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

"Philosophy is the biography of the philosopher."

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    eduard, Let s focus solely on the brain which is an object in and for itself. It self-mediates. It evolved and developed a capacity to observe and understand
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 19, 2013
      eduard,

      Let's focus solely on the brain which is an object in and for itself. It self-mediates. It evolved and developed a capacity to observe and understand itself and its environment. This potential was implicit in the brain and made explicit through evolution. The brain evolved and became aware of itself. Another way to say this is that after the brain discovered objects outside itself, especially those things it needed to live, the brain discovered itself. Evolution is an idea explicating itself. The brain is an idea of itself, is an object for itself, is its own cause and effect. What does this imply about everything else that is other than our brain? Yes, an object is mediated through the brain, and the result is an idea, but the mediator is also an idea, the brain idea. The mediator which mediates between the object and the brain is the idea of the brain. Without an idea of the brain as the thinker formulating an idea, an idea about the object isn't possible. Without objects to perceive, including itself, the thinking brain doesn't exist. The brain is a unity of idea and materia, and long before natural phenomena were objects of perception they co-evolved with our brains. Do we now say we have no use for our environment? Because the idea of the brain was implicit in phenomena, I agree with those who posit that 'idea' is both implicit in nature and explicated through a natural brain, a whole.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
      >
      > My point is that the "principle" is not developed separately from the brain.
      >
      > The apple doesn't play any role in consciousness. There isn't any part of
      > the consciousness [our awareness of our existence] that is dependent upon
      > some role that an apple may play. Knowledge of the apple may modify what we
      > think in the sense of my being aware that that I am the eduard that eats
      > apples, but the apple does not contribute to the act of awareness. I am
      > aware all by myself and that act occurs within my brain not elsewhere, even
      > in part.
      >
      > I would agree that an apple has attributes such as roundness and red colour
      > [or green], but it does not have an "idea" as a thought element that somehow
      > enters my brain to complete my thinking. To put it another way, if a neuron
      > in my brain outputs a "true" signal that this is an apple, it does not have
      > an input whose source is some neuron or equivalent device in the apple.
      >
      > The subject is "thinking". My observation or experience of an apple can
      > facilitate my awareness of myself in relation to apples, but the apple does
      > not think and thus cannot play a role in my own thinking or my act of
      > consciousness.
      >
      > eduard
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mary
      > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 1:37 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Harmless ideas about ideas
      >
      > Just to clarify eduard, is the principle also inherent in the object whether
      > it requires our mediation or not? A principle is not developed without, or
      > in isolation from, an object. If the brain is developing principles about
      > the brain, the principle is immanent in both the object and the observer. If
      > you contend that no other objects have brains, I remind you that animals do.
      > Apples, of course, do not, but this does not mean the principle is developed
      > separately from the apple. The apple plays a role in consciousness.
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
      > >
      > > eduard,
      > >
      > > Let's set aside the possibility that we can't disprove what we can't prove
      > > or whether animals are aware they are thinking, and return to my original
      > > assertion. Besides, if animals do attend to their thoughts as humans do,
      > > then this supports my premise that it happens. I can observe an apple and
      > > observe my observation without examining my neural processing.
      > >
      > > The potential principle in any object, including our brain and thought, is
      > > that it's other than us but is also for itself and for us. As you say, an
      > > unfamiliar object doesn't automatically present a principle to us; the
      > > object requires mediation in order to discover the principle. Is the
      > > principled imagined or is it inherent?
      > >
      > > Mary
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
      >
      > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      >
    • eduardathome
      Mary, Without objects to perceive, including itself, the thinking brain doesn t exist. You are well beyond me. I tend to look at things in a concrete linear
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 19, 2013
        Mary,

        "Without objects to perceive, including itself, the thinking brain doesn't
        exist."

        You are well beyond me. I tend to look at things in a concrete linear
        fashion. That is why I like Nooism. It doesn't get into stuff at some
        rarefied level. We think by using our neurons [our brain] and that's it.
        We don't have to speculate on this or that or some combination until nothing
        really makes any sense.

        Consider your statement above. Basically you are saying that if there is no
        brain, then the brain doesn't exist. Isn't that kinda obvious.

        It's very simple. Objects exist. They always exist regardless of humans.
        The brain can "know" an object by means of its sensors. But the "knowing"
        is only an interpretation largely based on previous learning. Our brain can
        store the electrochemical information which "represents" the object. Later,
        in our "thinking" this information may be used in a mental script to produce
        another thought, a behaviour or whatever.

