind as separate from both the physical brain and body. see chapter fourteen of daniel dennett's "consciousness explained" if you are unconvinced.
oh jeez....the point is, you cut a cat in half, you get 2 halves of one cat. You 'cut' a mind in half, you don't get to halves, you get something like 2 minds. You can cut a cat in two with one sword, but can you cut the cat in one with one sword? ......better yet....can you cut it in one with two swords? hmmmm
This provokes some intriguing thoughts. It reminds me of Sam Harris' sarcastic notion of the »arithmetic of souls« -- what happens to the individual if a fertilized egg splits in two twins, or later, if two eggs fuse to one chimera? It's a biological triviality, but also an ontological absurdity.
This is precisely THE problem which we need to understand. Merleau-Ponty presents a fantastic attempt in his book "The Structure of Behavior", Henri Bergson brought the problem up in his book Creative Evolution in 1907 (although this account is hardly satisfactory), and more recently I think BC Smith in his 1996 "On the Origin of Objects" has formulated one of the most impressive projects in thinking about this problem. Moving from inert to living matter in our concepts is THE problem today.
@leporidus "»We can't divide a mind?« (5:15) — oh yes, we can, and we have. By accident, leading to brain injuries, and also deliberately by lobotomy."
Ok, more specifically we can't divide a mind into anything that isn't also a mind. A schizophrenic individual has a divided mind but they are both minds.
The point being is that you can't divide "I"ness or for that matter phenomenality into anything that is not mental or phenomenal in nature.
The brain is a part of the body and the mind an emergent property of the brain. Through the body, the brain senses and acts upon the environment that surrounds it.
The mind cannot be a noun for two reasons. One, it is one way in which we define our existence. Having a mind is the act of "being". Two, in order for the mind to exist, the brain must think. The mind is the act of thinking.
the mind is just as much passive as it is active, how else do you explain enculturation? Let's not over look that, with all of this action-focused, embodied cognition--much welcomed--we tend to forget about these aspects and idealize ourselves as 'action' figures.
Actually you can divide a mind. There are people out there who have had the right side of the brain cut off from the left side of the brain. Experiments have shown that at that point there are two minds inside one body.
Yes, but the idea of dividing a mind not being possible was considered in the 1600's, at the time where Descartes was writing "Meditations." In fact, "The Stuff of Thought," by Steven Pinker, actually demonstrates some experiments with people without one half of their brain performing normal functions. We know we can divide a mind, but with all the scientific evidence we have today which contradicts this position, could we still think about it?
"We know we can divide a mind, but with all the scientific evidence we have today which contradicts this position, could we still think about it?
thanks and cheers ;)"
While I can see how thinking about it could promote philosophical development, I'd rather we not think about it. Things like dualism and objective morality have been shown to be so far off the mark that it's not even funny. As an athiest I think giving these things serious consideration only encourages believers.
I think things such as this should be left to the dustbin of ideas just like vitalism, and alchemy. Studying the history of the ideas is one thing but giving them serious consideration as if they haven't been eviscerated ages ago is another. Oh and sorry to be such a poor sport. I actually do enjoy your channel. :)
@bubbamickmac You're confusing 'mind' and 'brain'. The concept of a mind is used to conceptually demarcate 'thoughts' and the realm of 'thoughts' from the physical brain and the chemical and electrical reactions therein which may or may not constitute, or be the physical referent of, thoughts. As such, the 'mental' and 'physical' become ontologically distinct, the former immaterial and the latter material, following Cartesian epistemology - raising a whole host of questions within philosophy.
@hiswayornoway (cont.) Now, it is okay to be strictly materialist and say that thoughts are just physical and chemical processes (however, this raises the questions like: if a doctor is able to read a brain with a cerebroscope, is he reading a mind? Even if he recognises that reaction A2B or the stimulation of XYZ fibers amount to the thought "I like oranges" in all humans, how does he know that the person he reads actually likes oranges? In fact, isn't he hermeneutically interpreting evidence..
@hiswayornoway cont. to that effect? Thus isn't the possible-thought still distinct from the physical occurence?) - Nonetheless, I think it is safe to take 'mind' and 'thoughts' and all the attendent concepts as just concepts with real-world referents (extensions) like any other, and that neurology and other disciplines may clarify and these referents and/or give us new and more specific concepts in their place. As it stands though, the divided brain is not the divided mind.
