10373Re: [anthroposophy] Re: Hanging around
- Mar 1, 2004Re: The What and the How in relation to the Mind and Brain.Is not the Number just an expression of the How, and not the How itself?So it would seem to me we are dealing with a Triune model, and not a Dualism.and the What is perhaps, yes, an expression of an underlying reality,so are we thus dealing with a Quaternity?The Number comes from the Ahrimanic realm, level 3, (inspired consciousness),from the deep unconscious Will, and enters into the Level 1 conceptual consciousness,the Mind (of the the Luciferic realm), which has entered human evolution as a resultof the War in Heaven with Michael (1839-1879), as he thre Lucifer out of theSpiritual worlds in to the Earthly worlds of Human nature?The Brain is the physical structure then that manifests from the activitiesof the Spirits of Form, and which is perceived by the Physical Senses only as a reflection,within the Catch-22 of the brain activites itself, wherein my inquiry falls to piecesa bit, or at least gets convoluted.Hogie----- Original Message -----From: Maurice McCarthySent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:27 AMSubject: Re: [anthroposophy] Re: Hanging aroundOops! Yes, I meant funCtionalist.
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 03:01:25PM -0000 or thereabouts, holderlin66 wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org,
> Maurice McCarthy <maurice.mccarthy@n...> wrote:
> "distinct from matter. Almost all cognitive scientists, neurologists
> and Artificial Intelligence folk are funtionalists."
> Bradford asks;
> functionalists or fun, as funtionalists... I think I like FUN
> better, although I suspect you meant, and to clarify, did you mean,
Let me first give my phrasing of how I try to see clearly in this. At
issue is the relation of the mind and the brain, which all consider most
difficult. Especially unpopular are dualisms Substance Dualism is after
Descartes and considered the Folk Psychology view, where Folk Psychology
is the worldview of the man in the street - a naive realism modified by
experience and education.
As I see it the relation of mind and brain is, in the abstract,
analogous to number and matter, respectively. No one seems to think the
relation of number and matter mysterious - not that I've seen. All forms
of physical matter can be described by numbers and operations of numbers
(number itself is a counted unity and so an operation of its own and a
definite quantity). Matter is the What of a thing, Number is the How of
the same thing. The What cannot exist without the How because its How is
exactly how it became what it is. In itself anything is at once a What
and a How in undivided unity. Perception strips out the How and leaves
the What. Thinking reveals the How and re-unites it to the what.
The mind is the How of the brain, which is a What. Thus we avoid
substance dualism but by its nature consciousness has to be a duality.
The brain is always structured by the mind. "Use it or lose it." is a
phrase beloved by Susan Greenfield, the best known neurologist in
Britain. The brain structure dissolves if it is not supported by its
How - because it is the How which does the structuring. Somehow she
still sees the brain matter as primary but the penny will drop sooner or
later. She's teetering on the brink of the realisation, her own first
Got to go - call to the shops
Will be back later.
Big M ;-)
> You wrote;
> "Chomsky is the man most responsible for this change - that the mind
> born with a pre-configured modularity. As I see it this is within an
> ace of declaring the soul.
> Bradford comments;
> Pre-configured Modularity...funny I was thinking Pre-configured
> modality..so modularity, does modularity give more mobility
> potential then something more hard wired like modality. It is is
> always interesting to discover Terms of Endearment or Terms of
> agreement..New Terms - Hard wired, Modularity, Modality, to
> determine soul.
> So Maurice if you might widen these two out, function and modulaity.
> Functional brain apparatus as standard issue or unique modularity as
> user friendly, user designed?
List owner: email@example.com
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>