        We can be aware of our thinking, as to say that we know when we have thought
        of something, but we cannot monitor the actual process of thinking. So in a
        literal sense, one cannot say that the brain is aware of itself. To do so
        is to anthropomorphise the brain.

        eduard


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mary
        Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:55 AM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [existlist] "Philosophy is the biography of the philosopher."

        eduard,

        Let's focus solely on the brain which is an object in and for itself. It
        self-mediates. It evolved and developed a capacity to observe and understand
        itself and its environment. This potential was implicit in the brain and
        made explicit through evolution. The brain evolved and became aware of
        itself. Another way to say this is that after the brain discovered objects
        outside itself, especially those things it needed to live, the brain
        discovered itself. Evolution is an idea explicating itself. The brain is an
        idea of itself, is an object for itself, is its own cause and effect. What
        does this imply about everything else that is other than our brain? Yes, an
        object is mediated through the brain, and the result is an idea, but the
        mediator is also an idea, the brain idea. The mediator which mediates
        between the object and the brain is the idea of the brain. Without an idea
        of the brain as the thinker formulating an idea, an idea about the object
        isn't possible. Without objects to
        perceive, including itself, the thinking brain doesn't exist. The brain is a
        unity of idea and materia, and long before natural phenomena were objects of
        perception they co-evolved with our brains. Do we now say we have no use for
        our environment? Because the idea of the brain was implicit in phenomena, I
        agree with those who posit that 'idea' is both implicit in nature and
        explicated through a natural brain, a whole.

        Mary
      • Mary
        No, eduard, I said the thinking brain doesn t exist. This is different from all the other functions the brain performs. Evolutionary development of the brain,
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 19, 2013
          No, eduard, I said the thinking brain doesn't exist. This is different from all the other functions the brain performs. Evolutionary development of the brain, and the history of ideas are linear. You want to isolate the brain from everything except itself. If you do that it's no longer part of a system, neither a system of ideas nor an environmental system. If you want a simpler system, that's what you prefer, your own script if you will.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
          >
          > Mary,
          >
          > "Without objects to perceive, including itself, the thinking brain doesn't
          > exist."
          >
          > You are well beyond me. I tend to look at things in a concrete linear
          > fashion. That is why I like Nooism. It doesn't get into stuff at some
          > rarefied level. We think by using our neurons [our brain] and that's it.
          > We don't have to speculate on this or that or some combination until nothing
          > really makes any sense.
          >
          > Consider your statement above. Basically you are saying that if there is no
          > brain, then the brain doesn't exist. Isn't that kinda obvious.
          >
          > It's very simple. Objects exist. They always exist regardless of humans.
          > The brain can "know" an object by means of its sensors. But the "knowing"
          > is only an interpretation largely based on previous learning. Our brain can
          > store the electrochemical information which "represents" the object. Later,
          > in our "thinking" this information may be used in a mental script to produce
          > another thought, a behaviour or whatever.
          >
          > We can be aware of our thinking, as to say that we know when we have thought
          > of something, but we cannot monitor the actual process of thinking. So in a
          > literal sense, one cannot say that the brain is aware of itself. To do so
          > is to anthropomorphise the brain.
          >
          > eduard
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Mary
          > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:55 AM
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [existlist] "Philosophy is the biography of the philosopher."
          >
          > eduard,
          >
          > Let's focus solely on the brain which is an object in and for itself. It
          > self-mediates. It evolved and developed a capacity to observe and understand
          > itself and its environment. This potential was implicit in the brain and
          > made explicit through evolution. The brain evolved and became aware of
          > itself. Another way to say this is that after the brain discovered objects
          > outside itself, especially those things it needed to live, the brain
          > discovered itself. Evolution is an idea explicating itself. The brain is an
          > idea of itself, is an object for itself, is its own cause and effect. What
          > does this imply about everything else that is other than our brain? Yes, an
          > object is mediated through the brain, and the result is an idea, but the
          > mediator is also an idea, the brain idea. The mediator which mediates
          > between the object and the brain is the idea of the brain. Without an idea
          > of the brain as the thinker formulating an idea, an idea about the object
          > isn't possible. Without objects to
          > perceive, including itself, the thinking brain doesn't exist. The brain is a
          > unity of idea and materia, and long before natural phenomena were objects of
          > perception they co-evolved with our brains. Do we now say we have no use for
          > our environment? Because the idea of the brain was implicit in phenomena, I
          > agree with those who posit that 'idea' is both implicit in nature and
          > explicated through a natural brain, a whole.
          >
          > Mary
          >
        • Mary
          I meant to say the thinking function of the brain does exist but only because it has objects to consider, including itself.
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 19, 2013
            I meant to say the thinking function of the brain does exist but only because it has objects to consider, including itself.

