Mind is much more than psychology.

Jr, sure, in a sequential latency of time succession of events yes. However, this sequence is analyzed pro an inductive method, the mind of here and now, is analyzed through this developed mind, not through as originally posited. This is the difference of the analysis ‘in terms of’. so we are really both: right and wrong.

Agreed. A meaningless question on its own.

In that case, i misunderstood him and sorry for that too.

with love,
sanjay

Yes, the answer is still the same; yes.

with love,
sanjay

Jr and Orb,

I do not think that both questions are the same, or at least not perceived the same.

Most of the modern philosophers/intellectuals consider mind not as a real entity, but only a hypothetical one. They say that it is only the brain, which has actual existence. It is capable of manifesting thoughts and emotions, thus creates and maintains a particular set of congestion of such ideas that remains roughly the same all the time. This is what they all mind, and psychology is the behavior caused by it.

In the words of Serle, Brain causes minds.

But, i am not saying this. I am taking mind as an real entity, and only thoughts/psychology as a hypothetical one. To me, it is not the brain that produces thoughts, but the mind. The job of the brain is only to convey those thoughts to the body to act upon. Brain is nothing but a mediator between the mind and the body. It is merely a messenger, not an originator.

with love,
sanjay

Zinnat, The difference between mind as an ‘entity’ and it’s function qua psychological process is, by logical extension minimal, if any. The brain, is an entity, inasmuch it is a physiological mass. The same thing can not be said of the mind. The mind consists of the brain’s functions, which are manifested by the psychological processes, without which the difference could not be made in the first place. Seeing a duality between brain and mind, brings in the epistemological duality, which has been denied by materialists. So, the question only resolves within an axiomatic of establishing an inductive proof, versus one of defining what implicates the definition. That’s all there is. it can go either way depending on either versions.

No. Just the reverse is true.

You can know something about psychology because - and only because - of your mind, spirit, or ghost (or however you want to call it in English), but never because of your psyche, soul, or even psychology.

Obe (Orb), you should say to Zinnat that you are an Occidental (thus: Faustian) materialist. But being a materialist doesen’t automatically mean being right, being intelligent, being wise, being a God, … but does probably mean being a Godwannabe.

Arminius: definitions do not mean anything, including the various isms, except by virtue of their application. I think the spirit may originally posited as some entity, and even psychology can be shown to be something apart from a material , it, intelligence does not necessarily dictate, it’s consistency, except perhaps some measure of it. In this way, mind can be defined as the psychology which further down the line postscripted it, before that, mind could be arguably consist of an all inclusive brain. The soul in the machine, is the prior idea of a predefenitional duality, only to be ascribed to variously differing definitions. neither material or immaterial way of approaching it is right, or wrong, so the argument rests on both :a definitive difference, or, an approximated analogy.
It leans heavily on philosophy of mind, whereby You Yourself explicate various meanings, like soul, etc.

Another way of putting it is this: The concept of ‘mind’ preceeded the study of psychology. Psychology could be seen as inclusive within mind, but only since the time psychology became what it is now, the study of the functions of the brain. originally philosophy it’s self included what we call science today, therefore the same can be said of philosophy containing all the other studies dealing with mind. but, we can only see this retrospectively , wherein lies the catch. differentiations of functions determine how we define and prioritize function. Mind denoted no such psychology, that could be said to be prioritized, since such would be based on a presupposition not existing at that time. if so it becomes a revers , after the fact hypothetical, begging a sequential time dependent argument, which could not be pre-supposed. but this not deter from arguing this way, to show an inclusivity of psychology within mind, as a presupposition. Nothing wrong with this type of thinking, but it becomes a conditional pre-supposition
The fact that my vote is in the minority position should not deter me, as was Yours a minority position within the question of whether machines will eliminate all human beings. my vote was then, within the majority opinion,the argument here, being, is that a minority or majority opinion has no bearing on the truth or falsity obased on a search for probable outcome.

Definitions “do not mean anything”?
Why are you then posting on a philosophy webforum?

:laughing:

Except by virtue of their application, was the conditional premiss. if we define some thing, we point or signal to that thing, and give the definition value. there are valueless definitions where we assign arbitrary value without a useful assignment. the mind is something like soul we use them as further vessels for other definitions. Such as, the mind consits of the soul, or some process which goes on in the brain. Of course, as You may have already guessed, I am not really a positivist-materialist, I am using the tools of meaning, since that is the basis of Your interpretation into meaning. Myposting a may be variably meaningless, but there are schools of prescribing meaning,with variable associations, the minima of which is pure redundancy, and the maxima pure entropy. Meaning varies between these two asymptotes, and is ascribed or denoted with interpretation. I wish You the best in this Holiday Season.

You are supporting Serle’s or Freud’s viewpoint.

But, besides mere definitions, i am asserting something entirely different. I am not taking it as a dulity issue.

I am saying that mind is also made of matter, in the same way which the brain is made. Though, both matters are different. And, the mind is not derived from brain’s functions. On the contrary, thoughts are originally manifested in the mind, not in the brain.

For more clarification, mind has independence existence than the brain. It does not need the brain to survive. Mind (and consciousness) predates brain, not the other way around.

Secondly, as far as i know, my viewpoint is not supported by materialists. Or, may be i got it wrong.

with love,
sanjay

Is it right that for you truth and falsitiy have no value?

The change of the majority/minority-relation you mentioned is interesting. And currently both majority/minority-relations are about 80%/20% (do you remember my texts about the 80/20-relation?).