@bubbamickmac Yes, but Pinker makes it clear that patients with only one brain hemisphere performing normal functions were intervined surgically very early in life, perhaps before their brain fully "wired itself" (notice the "x"). On the other hand, split brain patients (people who had their corpus callosum removed) do have "two minds" (notice the "x") in many aspects. Ramachandran talks about a split brain patient with an atheist left brain and a theist right brain. I suggest Gazzaniga.
Perhaps I am being ignorant (which isn't unlikely), but it would seem to me that the type of experiment you describe doesn't verify that a mind can be divided per se.
Since one mind becomes two it seems that (mathematically speaking) there has been a multiplication and not a division. Unless by 'two minds' you mean two HALF minds.
In which case, could you please define what is meant by a 'half' mind? That is, how does it differ from what we'd consider to be a 'whole' mind? What is missing?
the becoming a butterfly is an act of a mind...like we think we are stars because there is a rational connection to an enlightened mind...descartes says i cannot doubt that i am thinking...it reffers to the fact that god wants us to make the enlightened connection...to the stars but it also implies the question does god want us to think we are only thinking or are bieng
...I'm simply a cranky, much-pained & slo-o-o-wly dyin' old man who lay in a med-bed unable to do much of...anything. A, "perfect candidate for to be a philosopher" -a Greek may quip back in Aristotles' time. Now, here on, U Toob, 'we' are fairly of, "one mind"(yet individual views) as concerning our hosts' topic: Though we are physically, many brains... Then after we leave the thread...this, "one-mind" separates & then resumes the more distinct characteristics of each persons' state of being...
SittingMooseShaman 2 months ago
can some one tell me the name of this song D:
Obito313 3 months ago
@Obito313
i want to know the same thing and i was sure that some one asked the same question
it is just wonderful :)
estegy 1 week ago
Perhaps the mind and brains are one(monism) but when we perceive the
mind/brain thru our ourter senses we call it brain and when we perceive it from
within we call it mind. Outer is physical and inner is mental. The mind does not
control the brain and the brain does not control the mind as mind and brain are
different perceptions not unlike sound and sight are different perceptions of one
event.
mentalphysicalism 4 months ago
@bubbamickmac the mind is indivisible because the mind, being immaterial does not have physical properties. Space size and mass are descriptions that simply cannot apply to the immaterial mind but only to the physical. To say you can "divide" the mind is like saying you can weigh the colour red. We can however divide the brain and cause tremendous confusion in the mind as well as disrupt the continuum of consciousness that is occuring within the mind.
The secret is the mind causes the brain.
soldatheero 5 months ago
Well is there a difference between mind and brain?
scientificmadness 8 months ago
I believe that people take the dividing of the mind out of context. Biologically the mind IS 1 with the body. It is a organ that function no different than any other organ, it does it's intended job BIOLOGICALLY in the physical word. You can not see thinking you can not cut thinking yet thinking exist so there for thinking is a lot more than physical interactions with the world around us. If u divide your thoughts in half u will not be capable of functioning in the world around us.
Dopeamiine 8 months ago
My mind controls my movements, if I want to lift my right hand, it is my mind that is directing that action. If I want to sit in this chair, my mind is what made that happen. My mind and my body are linked, but without my mind, my body would be nothing.
SmashThatRecord 9 months ago
IN THE WINTERTIME KEEP YER FEET WARMKEEP YOUR CLOTHES ON AND DONT FORGET ME KEEP THE MEMORIES BUT KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY TOO I
deepknotch 10 months ago
i think that the mind is whats thinking but every thing else is just acting to what the mind thinks. so what would that make me a dualist or a a monist?