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
            >
            > No, eduard, I said the thinking brain doesn't exist. This is different from all the other functions the brain performs. Evolutionary development of the brain, and the history of ideas are linear. You want to isolate the brain from everything except itself. If you do that it's no longer part of a system, neither a system of ideas nor an environmental system. If you want a simpler system, that's what you prefer, your own script if you will.
            >
            > Mary
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
            > >
            > > Mary,
            > >
            > > "Without objects to perceive, including itself, the thinking brain doesn't
            > > exist."
            > >
            > > You are well beyond me. I tend to look at things in a concrete linear
            > > fashion. That is why I like Nooism. It doesn't get into stuff at some
            > > rarefied level. We think by using our neurons [our brain] and that's it.
            > > We don't have to speculate on this or that or some combination until nothing
            > > really makes any sense.
            > >
            > > Consider your statement above. Basically you are saying that if there is no
            > > brain, then the brain doesn't exist. Isn't that kinda obvious.
            > >
            > > It's very simple. Objects exist. They always exist regardless of humans.
            > > The brain can "know" an object by means of its sensors. But the "knowing"
            > > is only an interpretation largely based on previous learning. Our brain can
            > > store the electrochemical information which "represents" the object. Later,
            > > in our "thinking" this information may be used in a mental script to produce
            > > another thought, a behaviour or whatever.
            > >
            > > We can be aware of our thinking, as to say that we know when we have thought
            > > of something, but we cannot monitor the actual process of thinking. So in a
            > > literal sense, one cannot say that the brain is aware of itself. To do so
            > > is to anthropomorphise the brain.
            > >
            > > eduard
            > >
            > >
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: Mary
            > > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:55 AM
            > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: [existlist] "Philosophy is the biography of the philosopher."
            > >
            > > eduard,
            > >
            > > Let's focus solely on the brain which is an object in and for itself. It
            > > self-mediates. It evolved and developed a capacity to observe and understand
            > > itself and its environment. This potential was implicit in the brain and
            > > made explicit through evolution. The brain evolved and became aware of
            > > itself. Another way to say this is that after the brain discovered objects
            > > outside itself, especially those things it needed to live, the brain
            > > discovered itself. Evolution is an idea explicating itself. The brain is an
            > > idea of itself, is an object for itself, is its own cause and effect. What
            > > does this imply about everything else that is other than our brain? Yes, an
            > > object is mediated through the brain, and the result is an idea, but the
            > > mediator is also an idea, the brain idea. The mediator which mediates
            > > between the object and the brain is the idea of the brain. Without an idea
            > > of the brain as the thinker formulating an idea, an idea about the object
            > > isn't possible. Without objects to
            > > perceive, including itself, the thinking brain doesn't exist. The brain is a
            > > unity of idea and materia, and long before natural phenomena were objects of
            > > perception they co-evolved with our brains. Do we now say we have no use for
            > > our environment? Because the idea of the brain was implicit in phenomena, I
            > > agree with those who posit that 'idea' is both implicit in nature and
            > > explicated through a natural brain, a whole.
            > >
            > > Mary
            > >
            >
          • Mary
            One last thing today. To repeat, being aware that you have a brain, that it is thinking this thought or the other, and neurological scanning, all equate to
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 19, 2013
              One last thing today. To repeat, being aware that you have a brain, that it is thinking this thought or the other, and neurological scanning, all equate to awareness of a brain. Do you really need to see the biochemical processes to know you have a brain?

