The Mind-Body Problem

[gekokujo]

"called" a rectangle, mooch: how a rectangle is represented is how a rectangle is conceived.

and on the contrary, the mind's being limited to conceiving the extremes or incompatibility of the extremes of physical objects or the properties thereof shows that the mind is still very much subject to limits, it is unable to radically depart from what is fed into it. positing a collision between an unstoppable version of the stoppable and the immovable variant of the movable isn't exactly what'd be called creative.

[Ischaramoochie]

Originally Posted by HBB

Found some time...


Agreed. It is impossible to observe the interaction if one of 'interactants' is non-material. This is precisely my point and I have to admit this appeals to me not because it can be proven but because it is impossible to prove. Im partial to 'pretty' theories that mere empirics cannot pin down. I dont remember who it is who said, 'If it cannot be understood, make it prominent' or something like that. Humanity is defined by what we cannot know.

Anyway, rejecting 4, since we cannot know the cause but only the effect is, I think, unavailable for discussion but available only for contemplation.


Think of the body as an ultrasophisticated machine that upgrades itself to be able to access more and more parts of the code in the software. It is also subject to entropy that makes some parts of the code unavailable.


The self rests in neither the software nor the hardware. The self rests in the interaction. It is the interaction that gives us the sense of self--the sense that I know it was I who got drunk, that my thoughts and memories are my own and not someone else's, that that's me in the mirror, and that's me in the old elementary school picture.

there are only two problams i see with this approach:

first is that it assumes that although software-like mind interacts with the hardware-like body, the interaction between the two gives rise to this thing we call the self or consciousness. while there is nothing wrong with accepting three terms, there is the issue of being superflous. i am neither my body nor my mind, but the interaction between the two. this means that there is a changing body and and an unchanging mind giving rise to a dynamic consciousness. damaging the body does not affect the mind, but only the interaction between the two, and hence the change in selfhood. on the other hand, the destruction of the body destroys the self but not necessarily the mind. the mind would live on in spite of bodily death. however, as to what the nature of this mind is, we are still in the dark.

second, this theory relies heavily on the existence of memory and continuity of experience. i remain to be the same self i was before since i can remember a continuity of experience from that point in time until the present. good. however, problems arise when we are confronted with forgetfullness. am i still the person i was last night considering that i permanently forgot about my turning off the alarm clock this morning (for which i would hate "myself" because i woke up late)? was the person who turned off the alarm clock this morning the same person who slept last night? if i don't remember myself turning off the alarm clock, and the person who turned off the alarm clock is unaware of my existence in his immediate future, then can we really say that we are the same person?

[Ischaramoochie]

Originally Posted by gekokujo

"called" a rectangle, mooch: how a rectangle is represented is how a rectangle is conceived.

and on the contrary, the mind's being limited to conceiving the extremes or incompatibility of the extremes of physical objects or the properties thereof shows that the mind is still very much subject to limits, it is unable to radically depart from what is fed into it. positing a collision between an unstoppable version of the stoppable and the immovable variant of the movable isn't exactly what'd be called creative.

err, i beg to differ. calling something material a rectangle simply means to say that a certain material is shaped like a rectangle - not that the material itself is the rectangle. thus, a wooden rectangle is simply wood that is shaped like a rectangle, but the wood itself does not comprise the rectangle. the concept "rectangle" does not lie in the material which represents it. do not confuse the moon with the finger that points to it.

again i would digress. the collision example was merely to satisfy your request for an example of something impossible to conceive. the mind is capable of departing from what is being fed into it. the ability to express thoughts in an almost infinite combination of words is an example of such a creative faculty. i'm sure you'd agree that you haven't been taught to construct every sentence that you have spoken. you are given a few basic rules and from there construct sentences to convey meaning. the rules of grammar even allow for the construction of descriptions for non-physical but still valid conceptual interactions (i.e. "colorless green ideas sleep furiously").

[gekokujo]

i was talking about the Escher people, sir: Escher the illusionist used his knowledge to make 'impossible' shapes, the people who made those computer images simply copied what Escher had set out to represent, they even have a computer program churning-out more 'impossibilities' - how more possible can a body get?

this next example still doesn't represent a true 'departure': an infinite combination of words is still a combination of the familiar. poetry is creative, no doubt, but still nothing beyond the pale of possibility is created. new isn't synonymous with impossible.