CocoKing238 10 months ago
Does 0:51 and Zhuangzi's dream of being a butterfly remind anyone of that one episode from South Park? I couldn't resist :P
Kulgera4 10 months ago
You've missed the middle way. We are one being, but with 2 subsystems. One subsystem is the body, including the brain. The brain processes data, and if it is damaged or disturbed, then so will our data processing. The other subsystem is our intentional subsystem. It is aware of a part of what we process. Being aware of data is different from processing data. There is no theory of how brain generates awareness as opposed to the contents we are aware of. So, your model is incomplete. Peace, DP
dfpolis 1 year ago
关于身心问题的讨论，窃以为不可单独作为一个可以操作的科学式的命题，毋宁说，它是一个联系到诸多情况的话题，因此首先它不可能有一个确定的答案。按照维特根斯坦等人的见解，这仅是一个语法问题。我们讨论身心问题，往往连着我们考察身处当中的世界的诸多周边复杂情形，泛泛提出像“物理身体是真实的还是心灵是真实的？”这种问题是无意义的. 我们需要做的是用细致入微的眼光仔细考察澄清那些被我们忽视掉的细节，在这些细节的清理中，我们往往会在处理这种问题时走向新的道路.....
2299leon 1 year ago
name of song please, it has been stuck in my brain for ages.
cavemantiger 1 year ago
One thing I like to meditate upon is what I call 'Divine Mind' - "which is like a perfect sphere, the circumference of which is nowhere, and the center everywhere - even at the center of our thoughts and being." This is a great focal point as it clears out any extraneous clutter that gets in the way of self "realization". Everyday we are bombarded with mental stimulus, so its good to step back and think about thinking and what it means to do so.
StephenWebb1980 1 year ago
@StephenWebb1980 you wanna think? here's some food for thought: i am the future communicating with the past. not only so, we communicate without even knowing each other personally. therefore, i am a future thought communicating with your past thoughts via a present medium that links our thoughts together. here's one for the future - as soon as i hit "post"... this comment i am making will become a past thought in this present medium, called youtube. life is more magical than we give credit for.
ThaigerDon 10 months ago 3
Since two people can view an object in the same environment and describe it in like fashion, this also points to the idea that there exists one mind, a common reality, though there are two people with two unique perceptions [consciousness]. The world and beyond, as I see it, are Mind - if there were no data in the Mind, we wouldn't even know we exist. Mind is therefore in my view also the data that exists independent of the body and is interpreted by our brains physiology [consciousness].
StephenWebb1980 1 year ago
Well, I have always considered that only one mind exists, but we each have a consciousness unique to our own brain chemistry and functionality. One example can be: "Look at an object in your environment. Now consider that it [the object] does not exist in the brain, but does in fact exist in the Mind." Mind, in its entirety, stretches far and beyond what our consciousness is capable of perceiving. The components of consciousness exist in cellular awareness on the individual stimulae level...
StephenWebb1980 1 year ago
You can be a monist and still realize that mental processes are incorporeal and should be distinguished from the physical component. Mental events are the derivative of neural functioning; albeit consciousness is more of an epi-phenomenon of physical process that follow natural laws, than an actual substance itself.
csh01150 1 year ago
What song is the background song?
gutler3993 1 year ago
I believe because the body can interact with the feeling in mind therefore the mind and body are one . but can be divided like when u get a cut and simply ignore it it seems the cut isn't even there anymore. an occupied mind is a divided mind . divided attention .
thenomskiee 1 year ago
scribd (dot) com/nb812
DreamsofMajesty 1 year ago
I'm pretty sure when he says divide the mind, he means thought. Not the physical brain itself. However I agree a mind can be divided, to hold 2 contradictory beliefs, and believe both, however if a divided mind exists within a person, ( without physical injury) that this person is not philosophically enlightened. George Orwell called this double think in his book 1984
jsn1295 1 year ago
Can philosophy be corrupt?Cause many people use to speak on and on about many things like philosophers do today same with sciencist.How can he become a free thinker or a man of reason if science back then was not as it was today and most calimed to have exact proof?science today and philosophy today may be seen as dumb and not understanding compared to what's layed ahead so can anyone answer me lol
RealEros1 1 year ago
thank you mike for making philosophy so much easier to understand instead of the complicated words on wiki!!!
i cant decide between dualism and monism but i dont agree with idealism
everyone's reality is different from other ppl as they are subjective and our senses limit and add observation bias to what we see and what we get from it
so i think that the mind is doing the thinking, not the body, but i think the mind is part of the brain as the brain enables the process of us thinking
doodlesxlove 2 years ago
At 14 seconds in, calling the brain the mind right off the bat leads to confusion. Most English speakers understand the word "brain" to refer to the physical, fleshy, grey organ inside the skull. The word "mind" refers to something else. We could say that "mind" is what the brain "does." If you mean mind, say mind and if you mean brain say brain. The terms get used sometimes interchangeably and sometimes distinctly throughout the video.
