The Nature of the Mind

You can also research lobotomies, or the various different psyche meds and there effects, or let someone bash you with a shovel in the face a couple of times and see if you mind will work the same with your brain damaged or altered.

Yes, they would all have an effect, but would they let you know it's nature? Purposeful ignorance is'nt the same thing as being comfortable not knowing something, that may or may not be possible to be known. The original post suggested that the nature of the mind could not be described, not that the brain does not have a relationship with it.

n1tkd wrote: Yes, they would all have an effect, but would they let you know it's nature? Purposeful ignorance is'nt the same thing as being comfortable not knowing something, that may or may not be possible to be known. The original post suggested that the nature of the mind could not be described, not that the brain does not have a relationship with it.

Thank you for bringing this back to the origional post.

Yes, they would all have an effect, but would they let you know it's nature?Purposeful ignorance is'nt the same thing as being comfortable not knowing something, that may or may not be possible to be known. The original post suggested that the nature of the mind could not be described, not that the brain does not have a relationship with it.

Can you say without a doubt that it wouldnt help you know its nature?

Certainly, if your ok with not knowing something, or that it may not be possble to be known, however thats a poor line of thinking on any road to discovery.

Also, you(and many others) were saying the brain is not the mind, and the fact that they are inextricably linked( which there relationship, as you put it, is), would indicate that finding its nature would be more than likely through the brain. Thats simple logic applied.

I also find it ignorant to say there are things beyond science, such thinking imprisoned and killed scientists for proving exactly the opposite.

Simply because you cant fathom it, or choose not to because your comfortable with it, doesnt mean the future will not present it through science. Especially since they arent comfortable with not knowing.

I think people simply prefer the vague, ambiguous, or ineffable here, and it seems comfort is a big part of that.

Kind of like knowing how a magician does there tricks can ruin it for some people.

In any case, I hadnt strayed off topic at all. I was simply pointing out the fact that people will say the brain is not the mind, but then talk about a relationship to it, a relationship, that allows you to even be who you are and think the thoughts you do.

Hmm.... Perhaps its this sites negative reaction to definition..

The brain can teach us how the mind works, but it will never teach us why.

May the Force be with you,
Rai

The brain can teach us how the mind works, but it will never teach us why.

Never huh?

None of us will live long enough to prove if thats true.

However this Sith, doesnt deal in absolutes.

I think its quite possible.

Never, is the cornerstone of a closed mind.

Khaos wrote:

The brain can teach us how the mind works, but it will never teach us why.

Never huh?

None of us will live long enough to prove if thats true.

However this Sith, doesnt deal in absolutes.

I think its quite possible.

Never, is the cornerstone of a closed mind.

You said none of us would live long enough to prove this true. That statement simultaneously agrees and disagrees with mine. I said it will never teach us why. If none of us live long enough to have the brain teach humanity why, then it will, in fact, never teach us why.

May the Force be with you,
Rai

I suppose im reminded of Luke and Yoda in regards to the X-wing.

You dont believe it, and so you fail.

Thankfully, other people arent ready to give up so easily.

Like I said, this is an interesting difference I have discovered in the philosophies.

You said none of us would live long enough to prove this true. That statement simultaneously agrees and disagrees with mine. I said it will never teach us why. If none of us live long enough to have the brain teach humanity why, then it will, in fact, never teach us why.

Lol, hide behind semantics if you wish, whatever makes you feel better.

Now your just arguing for arguments sake, and not on topic at all.

Luthien wrote:

Adder wrote: "Thus when the Buddha was attaining enlightenment, he observed; Strange indeed it is, for I see that in reality all creatures are enlightened... are Buddhas".

Probably 'self', in its natural form, if enlightenment is some concept of refinement away from that.

By that quote, I took it as enlightenment being the unrefined, where the concept of self and duality are refinements from enlightenment. Or, as in Taoism, the uncarved block.

I just meant perhaps the 'nature of the mind' is self, and with that quote then enlightenment might be nurturing the mind to some particular (limited) form of selfless. I don't think enlightenment is the nature of the mind, else it would be more widespread.