[HBB]

Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie

there are only two problams i see with this approach:

first is that it assumes that although software-like mind interacts with the hardware-like body, the interaction between the two gives rise to this thing we call the self or consciousness. while there is nothing wrong with accepting three terms, there is the issue of being superflous. i am neither my body nor my mind, but the interaction between the two. this means that there is a changing body and and an unchanging mind giving rise to a dynamic consciousness. damaging the body does not affect the mind, but only the interaction between the two, and hence the change in selfhood. on the other hand, the destruction of the body destroys the self but not necessarily the mind. the mind would live on in spite of bodily death. however, as to what the nature of this mind is, we are still in the dark.

The 'nature' of the mind implies that mind has a 'nature,' that is, that it has some perceivable and conveyable characteristic; something my theory doesnt subscribe to. Mind doesnt have a nature (or it doesnt have a nature we can perceive). It just is. According to mystics who claim to have encountered this 'universal mind' or 'universal self', all attributes become meaningless during this experience. Even the term 'non-material' becomes meaningless.

second, this theory relies heavily on the existence of memory and continuity of experience. i remain to be the same self i was before since i can remember a continuity of experience from that point in time until the present. good. however, problems arise when we are confronted with forgetfullness. am i still the person i was last night considering that i permanently forgot about my turning off the alarm clock this morning (for which i would hate "myself" because i woke up late)? was the person who turned off the alarm clock this morning the same person who slept last night? if i don't remember myself turning off the alarm clock, and the person who turned off the alarm clock is unaware of my existence in his immediate future, then can we really say that we are the same person?

The theory does not rely that heavily on memory but on an a priori sense of self. Although memory, in the case of a fully functioning hardware, does provide the continuity from the past to the present, the sense of self is not dependent on memory. When something happens to us, how do we know that it is to us that it is happening? When we think a thought, how do we know that it is our thought? It is this sense of self that tells us this.

In the case of memory loss, then yes, an elementary school picture might be unrecognizeable, but still the sense of self remains: "I am looking at a picture of somebody I dont recognize." This is given by the interaction of the mind and body.

And while we're at it...

Originally Posted by gekokujo

how about something impossible to conceive?

A koan, gekokujo? An exercise to test the limits and try to bust through them. The problem is, once you go beyond the limits, you can't convey the experience to others, that's why koan answers are meaningless on the surface.

A monk asked Zhaozhou, "What is the meaning of Bodhidharma's coming from the west?". Zhaozhou said "The cypress tree in the courtyard"

A traveller asked Ischaramoochie, "Can we conceive of something with no reference to our experience?" Ischaramoochie said, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

[gekokujo]

Originally Posted by HBB

A koan, gekokujo? An exercise to test the limits and try to bust through them. The problem is, once you go beyond the limits, you can't convey the experience to others, that's why koan answers are meaningless on the surface.

A monk asked Zhaozhou, "What is the meaning of Bodhidharma's coming from the west?". Zhaozhou said "The cypress tree in the courtyard"

A traveller asked Ischaramoochie, "Can we conceive of something with no reference to our experience?" Ischaramoochie said, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

a lot of assumptions you're making here, HBB

1. the problem
2. the problem is...
3. the limits
4. you go beyond them
5. the experience
6. you can't convey the experience to others
7. that's why koan answers are meaningless on the surface
8. koan answers are meaningless on the surface

but we have this thing called subjectivity: to you the answers appear meaningless - but how certain are you that that would hold true for others? how certain are you that those others would be testing their limits to get satisfying meaning out of a koan? - assuming, of course, that others assume "limits" as you do: don't koans always assume, that while they might befuddle most, others will grasp meaning effortlessly?

why assume meaninglessness then? isn't it enough to be told that others will find (if not experience) meaning? what proof do you require of their experience to make you certain?

[HBB]

Subjectivity. Exactly my point. And the reason I brought it up is because I dont see why the mind being grounded to our experience would mean the mind is material.

Originally Posted by gekokujo

...the mind's being limited to conceiving the extremes or incompatibility of the extremes of physical objects or the properties thereof shows that the mind is still very much subject to limits, it is unable to radically depart from what is fed into it.

