Eva,
Read what I wrote again. I never said that mind produced brain, only that
mind was a process (in parenthesis that brain was a product...not saying a
product OF what...). Also, I didn't say that because one can have brain
without mind that one can have mind without brain...only that if one can
have brain without mind then mind and brain were not dependent on each other.
>>Can you have a brain without mind?
>> (I'm assuming that you will say yes...which states that neither is dependent
>> on the other, mind can exist without brain if brain can exist without mind).
>> How? Mind is a process (brain is a product,,,can you have a process without
>> an end product)!
Actually, I never said that there is mind, at all (your email argument
implies that there is email somewhere, my mind argument just says that there
is a "process" of mind...never that there is a product called mind.) My
argument can be restated: can you have frogs without toads (yes) then you
can have toads without frogs (yes), the presence of frogs is not dependent
on toads (no). What is the process of producing toad-frogs--and can you
have the process without producing anything? What is missing is the
mind/brain connection--we have a process of mind, we have a product called
brain, brain can exist without mind, so what is the process which produces
brain (which I'm not too concerned about) or what is the product of mind
(the process is the product...the process produces itself).
Brett
At 12:04 PM 9/8/97 -0700, you wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Brett Lane Robertson wrote:
>(Anonymous wrote)
>> On what basis do you determine reality, or is reality relevant to you? How
>> do you distinguish the real from the imagined? Do you think you can
>> imagine a pretty picture and magically make it so? Do you have the "God"
>> dream? Do you think that imagined ideals can be realized? The ones
>> who take this path invariably are those without a clue as to the
>> nature of factual existence or how it works.
>Imagining something does not make it so, of course (unless the thing
>imagined is an intangible idea itself). But failing to imagine something
>certainly prevents one from going about creating it effectively. Imagined
>ideals are the only ones which can be realized on purpose.
>> Why do you presume a first cause? That sounds like a preconception to me.
>> ..and what is this mind without a brain? I would say it's probably the
>> ultimate oxymoron. (Anonymous)
>> Anonymous,
>> Lets start with an example: "1+2="...here we have a reality (one) and a
>(rest of 1+2 discussion snipped)
>> So, I assume a prime cause but not it's value; which is not a preconcieved
>> notion, it is a preconcieved process (which processes itself)...and
>> therefore, reality is a process--but not a chaotic one, it is ordered from
>> "beginning" to "end" even if the value for beginning and end are not fixed.
>> And related to the mind/brain question: Can you have a brain without mind?
>> (I'm assuming that you will say yes...which states that neither is dependent
>> on the other, mind can exist without brain if brain can exist without mind).
>> How? Mind is a process (brain is a product,,,can you have a process without
>> an end product)!
>I have to speak up here, as this bit of argument makes no sense
>whatsoever, but several kinds of nonsense. Yes, you can have a brain
>without mind: a dead brain, or the brain of an animal functioning on a
>simple enough level that we do not consider them to be conscious
>(individual results may vary on this latter category). This has nothing
>to do with the question of whether there can be mind without brain.
>That's like saying that since I can have a computer but not send email, I
>can send email without a computer. Non sequitur! The characterization of
>brain as a product of mind is also bizarre; I would characterize
>them in the opposite way, with brain producing mind, or, better yet, call
>them different aspects of one phenomenon.
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Distress, n.:
A disease incurred by exposure to the prosperity of a
friend.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"