to what extent is mind a part of our body?

Well said.

 

In my opinion: the soul or spirit, which is made up of energy, is where our true self exists. Our physical selves are that energy slowed down to a rate visible to the eye. Our minds are a part of our physical self. So our thoughts are manifestations of our spirit and the way it interacts with the environment around it via the vehicle that is our body.

 

i would like to think awareness is not limited to the thought of mind also, but in a less forward mannor.....

i think awareness is not conceivable without cognizance and cognition itself does not need a particular vessel or a physical manifistation at all (in any conceivable way at least) but that also leads back to the univursal.....evidence of absence vs absence of evidence.....and thats a hole nother argument.....

the last argument of a logically taxed religion....and its not a bad one....

 

Exactly how fast was it travelling and is the speed of ourselves constant, if it is constant and you have made notes of the measurements you have taken, you may have discovered a new universal law of nature. If you could explain this further? the scientific world may be able to base a whole branch of science around any observations you have made.
How does this slowed down energy slow itself down? Does it use the earths gravity or the suns? or maybe some different slowing mechanism?
Could we use that energy to fuel our cars and would it be cleaner than fossil fuel. I am just wondering how this energy leaves no traces too that has ever been picked up by instrumentation.

 

The mind cannot exist without the brain. That is obviously true. But does mind only mean brain? If the mind is only physical processes from inside and outside the organism, doesn't things like logic and reason get relativized? We could have developed differently, no one will deny that, so if ideal validities like the laws of logic are relativized (they are just contingencies) how can we say anything is true?

Also, I can imagine things. Consciousness isn't causal; it's intentional. There was no outside sense data to create my imaginary object. Now, you can say "of course not, but there was neurochemicals in your brain that allowed for that experience!" But did they "choose" to have that experience? If so, then it seems like we're bordering on determinism.

 

maybe this will help decide the question

http://illuminations.berkeley.edu/archives/2005/article.php?volume=3&story=1

 

i would have to say to the same extent that your computer's opperating system is part of it's physical hardware! which, after all it isn't. however much it may be dependent upon the hardware's existence for it to run on.

but i also feel, have always felt, that a distinction needs to be made here between awairness and mind. just as with you computer system there is hardware and software, there is a third eliment, that is the whole point and reason for the hardware and software of that box you're setting in front of, and that is YOU, the "end user".

so where is the 'end user' in the mind-brain system? obviously, procceeding from the analogy, an equivelant true self or awairness must of neccessity be outside of the system to BE an end user using it. given an opperating system so user transparent that it is possible to not realize an interface is there, it becomes readily understandable that such a distinction is seldom even immagined, let alone considered.

yes memory is a function of brain, and the software that stores experiences, rom-like in it. but is this of neccessity an indication that awairness is not a thing appart and thus not entirely dependent upon or derived from it?

i'm not claiming a difinative answer, and i can certainly understand the suspectness of what may appear to resemble too closely what many may wish, yet neither is this a compelling reason to rule out an intreguiging possibility entirely.

that our memories, or at least the brain's storage of them, may be as effemeral as our organic substance, yet if, nontangable awairnessess are capable of existing, are not our own, likewise capable of doing so in that manor?

like i say, i don't believe anyone can really be absolutely certain of this, one way or the other, but, well i have more then gut feelings and wishful thinking to suspect this might well be the case.

it has to do with a kind of 'para-memories' to coin a phraise, some of us seem to be born with. and the question that arrises as to where did, could they have, come from?

=^^=
.../\...

 

Hello everybody, thread revisited
I truly believe in consciousness and, especially spirit by now.
just a few questions remind unanswered:
If we are matter and the matter is energy, we have an argument truly ancient: Demokritos, who first discovered "atoms" or particles truly unbreakable, believed that all it is arround us is composed of these particles. some unknown force (lets call it god) would give movement to these particles. and just like browns effect, they keep moving. however, how much energy could such potential particle transfer? therefore lets believe that there is a vacuum in the universe for a reason. the radiation is a good explanation for extra movement of the smallest parts of an atom.
(this could explain not exactly how energy slows down, but how it recycles itself)
another question of consciousness is ethics, which I would like to discuss further. just how conscious have we become, for whoever believes in evolution? too much morals for a bacteria?
another question is our imagination. it is a great point that it is operating freely from our visual world, but just how free it can get, has anyone ever imagined anything we have not seen with our very eyes?

 

stonerbill, i looked for it and found it, and then i kinda lost it. i mean, it's still there, but not as firmly grasped as it could have been. if you want to, don't force it
take it slow

 

and if we are NOT matter, which is my position, but only interface with it, through an opperating system and applications called mind ...

we are none the less responsible, and feel, and experience, what we create of this tangable world in the proccess

and yes i've experienced in my immagination and dreams, kinds of spaces and things, ineret and otherwise, which my, not to be over modest about it, somewhat extensive vocabulary, lacks words and phraises to translate into.

=^^=
.../\...

 

I propose that current knowledge of both mind and body (specifically the brain) is inadequate to say for certain what the exact relationship is between the two. At best all we can say is that the two seem to influence each..