The Nature of the Mind

There is also the fact, that you said "Never".

I argued that none of us would ever know that.

Never is beyond my ability to percieve. As it is any persons.

It also leaves a closed end, and I see no value in that.

I am open to the possibility of finding out within my lifetime though.

There are tremendous breakthroughs made everyday in the realm of science and our discoveries of the inner workings of things.

I suppose I'll add what was left unsaid. I accept that in my lifetime, science is not going to teach me why my mind works the way it does. I also accept that I wouldn't be able to use that information in a meaningful way.

To better learn about my mind, I use different means, I use spirituality and meditation. I learn about my mind personally, not about human minds as a whole. I gain information meaningful to me as opposed to looking to some benevolent outside factor, be it science, or a god or anything other than myself. I do not discredit the work of scientists or anyone else who learns about the brain to figure out the mind. I simply am saying that there might be different ways more relevant to the self and more immediate. I apologize if my ramblings don't make sense to you or if I seem off topic. I am simply trying to explain myself. I wasn't just arguing semantics, I was telling you what I meant by my previous statement.

May the Force be with you,
Rai

Science and scientists also use, and study meditation an spiritual effects on the mind and body.

Not only on a personal experience basis though, but in a much more objective way.

So you may accept that youll never be able to use it in a meaningful way, but that doesnt make it so.

In fact, thats more than likely not the case now.

Also, I hardly look at science as benevolent, I simply dont view it with such negativity that is all to common. I dont pretend there is such a capacity though. I couldnt, too much evidence to the contrary.

Certainly there might be more immediate gratifications to be had, but what your addressing is essentially a selfish way of looking at it.

Its all about me, me, me...

Also, nothing for me in the realm of meditation, spirituality, martial arts, etc has been immediate. It took years.

Science does too.

Now that the ship is on course perhaps I can incline this discussion in a certain direction.

1. Our conscious experiences change a lot from childhood as a normal aging process. To what degree can we alter our mind's frame of reference on our own accord?

My thoughts: My intuition tells me fitness and proper nutrition hold the largest effects on honing mental dexterity. When I live a healthy lifestyle I not only feel happier, but also accomplished. Now it's all well and good to consider moods, but what about perspective? Is it possible to adjust negative thought patterns involving anxiety or trauma? How about developing self-control? I think the answer is yes to both, through a combination of meditation, enlightenment, and drugs.

2. Charisma is the ability to convey an idea to another and capture their attention/support. Is there a limit to how much wisdom can be soaked up through charismatic teachings vs wisdom that needs to be acquired through life's ups and downs?

My thoughts: Perhaps the mind is somewhat resilient to ideas it hasn't experienced firsthand and so accepting them doesn't come as naturally, as say, a failure for which one is responsible.

I agree that this is a selfish way to look at it. Because my mind is the one I care about most. I care about figuring out about myself quite a bit. I'm not against science, or learning about the human species, but I realize that I am the most important person in my life.


I said more immediate, not immediate.

I need to be able to connect with my own mind during my lifetime, I'm sorry if that comes of as self centered.

I agree with much of what you're saying, however our points of view vary in different degrees on several points. I find myself unable to elaborate more on this at the moment and for that I apologize.

May the Force be with you,
Rai

Gisteron, I have to disagree. I don't feel that believing something to be beyond our comprehension stifles the study of said thing. It is precisely because of that general belief in the majority that science came about in the first place! Some people don't let statements like that stop them from trying to comprehend things anyway. A certain strain of humanity loves to fight existing norms. I have a feeling the Buddha probably understood this.

Still, your point is well taken. We should never allow the complexity or seeming incomprehensibility of something stop us from trying to seek knowledge and wisdom of it. Also, as someone pointed out: I do not equate the "brain" with the "mind." These, at least to me, are distinct but related concepts.

It has been useful to me to think in terms of

mind and Mind
consciousness and Consciousness

i have heard Mind being referred to as “before mind and after mind”
There are many many names for it. Eternal Mind, Divine Mind, the Force, One Mind, Presence, Source (just for starters)

In this light, “mind” can be said to be the processes of the “brain”. In humans, its processes . . sort, parse, divide, store, categorize, measures. Much of the filing system is stored in subconscious (out of present awareness).

The thinking mind, human mind, is dualistic in nature:
Inner and outer world
Upper and Lower
likes and dislikes
good and bad

Because “Mind” (the Force, Universal Connectivity) is in everything and everywhere . . . then it could not not be present in mind as well.

