Quote:
Originally posted by H Caulfield
What do you guys think: Is the mind something different than the brain?
|
That's a more direct question.
To my mind (har har!), the distinction between the brain and the mind is simply that the mind is an abstraction of the brain, the perceived sum of the parts. This is analogous to comparing oil paints and a blank canvas to a finished piece of art. Are they the same? Yes and no. The ingredients are the same, but the "art" is the arrangement of those ingredients to produce an effect, and with it, more perceived value. Arrange the ingredients another way, and something entirely different and unique is produced.
There seems to be a distinct separation of mind and brain. Take, for instance, the fact that it is possible to go completely batty without any (known) physical change in the brain matter. A person can be forever altered in mind without their brain being physically altered. Does this demonstrate a separation, or is it just that the physical changes are too tiny and difficult to measure?
I guess the important question in regards to these experiments is, Is the non-physical "mind" capable of affecting the physical world? I think so... but in limited, indirect ways. For instance, when I become ill, I can will myself to feel better, and I do. As a result, illness is rarely a problem for me, because I choose to feel well. But one could counter that assertion by noting that it is the mind which caused me to "feel" ill in the first place. It's an impossible question to answer, because it is abstractions thrown in the pot with perceptions and opionions, with no solid facts to back anything.
In regards to the Princeton experiments, I actually don't think that this is a demonstration of the power of the mind. If it were, I could bend my mind on changing the binary data in my computer processor right here, right now, and cause fatal math errors. Here, let me try....
See? Noth