Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

58942Re: What power to charm or harm?

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Jan 7 8:39 AM
      Let me rephrase the last sentence. Thinking is the object of a thinking subject. This is the problem of phenomenology: consciousness studying itself, a phenomenal subject making phenomenal thought its object. If object and subject are one, a whole, this solves the problem but also shows how the divide remains and neither is superior to, separate from, or dispensable.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
      >
      > I mean that the instruments which measure brain activity and which inform us about how and what our brains are doing are themselves products of our thinking. So how can we be objective about what our brains tell us about our brains if we depend on our brains to explain themselves. Our brains are the object but what is the subject?
      >
      > Where is the mainframe for all our thinking located?
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
      > >
      > > I would take it that the "mainframe" is everything other than the brain. It
      > > is the stuff to which we are connected. Like the computer in your car is
      > > connected to things like the oil pressure sensor. Of course, in this
      > > instance, the car computer does not make a decision to fix the problem, but
      > > provides you with an lighted alarm which tells you to take the car in for a
      > > checkup. Actually, that is somewhat similar to your own sensors. If you
      > > have a cold, the body reacts by producing more mucus which is a kind of
      > > alarm [amongst others] that tells you to go see the doctor or buy some
      > > remedy stuff from the pharmacy.
      > >
      > > So I would agree that in total the brain is a system with many inputs and
      > > interconnections.
      > >
      > > However, I don't understand your point .... "The question of subjectivity,
      > > of one or more brains being able to recognize that the machines with which
      > > they measure are also products of the brain itself".
      > >
      > > What machines?? If you mean for example the eye, I don't think that the eye
      > > is a product of the brain, albeit one could say that it is an "extension" of
      > > the brain. The design is basically the same as that of the brain, except
      > > the cortex [the retina] is inverted and enclosed within the eyeball. The
      > > neurons in the retina [the light sensors ... rods and cones] are the wrong
      > > way around if you really wanted a highly efficient functioning sensor. In
      > > the brain, the neurons are at the bottom of the cortex which is probably
      > > good for protection. But in the eye, the neurons are at the bottom of the
      > > retina, so the light has to first pass through a lot of junk [albeit
      > > important junk] before the light can be sensed. It is inefficient because
      > > that is the way the eye evolved. Which sort of illustrates that if the eye
      > > is a miracle created by God; he didn't do a very good job. But then I am
      > > getting carried away.
      > >
      > > My point is that the sensors are not a product of the brain. Perhaps you
      > > can identify what you mean by "machine" and how it is produced by the brain.
      > >
      > > eduardathome
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: Mary
      > > Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 6:47 PM
      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: What power to charm or harm?
      > >
      > > The mainframe into which each brain is connected is the brain itself? Can
      > > you clarify, since it seems you are not describing the mainframe into which
      > > all brains are connected. And, who is the we or I that is connecting? When I
      > > mention all the functions the brain performs, including complex biochemical
      > > algorithms which are below the level of thinking, I mean to suggest they all
      > > affect one another. Thinking occurs 'in' the brain, but it is a process
      > > dependent on many inputs and interconnections. The question of subjectivity,
      > > of one or more brains being able to recognize that the machines with which
      > > they measure are also products of the brain itself. We must trust it but
      > > also be skeptical in this regard. The 'machine' is building and measuring
      > > itself with machines it has designed.
      > >
      > > Mary
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > > > We are plugging into a mainframe which contains all sorts of complex
      > > > sensors
      > > > and yes the mainframe may have algorithms that produce automatic
      > > > reactions.
      > > > But ultimately it has to be recognized that it is the brain that "thinks".
      > > > A kidney doesn't think and neither does a hand which drops a hot pan.
      > > > They
      > > > certainly affect our thinking, but they do not of themselves do any
      > > > thinking.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
      > >
      > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      >
    • Show all 43 messages in this topic