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
              >
              > I meant to say the thinking function of the brain does exist but only because it has objects to consider, including itself.
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
              > >
              > > No, eduard, I said the thinking brain doesn't exist. This is different from all the other functions the brain performs. Evolutionary development of the brain, and the history of ideas are linear. You want to isolate the brain from everything except itself. If you do that it's no longer part of a system, neither a system of ideas nor an environmental system. If you want a simpler system, that's what you prefer, your own script if you will.
              > >
              > > Mary
              > >
              > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Mary,
              > > >
              > > > "Without objects to perceive, including itself, the thinking brain doesn't
              > > > exist."
              > > >
              > > > You are well beyond me. I tend to look at things in a concrete linear
              > > > fashion. That is why I like Nooism. It doesn't get into stuff at some
              > > > rarefied level. We think by using our neurons [our brain] and that's it.
              > > > We don't have to speculate on this or that or some combination until nothing
              > > > really makes any sense.
              > > >
              > > > Consider your statement above. Basically you are saying that if there is no
              > > > brain, then the brain doesn't exist. Isn't that kinda obvious.
              > > >
              > > > It's very simple. Objects exist. They always exist regardless of humans.
              > > > The brain can "know" an object by means of its sensors. But the "knowing"
              > > > is only an interpretation largely based on previous learning. Our brain can
              > > > store the electrochemical information which "represents" the object. Later,
              > > > in our "thinking" this information may be used in a mental script to produce
              > > > another thought, a behaviour or whatever.
              > > >
              > > > We can be aware of our thinking, as to say that we know when we have thought
              > > > of something, but we cannot monitor the actual process of thinking. So in a
              > > > literal sense, one cannot say that the brain is aware of itself. To do so
              > > > is to anthropomorphise the brain.
              > > >
              > > > eduard
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > -----Original Message-----
              > > > From: Mary
              > > > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:55 AM
              > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > > > Subject: [existlist] "Philosophy is the biography of the philosopher."
              > > >
              > > > eduard,
              > > >
              > > > Let's focus solely on the brain which is an object in and for itself. It
              > > > self-mediates. It evolved and developed a capacity to observe and understand
              > > > itself and its environment. This potential was implicit in the brain and
              > > > made explicit through evolution. The brain evolved and became aware of
              > > > itself. Another way to say this is that after the brain discovered objects
              > > > outside itself, especially those things it needed to live, the brain
              > > > discovered itself. Evolution is an idea explicating itself. The brain is an
              > > > idea of itself, is an object for itself, is its own cause and effect. What
              > > > does this imply about everything else that is other than our brain? Yes, an
              > > > object is mediated through the brain, and the result is an idea, but the
              > > > mediator is also an idea, the brain idea. The mediator which mediates
              > > > between the object and the brain is the idea of the brain. Without an idea
              > > > of the brain as the thinker formulating an idea, an idea about the object
              > > > isn't possible. Without objects to
              > > > perceive, including itself, the thinking brain doesn't exist. The brain is a
              > > > unity of idea and materia, and long before natural phenomena were objects of
              > > > perception they co-evolved with our brains. Do we now say we have no use for
              > > > our environment? Because the idea of the brain was implicit in phenomena, I
              > > > agree with those who posit that 'idea' is both implicit in nature and
              > > > explicated through a natural brain, a whole.
              > > >
              > > > Mary
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • eduardathome
              Mary, Your statement was that one might remove all objects including the thinking brain. Regardless of what other functions there may be, if your remove the
              Message 6 of 9 , Jan 19, 2013
                Mary,

                Your statement was that one might remove all objects including the thinking
                brain. Regardless of what other functions there may be, if your remove the
                thinking brain then it no longer exists. You are stating the obvious.

                But lets look at this aspect of isolation. I would offer that the brain IS
                isolated from everything except itself ... in the role of thinking. If you
                remove elements of the environment, at what point in the removal or for what
                object that is removed, does the brain cease to function?? Granted, if you
                remove the air or some other basic survival element the brain dies, but even
                here the brain will function until it is actually dead.

                If you remove the system of ideas, at what point will the brain cease to
                function?? This is a particularly important question since your proposal of
                removal of a system of ideas implies that the brain cannot think unless
                there is some idea that resides elsewhere. The idea in the apple. I would
                submit that that is not the case. The brain can function in isolation
                because the thinking is essentially mechanical within itself. In fact, it
                does so when we sleep by creating dreams [its own objects]. However, I
                would further suggest that the reverse is true. If you remove the thinking
                brain then the system of ideas will cease to exist. Your proposal would be
                similar as to say that if you remove the internet, computers would cease to
                exist.

                eduard

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Mary
                Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 2:12 PM
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [existlist] Re: "Philosophy is the biography of the philosopher."

                No, eduard, I said the thinking brain doesn't exist. This is different from
                all the other functions the brain performs. Evolutionary development of the
                brain, and the history of ideas are linear. You want to isolate the brain
                from everything except itself. If you do that it's no longer part of a
                system, neither a system of ideas nor an environmental system. If you want a
                simpler system, that's what you prefer, your own script if you will.