Promatheos 2 years ago
@Promatheos Agreed, the video just got confusing for me, and I had to remind myself he meant the physical thing, not "mind".
imooumoo4 1 year ago
the mind could not be thinking at the same time as watching the video. if ur mind starts to think u drift off and dont pay attention to the video
Entershikarifan99 2 years ago
i believe in dualism, but i see the mind as a link between the physical body and brain and the metaphysical or spiritual entity of the soul, a sort of loop for translation if you will. :)
skarletsky 2 years ago
Materialism is not a good term to use when describing philosophy of mind to a lay audience, because people can easily get misled into thinking they are dualists because they accept things that have no mass. Physicalism would better describe the nervous-system-as-mind view. Technically you can get away with either, but I'd wager that photons sounds pretty "immaterial" to your average guy.
dreamerjake 2 years ago
You cannot separate the body from the mind, because the mind has no singular point on the body. The brain is just the organ for sensory and motor-coordination. The discovery of Biophotonics has concluded that every cell is conscious and that the nucleus is a brain of every cell (the universe is organized primarily in fractals after all...). This has been something known for hundreds, possibly thousands of years by Occultists, especially that of Taoist Schools.
DarkArckana 2 years ago
»We can't divide a mind?« (5:15) — oh yes, we can, and we have. By accident, leading to brain injuries, and also deliberately by lobotomy.
Vilayanur S. (»V.S.«) Ramachandran gave some mindblowing talks about his research on this, some of which you can find here on YouTube.
It would be foolish to ignore the modern research on psychology and neurology.
leporidus 2 years ago 3
leporidus,
please see my prevoius comment. I made it clear this is not what I know. I'm a biology major, so I know you could divide a mind. thanks ;)
cheers,
king mike
bubbamickmac 2 years ago
Man, I totally missed NotWhollySane's comment and your reply. I usually try to be more apt than that, bubbamickmac!
(Note to self: always read up on comment_servlet?all_comments before starting to comment ;-)
leporidus 2 years ago
@bubbamickmac
your mistake here was assuming a mind and a brain would be considered the same to all people. you ought to know, in philosophy many see the mind as separate from both the physical brain and body. see chapter fourteen of daniel dennett's "consciousness explained" if you are unconvinced.
cavemantiger 1 year ago
oh jeez....the point is, you cut a cat in half, you get 2 halves of one cat. You 'cut' a mind in half, you don't get to halves, you get something like 2 minds. You can cut a cat in two with one sword, but can you cut the cat in one with one sword? ......better yet....can you cut it in one with two swords? hmmmm
ComplexEmergence 2 years ago
This provokes some intriguing thoughts. It reminds me of Sam Harris' sarcastic notion of the »arithmetic of souls« -- what happens to the individual if a fertilized egg splits in two twins, or later, if two eggs fuse to one chimera? It's a biological triviality, but also an ontological absurdity.
leporidus 2 years ago
This is precisely THE problem which we need to understand. Merleau-Ponty presents a fantastic attempt in his book "The Structure of Behavior", Henri Bergson brought the problem up in his book Creative Evolution in 1907 (although this account is hardly satisfactory), and more recently I think BC Smith in his 1996 "On the Origin of Objects" has formulated one of the most impressive projects in thinking about this problem. Moving from inert to living matter in our concepts is THE problem today.
ComplexEmergence 2 years ago
@leporidus this is a an equivocation fallacy
Luxajin 1 year ago
@leporidus "»We can't divide a mind?« (5:15) — oh yes, we can, and we have. By accident, leading to brain injuries, and also deliberately by lobotomy."
Ok, more specifically we can't divide a mind into anything that isn't also a mind. A schizophrenic individual has a divided mind but they are both minds.
The point being is that you can't divide "I"ness or for that matter phenomenality into anything that is not mental or phenomenal in nature.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
The brain is a part of the body and the mind an emergent property of the brain. Through the body, the brain senses and acts upon the environment that surrounds it.
The mind cannot be a noun for two reasons. One, it is one way in which we define our existence. Having a mind is the act of "being". Two, in order for the mind to exist, the brain must think. The mind is the act of thinking.