Mind is not like soul.

Oh, no, Obe, please! Mind and soul, or mind and brain, or soul (psyche) and brain are not the same! … Never!

Thank you, the same to you!

And don’t forget this (b.t.w.):

Cheers!

:slight_smile:

I neither know much nor interested in these confusing definitions, which go round and round.

Let me clear what i am trying to say.

To me, the classification is very simple. There are or can be only two types of materials, that can exist; changeable and non-changeable.

Anything that is open to change is not real but illusion, no matter what it is. That includes both mind and brain. Then, it boils down to who predates whom and what lasts more. And, the answer in both the cases is mind.

The only thing that non-changeable or eternal is the consciousness. Thus, that is only true matter that exists in the cosmos, rest all is illusion.

I do not think that one may call this materialism. This is something closer to what Berkeley’ suggested a long ago, though not exactly the same.

with love,
sanjay

  Mind and Soul and brain are of course different. And the difference may be that one stays the same and the other does not.  yet what stay the same out of that list? The brain? No, it degrades with age. Mind? It certainly changes.  But how is mind different from consciousness? And how is the soul different? I can say, 'mindfullness of soul or my soul, or 'soulfulness of my mind,perhaps', but do not these thoughts boil down to consciousness or awareness of something we call the soul or a mind?  It is very difficult to misunderstand what is meant by mind, yet it is very illusive, because all we have to go by is how we are using it.  for instance, when some one says. Mind your manners, or mind the store, it means differently than if I were to say, my mind is somewhere else. Then again, we can say do You mind if I tell You have no mind in this matter? what are we implying? What is meant by mind, is not some entity, but a state, of mind. it is not some thing, but a state.  but cannot something similar said of the soul as when describing the soul?  A pure soul can be perceived as subsisting in a state of grace, for instance.  the content or the vessel of mindfullness of this state of grace is a pure soul.  I see no other way to arrive at meaning here, of truth or falsity, thane as ascribing meaning to a chain of meanings, neither of which are of the same or even similar meanings. They change, within differing contexts, and differently overlapping chains of implied meanings. 

the mind can similarly construe a psychology of meaningful thoughts, events, or what have You, they can predicate meaning in how these changing meanings shade and envelope each other in posckets of sub meanings. I see no way out of a definitional grid,nw here shades overlap and become what they are by virtue of one shade changing the overall color thus produced. This is why change can not be attributed as illicit in it’s own criteria of meaning, it is dependent on the sequential shades of change without which they become explicit, and meaningless.
When we say ‘my mind is inside my brain’ is a good example, because we are using words which indicate an implicit location, whereas no one really knows where the mind is located. it looks to me as if the mind was both inside and outside our brains. mind may be even extemporaneous to any mind, maybe as a soul, it may exist in a world not of our understanding or perception. So where is psychology then? In books? In our minds? Psychology is not a thing until it is applied with the understanding that it will change the way we perceive, objectify and use their principles. a psychological text, in this sense is extemparenious to our understanding, in that sense it is neither in our brains or minds, it is simply a usable text. Of course the concept of mind came before the concept of psychology, but it was implicit in it as a possibility. so they were contemporaneous.

Arminius, yes how can I forget the OUZO, which is great help in dealing with double vision, it conflates reality with illusion, identity with difference, and the duality becomes as simple and unitary as the cogito ergo sum becoming esse est percipii. perceiving mind and brain similarly in terms of a consciousness of function, may be an ulterior process originating from the Creation it’s self. the problem is, we are all God wannabe’s in your words , and we fail to realize that the God head we individually seeking in neither here or there, within individual egos, but in something akin within the design of the grand scheme of things.
The mind and the Soul lost their usefullness, because of we have been robbed of our faith, and psychology became the emphasis in seeking the grand design, within the alienated and divided soul we suffered as a consequence of losing our being , within the Great Design. It is a new way to recapture the lost soul we once Unitarian, and individually possessed.

Zinnat, consciousness is no guaranty of changeless ness, consciousness is not an object, it has an objective, and that objective is eternally changing. how can that not be, if the very objects we become conscious of, change as well? Your thema would be truly immutable, if, again we could posit an aeternum where certain objectives could be guaranteed. however the big picture offers no such guarantees, we surmise that since we can not locate them within our own fragmented subjectivity. Our objective to unify points toward a propensity, but not a definite object, place or understanding. Therefore psychology has an objective to unify , and to bring into a focus of overlapping elements of subjectivity, which we gather to cause the illusionary nature of reality. It is the nature of man to bring into alignment all the disparaging elements, so that the mind can conceive relationships which occur commonly between the soul, the mind, the consciousness, so as to produce a perceivable Object. we call that God.

The problem with the psycholgy is that it has no real object because nobody knows what psyche really is, means, how it can be defined. … and so on.

Brain is a natural, especially a biological, more especially a neurological object, soul is a cultural, religious, theological, philosophical object, and mind is a cultural, semiotic, linguistic, theological (partly also religious), philosophical object. According to the psychologists “psyche” is a psychological object because psychologists say that “psyche” is something between brain, soul, and mind; but why do they hide their object if they have one? The answer is that they have no object, or at least no real object. According to this we have the same problem with the “psyche” as all our ancestors had - except one point: since the occidental modernity psychology and especially sociology have been becoming the main part of the new theology and especially the new religion because the old theology and especially the old religion have been becoming the losers. This refers mainly to the occidental culture, but more and more also to the other cultures on our planet.