                Mary

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
                >
                > Mary,
                >
                > "Without objects to perceive, including itself, the thinking brain doesn't
                > exist."
                >
                > You are well beyond me. I tend to look at things in a concrete linear
                > fashion. That is why I like Nooism. It doesn't get into stuff at some
                > rarefied level. We think by using our neurons [our brain] and that's it.
                > We don't have to speculate on this or that or some combination until
                > nothing
                > really makes any sense.
                >
                > Consider your statement above. Basically you are saying that if there is
                > no
                > brain, then the brain doesn't exist. Isn't that kinda obvious.
                >
                > It's very simple. Objects exist. They always exist regardless of humans.
                > The brain can "know" an object by means of its sensors. But the "knowing"
                > is only an interpretation largely based on previous learning. Our brain
                > can
                > store the electrochemical information which "represents" the object.
                > Later,
                > in our "thinking" this information may be used in a mental script to
                > produce
                > another thought, a behaviour or whatever.
                >
                > We can be aware of our thinking, as to say that we know when we have
                > thought
                > of something, but we cannot monitor the actual process of thinking. So in
                > a
                > literal sense, one cannot say that the brain is aware of itself. To do so
                > is to anthropomorphise the brain.
                >
                > eduard
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Mary
                > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:55 AM
                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [existlist] "Philosophy is the biography of the philosopher."
                >
                > eduard,
                >
                > Let's focus solely on the brain which is an object in and for itself. It
                > self-mediates. It evolved and developed a capacity to observe and
                > understand
                > itself and its environment. This potential was implicit in the brain and
                > made explicit through evolution. The brain evolved and became aware of
                > itself. Another way to say this is that after the brain discovered objects
                > outside itself, especially those things it needed to live, the brain
                > discovered itself. Evolution is an idea explicating itself. The brain is
                > an
                > idea of itself, is an object for itself, is its own cause and effect. What
                > does this imply about everything else that is other than our brain? Yes,
                > an
                > object is mediated through the brain, and the result is an idea, but the
                > mediator is also an idea, the brain idea. The mediator which mediates
                > between the object and the brain is the idea of the brain. Without an idea
                > of the brain as the thinker formulating an idea, an idea about the object
                > isn't possible. Without objects to
                > perceive, including itself, the thinking brain doesn't exist. The brain is
                > a
                > unity of idea and materia, and long before natural phenomena were objects
                > of
                > perception they co-evolved with our brains. Do we now say we have no use
                > for
                > our environment? Because the idea of the brain was implicit in phenomena,
                > I
                > agree with those who posit that 'idea' is both implicit in nature and
                > explicated through a natural brain, a whole.
                >
                > Mary
                >




                ------------------------------------

                Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
              • eduardathome
                That too is obvious. Thinking is about something. If you remove all the somethings, then there is no thinking. So in essence you are saying that if there is
                Message 7 of 9 , Jan 19, 2013
                  That too is obvious. Thinking is about something. If you remove all the
                  somethings, then there is no thinking. So in essence you are saying that if
                  there is no thinking then thinking does not exist. Put in another way, if
                  you remove all the inputs, you will get an output from a neuron.

                  eduard

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Mary
                  Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 2:40 PM
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [existlist] Re: "Philosophy is the biography of the philosopher."

                  I meant to say the thinking function of the brain does exist but only
                  because it has objects to consider, including itself.