FlowCell 2 years ago
the mind is just as much passive as it is active, how else do you explain enculturation? Let's not over look that, with all of this action-focused, embodied cognition--much welcomed--we tend to forget about these aspects and idealize ourselves as 'action' figures.
ComplexEmergence 2 years ago
Actually you can divide a mind. There are people out there who have had the right side of the brain cut off from the left side of the brain. Experiments have shown that at that point there are two minds inside one body.
NotWhollySane 2 years ago
Yes, but the idea of dividing a mind not being possible was considered in the 1600's, at the time where Descartes was writing "Meditations." In fact, "The Stuff of Thought," by Steven Pinker, actually demonstrates some experiments with people without one half of their brain performing normal functions. We know we can divide a mind, but with all the scientific evidence we have today which contradicts this position, could we still think about it?
thanks and cheers ;)
-king mike
bubbamickmac 2 years ago
"We know we can divide a mind, but with all the scientific evidence we have today which contradicts this position, could we still think about it?
thanks and cheers ;)"
While I can see how thinking about it could promote philosophical development, I'd rather we not think about it. Things like dualism and objective morality have been shown to be so far off the mark that it's not even funny. As an athiest I think giving these things serious consideration only encourages believers.
NotWhollySane 2 years ago
I think things such as this should be left to the dustbin of ideas just like vitalism, and alchemy. Studying the history of the ideas is one thing but giving them serious consideration as if they haven't been eviscerated ages ago is another. Oh and sorry to be such a poor sport. I actually do enjoy your channel. :)
NotWhollySane 2 years ago
@bubbamickmac You're confusing 'mind' and 'brain'. The concept of a mind is used to conceptually demarcate 'thoughts' and the realm of 'thoughts' from the physical brain and the chemical and electrical reactions therein which may or may not constitute, or be the physical referent of, thoughts. As such, the 'mental' and 'physical' become ontologically distinct, the former immaterial and the latter material, following Cartesian epistemology - raising a whole host of questions within philosophy.
hiswayornoway 1 year ago
@hiswayornoway (cont.) Now, it is okay to be strictly materialist and say that thoughts are just physical and chemical processes (however, this raises the questions like: if a doctor is able to read a brain with a cerebroscope, is he reading a mind? Even if he recognises that reaction A2B or the stimulation of XYZ fibers amount to the thought "I like oranges" in all humans, how does he know that the person he reads actually likes oranges? In fact, isn't he hermeneutically interpreting evidence..
hiswayornoway 1 year ago
@hiswayornoway cont. to that effect? Thus isn't the possible-thought still distinct from the physical occurence?) - Nonetheless, I think it is safe to take 'mind' and 'thoughts' and all the attendent concepts as just concepts with real-world referents (extensions) like any other, and that neurology and other disciplines may clarify and these referents and/or give us new and more specific concepts in their place. As it stands though, the divided brain is not the divided mind.
hiswayornoway 1 year ago
@bubbamickmac Yes, but Pinker makes it clear that patients with only one brain hemisphere performing normal functions were intervined surgically very early in life, perhaps before their brain fully "wired itself" (notice the "x"). On the other hand, split brain patients (people who had their corpus callosum removed) do have "two minds" (notice the "x") in many aspects. Ramachandran talks about a split brain patient with an atheist left brain and a theist right brain. I suggest Gazzaniga.
20cigarrosconfiltro 1 year ago
Perhaps I am being ignorant (which isn't unlikely), but it would seem to me that the type of experiment you describe doesn't verify that a mind can be divided per se.
Since one mind becomes two it seems that (mathematically speaking) there has been a multiplication and not a division. Unless by 'two minds' you mean two HALF minds.
In which case, could you please define what is meant by a 'half' mind? That is, how does it differ from what we'd consider to be a 'whole' mind? What is missing?
AritchWyess 9 months ago
@NotWhollySane dividing the mind is not equivalent to dividing the brain it two points.
asanuman 3 months ago
the becoming a butterfly is an act of a mind...like we think we are stars because there is a rational connection to an enlightened mind...descartes says i cannot doubt that i am thinking...it reffers to the fact that god wants us to make the enlightened connection...to the stars but it also implies the question does god want us to think we are only thinking or are bieng
yikeswood 2 years ago