Some consciously (use mind) to undertake practices of prayer, meditation, mind training, using the mind to awaken awareness to Mind.

Myths and communication in the Temple also awaken by “sparking” the mind and imagination (opening it you might say).

The knowingness of Consciousness is experiential and wordless, yet its center, with practice can be called upon anytime. Living intuively, more naturally, more creatively, more focused you might say. Strangely enough, some practices call this Mindfullness and some Mindlessness.

From the OP: the second sentence says to me . . . “don’t try to get there . . . .and if one experiences. . .it is not an end. . stay open”

So I haven't been following along another two pages of back and forth.. Thanks, Lykeios, as I see your post during replying just here... Anyway, what I wanted to add, is that there is no such thing observed as a mind that would be independant of a brain and we can manipulate minds by manipulating brains and vice versa. So for all intents and purposes those can be viewed as basically synonymous. If someone is making the case that we understand the brain but don't understand the mind, there needs to be a clear distinction made between the two. If the distinction is that the mind is the emergent property of an operating brain, in order to say we have no idea about the mind, one needs to discredit the entire enterprise of psychology (and insult a bunch of people who spent their lives working to improve our understanding - and succeeded!) which does exactly what the quote in the OP says wouldn't be possible - understanding the mind and putting it to words.

Now as for science.. I'm afraid what isn't understood here is that science is a method and a tool and there was no other used ever that would consistently and reliably produce applicable, useful and accurate knowledge of anything whatsoever. Now speaking in big words about minds and spirits is all nice and funny but it serves no purpose, and the moment you postulate things like incomprehensibility as one extreme or perfect knowledge without solid ground on the other end is the moment when no more study can be done and no more real knowledge can be obtained. You know, the kind of knowledge that makes computers create arts and flies people over the ocean.. knowledge that changes the world to the better again and again rather than making individuals feel warm and fuzzy and unite them with some magical realities.
And also, I refuse to accept that human beings are limited in that regard. Granted, we didn't evolve to understand a few things with accuracy but rather their implications, and thus we have trouble comprehending a few properties of this world so far. But to use an admission of own imperfection as an excuse for ignorance or unwillingness to learn that which is hard to grasp is in my humble opinion below Jedi and indeed below humans in general.

Philosophy of mind is an extremely diverse area of study. One of the questions asked by philosophers is whether mental properties are identical with properties of the brain. The experience I have of an event, for example, a truck rumbling by me as I stand on the sidewalk, is a vivid and memorable conscious experience that is perceived by multiple senses – smell of the exhaust, sight of the truck, feel of the sidewalk vibrating under my feet, and sound of the engine. A scientist observing my brain activity during this experience on some sort of machine, for example, MRI, would not observe my experience, but only brain activity. The question asked in philosophy of mind is: What is the relation between brain states and conscious experiences? The scientific observation of my brain activity is not identical with my experience. The qualities of conscious experience are different from the qualities neuroscience observes when inspecting nervous systems and brains. “Your experiences have the qualities they have, not because these are tacked on by idiosyncratic laws of nature, but because they are built into the properties that constitute your mental life. Whatever exists has qualities, so it is no surprise that states of mind have qualities” (page 225, John Heil, Philosophy of Mind: a contemporary introduction, 2nd edition, Routledge Press, New York, USA, 2006).

Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm sure you will.

As I understand it, the brain is the signal processor of the body. The experiences we have are passed through the brain in these signals from the senses and our brain (processor) digests and interprets them into meaningful (in our own terms) forms of thought, which are yet again signals. When reflecting on these experiences, we refer back to what was processed before (remembering) and make decisions based upon the history (memory) of this data. Depending on how we feel about those experiences, i.e. the level of seratonin present at the moment of processing, we decide what experiences were enjoyable, terrifying, etc, which, in turn, sets the mood we get into when thinking about said experiences. I think this is what also gives us personality, e.g. what we like, dislike, how we behave to different stimuli, etc. We also prejudge a situation based on what we perceive as similar to previous experiences. There's so much connection between our brains, senses, environments, and perceived situations.

So, of course, external observation of the signals in the brain and internal observation of experiences are two different ways to look at it. One from the scientists observing through machines and the other from the individual who is experiencing the stimuli. One cannot conclude how the individual felt about the situation through external observation, but can be predicted. They can monitor the seratonin levels, but people experience varied levels of it differently. Thus the reason why people who go through an experience react differently than others.

The mind and the brain can be seen as different or the same depending on who is observing. It can be seen as a computer; the mind is the software and the brain is the hardware. Some users of the computer don't make any distinctions between them, while others do.