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
                  >
                  > No, eduard, I said the thinking brain doesn't exist. This is different
                  > from all the other functions the brain performs. Evolutionary development
                  > of the brain, and the history of ideas are linear. You want to isolate the
                  > brain from everything except itself. If you do that it's no longer part of
                  > a system, neither a system of ideas nor an environmental system. If you
                  > want a simpler system, that's what you prefer, your own script if you
                  > will.
                  >
                  > Mary
                  >
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Mary,
                  > >
                  > > "Without objects to perceive, including itself, the thinking brain
                  > > doesn't
                  > > exist."
                  > >
                  > > You are well beyond me. I tend to look at things in a concrete linear
                  > > fashion. That is why I like Nooism. It doesn't get into stuff at some
                  > > rarefied level. We think by using our neurons [our brain] and that's
                  > > it.
                  > > We don't have to speculate on this or that or some combination until
                  > > nothing
                  > > really makes any sense.
                  > >
                  > > Consider your statement above. Basically you are saying that if there
                  > > is no
                  > > brain, then the brain doesn't exist. Isn't that kinda obvious.
                  > >
                  > > It's very simple. Objects exist. They always exist regardless of
                  > > humans.
                  > > The brain can "know" an object by means of its sensors. But the
                  > > "knowing"
                  > > is only an interpretation largely based on previous learning. Our brain
                  > > can
                  > > store the electrochemical information which "represents" the object.
                  > > Later,
                  > > in our "thinking" this information may be used in a mental script to
                  > > produce
                  > > another thought, a behaviour or whatever.
                  > >
                  > > We can be aware of our thinking, as to say that we know when we have
                  > > thought
                  > > of something, but we cannot monitor the actual process of thinking. So
                  > > in a
                  > > literal sense, one cannot say that the brain is aware of itself. To do
                  > > so
                  > > is to anthropomorphise the brain.
                  > >
                  > > eduard
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > From: Mary
                  > > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:55 AM
                  > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Subject: [existlist] "Philosophy is the biography of the philosopher."
                  > >
                  > > eduard,
                  > >
                  > > Let's focus solely on the brain which is an object in and for itself. It
                  > > self-mediates. It evolved and developed a capacity to observe and
                  > > understand
                  > > itself and its environment. This potential was implicit in the brain and
                  > > made explicit through evolution. The brain evolved and became aware of
                  > > itself. Another way to say this is that after the brain discovered
                  > > objects
                  > > outside itself, especially those things it needed to live, the brain
                  > > discovered itself. Evolution is an idea explicating itself. The brain is
                  > > an
                  > > idea of itself, is an object for itself, is its own cause and effect.
                  > > What
                  > > does this imply about everything else that is other than our brain? Yes,
                  > > an
                  > > object is mediated through the brain, and the result is an idea, but the
                  > > mediator is also an idea, the brain idea. The mediator which mediates
                  > > between the object and the brain is the idea of the brain. Without an
                  > > idea
                  > > of the brain as the thinker formulating an idea, an idea about the
                  > > object
                  > > isn't possible. Without objects to
                  > > perceive, including itself, the thinking brain doesn't exist. The brain
                  > > is a
                  > > unity of idea and materia, and long before natural phenomena were
                  > > objects of
                  > > perception they co-evolved with our brains. Do we now say we have no use
                  > > for
                  > > our environment? Because the idea of the brain was implicit in
                  > > phenomena, I
                  > > agree with those who posit that 'idea' is both implicit in nature and
                  > > explicated through a natural brain, a whole.
                  > >
                  > > Mary
                  > >
                  >




                  ------------------------------------

                  Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                  Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                • eduardathome
                  I did not say that you need to see the biochemical process. I am saying that you can t monitor the process. We can think and know we have a brain without
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jan 19, 2013
                    I did not say that you "need" to see the biochemical process. I am saying
                    that you can't monitor the process. We can think and know we have a brain
                    without being aware of the process at the moment thinking occurs. So it
                    cannot be said that the brain is aware of its thinking. If it were aware of
                    its process of thinking [that is, we being aware], then it would have to
                    monitor the process in some fashion.

                    eduard

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Mary
                    Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 3:12 PM
                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [existlist] Re: "Philosophy is the biography of the philosopher."

                    One last thing today. To repeat, being aware that you have a brain, that it
                    is thinking this thought or the other, and neurological scanning, all equate
                    to awareness of a brain. Do you really need to see the biochemical
                    processes to know you have a brain?

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
                    >
                    > I meant to say the thinking function of the brain does exist but only
                    > because it has objects to consider, including itself.
                    >
                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
                    > >
                    > > No, eduard, I said the thinking brain doesn't exist. This is different
                    > > from all the other functions the brain performs. Evolutionary
                    > > development of the brain, and the history of ideas are linear. You want
                    > > to isolate the brain from everything except itself. If you do that it's
                    > > no longer part of a system, neither a system of ideas nor an
                    > > environmental system. If you want a simpler system, that's what you
                    > > prefer, your own script if you will.
                    > >
                    > > Mary
                    > >
                    > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Mary,
                    > > >
                    > > > "Without objects to perceive, including itself, the thinking brain
                    > > > doesn't
                    > > > exist."
                    > > >
                    > > > You are well beyond me. I tend to look at things in a concrete linear
                    > > > fashion. That is why I like Nooism. It doesn't get into stuff at
                    > > > some
                    > > > rarefied level. We think by using our neurons [our brain] and that's
                    > > > it.
                    > > > We don't have to speculate on this or that or some combination until
                    > > > nothing
                    > > > really makes any sense.
                    > > >
                    > > > Consider your statement above. Basically you are saying that if there
                    > > > is no
                    > > > brain, then the brain doesn't exist. Isn't that kinda obvious.
                    > > >
                    > > > It's very simple. Objects exist. They always exist regardless of
                    > > > humans.
                    > > > The brain can "know" an object by means of its sensors. But the
                    > > > "knowing"
                    > > > is only an interpretation largely based on previous learning. Our
                    > > > brain can
                    > > > store the electrochemical information which "represents" the object.
                    > > > Later,
                    > > > in our "thinking" this information may be used in a mental script to
                    > > > produce
                    > > > another thought, a behaviour or whatever.
                    > > >
                    > > > We can be aware of our thinking, as to say that we know when we have
                    > > > thought
                    > > > of something, but we cannot monitor the actual process of thinking.
                    > > > So in a
                    > > > literal sense, one cannot say that the brain is aware of itself. To
                    > > > do so
                    > > > is to anthropomorphise the brain.
                    > > >
                    > > > eduard
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > > From: Mary
                    > > > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:55 AM
                    > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > > > Subject: [existlist] "Philosophy is the biography of the philosopher."
                    > > >
                    > > > eduard,
                    > > >
                    > > > Let's focus solely on the brain which is an object in and for itself.
                    > > > It
                    > > > self-mediates. It evolved and developed a capacity to observe and
                    > > > understand
                    > > > itself and its environment. This potential was implicit in the brain
                    > > > and
                    > > > made explicit through evolution. The brain evolved and became aware of
                    > > > itself. Another way to say this is that after the brain discovered
                    > > > objects
                    > > > outside itself, especially those things it needed to live, the brain
                    > > > discovered itself. Evolution is an idea explicating itself. The brain
                    > > > is an
                    > > > idea of itself, is an object for itself, is its own cause and effect.
                    > > > What
                    > > > does this imply about everything else that is other than our brain?
                    > > > Yes, an
                    > > > object is mediated through the brain, and the result is an idea, but
                    > > > the
                    > > > mediator is also an idea, the brain idea. The mediator which mediates
                    > > > between the object and the brain is the idea of the brain. Without an
                    > > > idea
                    > > > of the brain as the thinker formulating an idea, an idea about the
                    > > > object
                    > > > isn't possible. Without objects to
                    > > > perceive, including itself, the thinking brain doesn't exist. The
                    > > > brain is a
                    > > > unity of idea and materia, and long before natural phenomena were
                    > > > objects of
                    > > > perception they co-evolved with our brains. Do we now say we have no
                    > > > use for
                    > > > our environment? Because the idea of the brain was implicit in
                    > > > phenomena, I
                    > > > agree with those who posit that 'idea' is both implicit in nature and
                    > > > explicated through a natural brain, a whole.
                    > > >
                    > > > Mary
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >




                    ------------------------------------

                    Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                    Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                  • Ramona Josephson
                    eduard, The brain is not isolated from the body; it depends on the body and its external environment. It may or may not think about them while performing
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jan 20, 2013
                      eduard,

                      The brain is not isolated from the body; it depends on the body and its external environment. It may or may not think about them while performing countless autonomic tasks about which it doesn't have to think. Body and brain have evolved together as nature and mind have evolved together. They depend on one another; they form a system, a whole, from which the brain is not isolated. There are always objects for the brain to determine, even if this object is itself, the body, or a dream.  

                      If we are unable to monitor neural processing, how are you certain the brain forms ideas, or dreams, without any input from external objects? 

                      The differences between your brain and mine are not simply which scripts we keep or discard; the differences are attributable to variables in our environments, internal and external, and require observation and analyses regardless of neural processing, in order to determine which differences are genuinely problematic. Yes, speculative reason requires a brain. Yet as obvious as this is, it doesn't happen in isolation. If your brain merely needs itself, why this conversation? I'm thinking our differences are minor, that you think thinking is mechanical but that your politics and sensibilities may be similar, but I think computer analogies are dangerous. I think you think my representational thinking is somehow dangerous. Is the idea that ideas are immanent in objects really that threatening?

                      And if, as you assert, the brain is mechanically processing in isolation from everything else, how are its determinations not subject to skepticism, when determinations which are arrived through input are? Or is that your point, that what this brain determines in isolation is not subject to outside scrutiny? That somehow what the brain does can't affect how we act in and with our environments?

                      Mary



                      ________________________________
                      From: eduardathome <yeoman@...>
                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 2:41 PM
                      Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: "Philosophy is the biography of the philosopher."



                      Mary,

                      Your statement was that one might remove all objects including the thinking
                      brain.  Regardless of what other functions there may be, if your remove the
                      thinking brain then it no longer exists.  You are stating the obvious.

                      But lets look at this aspect of isolation.  I would offer that the brain IS
                      isolated from everything except itself ... in the role of thinking.  If you
                      remove elements of the environment, at what point in the removal or for what
                      object that is removed, does the brain cease to function??  Granted, if you
                      remove the air or some other basic survival element the brain dies, but even
                      here the brain will function until it is actually dead.

                      If you remove the system of ideas, at what point will the brain cease to
                      function??  This is a particularly important question since your proposal of
                      removal of a system of ideas implies that the brain cannot think unless
                      there is some idea that resides elsewhere.  The idea in the apple.  I would
                      submit that that is not the case.  The brain can function in isolation
                      because the thinking is essentially mechanical within itself.  In fact, it
                      does so when we sleep by creating dreams [its own objects].  However, I
                      would further suggest that the reverse is true.  If you remove the thinking
                      brain then the system of ideas will cease to exist.  Your proposal would be
                      similar as to say that if you remove the internet, computers would cease to
                      exist.

                      eduard

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Mary
                      Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 2:12 PM
                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [existlist] Re: "Philosophy is the biography of the philosopher."

                      No, eduard, I said the thinking brain doesn't exist. This is different from
                      all the other functions the brain performs. Evolutionary development of the
                      brain, and the history of ideas are linear. You want to isolate the brain
                      from everything except itself. If you do that it's no longer part of a
                      system, neither a system of ideas nor an environmental system. If you want a
                      simpler system, that's what you prefer, your own script if you will.

                      Mary

                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
                      >
                      > Mary,
                      >
                      > "Without objects to perceive, including itself, the thinking brain doesn't
                      > exist."
                      >
                      > You are well beyond me.  I tend to look at things in a concrete linear
                      > fashion.  That is why I like Nooism.  It doesn't get into stuff at some
                      > rarefied level.  We think by using our neurons [our brain] and that's it.
                      > We don't have to speculate on this or that or some combination until
                      > nothing
                      > really makes any sense.
                      >
                      > Consider your statement above.  Basically you are saying that if there is
                      > no
                      > brain, then the brain doesn't exist.  Isn't that kinda obvious.
                      >
                      > It's very simple.  Objects exist.  They always exist regardless of humans.
                      > The brain can "know" an object by means of its sensors.  But the "knowing"
                      > is only an interpretation largely based on previous learning.  Our brain
                      > can
                      > store the electrochemical information which "represents" the object.
                      > Later,
                      > in our "thinking" this information may be used in a mental script to
                      > produce
                      > another thought, a behaviour or whatever.
                      >
                      > We can be aware of our thinking, as to say that we know when we have
                      > thought
                      > of something, but we cannot monitor the actual process of thinking.  So in
                      > a
                      > literal sense, one cannot say that the brain is aware of itself.  To do so
                      > is to anthropomorphise the brain.
                      >
                      > eduard
                      >
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Mary
                      > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:55 AM
                      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: [existlist] "Philosophy is the biography of the philosopher."
                      >
                      > eduard,
                      >
                      > Let's focus solely on the brain which is an object in and for itself. It
                      > self-mediates. It evolved and developed a capacity to observe and
                      > understand
                      > itself and its environment. This potential was implicit in the brain and
                      > made explicit through evolution. The brain evolved and became aware of
                      > itself. Another way to say this is that after the brain discovered objects
                      > outside itself, especially those things it needed to live, the brain
                      > discovered itself. Evolution is an idea explicating itself. The brain is
                      > an
                      > idea of itself, is an object for itself, is its own cause and effect. What
                      > does this imply about everything else that is other than our brain? Yes,
                      > an
                      > object is mediated through the brain, and the result is an idea, but the
                      > mediator is also an idea, the brain idea. The mediator which mediates
                      > between the object and the brain is the idea of the brain. Without an idea
                      > of the brain as the thinker formulating an idea, an idea about the object
                      > isn't possible. Without objects to
                      > perceive, including itself, the thinking brain doesn't exist. The brain is
                      > a
                      > unity of idea and materia, and long before natural phenomena were objects
                      > of
                      > perception they co-evolved with our brains. Do we now say we have no use
                      > for
                      > our environment? Because the idea of the brain was implicit in phenomena,
                      > I
                      > agree with those who posit that 'idea' is both implicit in nature and
                      > explicated through a natural brain, a whole.
                      >
                      > Mary
                      >

                      ------------------------------------

                      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links


                       
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.