You assumed the mind is limited and is unable to depart from what is fed into it, but there is a whole discipline that seeks to go beyond these limits. The koan is there to force you to go beyond what is fed into you. And yes, Im assuming that some people are successful at it, even though you or I are not. But Im not assuming it is meaningless. On the contrary. Im assuming that those people do find meaning in it. It may be meaningless to me, because Im not him and can't be him (subjectivity), but he gets it, and yes, sometimes effortlessly. What does the cypress tree in the courtyard mean? He gets it even though I dont.

[gekokujo]

ah, another set of assumptions introduced (or reiterated?)

9. I assumed the mind is limited and is unable to depart from what is fed into it
10. what is fed into it
11. there is a whole discipline that seeks to go beyond these limits
12. these limits
13. The koan is there to force you to go beyond what is fed into you
14. what is fed into you

but you neglect one of the very first things I asserted

Originally Posted by gekokujo

one can even learn “new” things without even adding new information, the mind of a detective recapitulates previous experiences to arrive at a reasoned guess despite the specifics of the present case being hidden

thus, I include the totality of what has been fed into the mind (previous experiences) as the basis of reasoned guesses, not just what your master told you ten seconds ago.

previously you assumed

8. koan answers are meaningless on the surface

of course the above implies that a koan isn’t inherently meaningless. but I nevertheless prefer that you state that openly, which you did

Originally Posted by HBB

But Im not assuming it is meaningless. On the contrary. Im assuming that those people do find meaning in it. It may be meaningless to me, because Im not him and can't be him (subjectivity), but he gets it, and yes, sometimes effortlessly. What does the cypress tree in the courtyard mean? He gets it even though I dont.

let us return to my assumption

Originally Posted by gekokujo

...the mind's being limited to conceiving the extremes or incompatibility of the extremes of physical objects or the properties thereof shows that the mind is still very much subject to limits, it is unable to radically depart from what is fed into it.

an assumption, of course, based on experience; you offered the experience of koan as an example of an experience to the contrary

Originally Posted by HBB

A koan, gekokujo? An exercise to test the limits and try to bust through them. The problem is, once you go beyond the limits, you can't convey the experience to others, that's why koan answers are meaningless on the surface.

but then you admitted that meaninglessness is but subjective, that what may limit one may be a window of opportunity for another - therefore "limits" are but subjective too, since the supposedly intractable brevity of a koan is but your example of these limits.

so now do you see my point, HBB: that perceptions of limits are subjective, that what one believes is a leap beyond the world is but a walk in the park for another - thus nobody leaves the world, only others' subjective perceptions of that world; in my assumptions, my friend, there’s room for Buddhas and Einsteins. thus they remain secure.

[coolmantaho]

kujo:

because it’s the other way around, scientific concepts “hang” on what we are able to determine about the world: it’s the experience of the body’s responses pain and anger which imply the concepts pain and anger, it’s the experience of the physical phenomena of falling bodies which implies the law of gravity, it’s the experience that bodies in space don’t simply ‘fall’ as much as observers perceive their successively (re-)appearing in a string of points and interpret this as motion/directionality that dis-implies the absoluteness of classical physics and implies the relativity of space-time – and that may not be the end of the story: we are beholden to the world, not our concepts of it (are you implying Kant?)…

…which means that the materialist position is not simply “logically-derived”, rather it is logically-implied by what we have determined about the world at this point…

okie-dokie... i'll agree with you on this on regarding that experience founds what we determine about the world. but moreso that this, its interpretation that makes the entire difference. the physical phenomena of falling bodies can be construed in a near infinite methods: could it be a). that it implies a universal force acting on the object to pull it down b). that 'that phenomenon' is simply how the world works... that its resistance to falling is the actual force working, c). that 'divinities' are making them fall. what we experience, is merely a perception of an event that we allege to be 'external' to our self. and what we percieve (experience) about this material world is by no means absolute. i'll digress slightly into science here: two persons will see different colors differently (they have different retinas), and this degree is further enhanced when we compare the sight of a person and an animal. our sense of vision is colored and singular... that of a fly might be monochromatic and perforated. and for the record, a fly's very perception of time is said to be (according to some biologists/physiologists) drastically different from our conception of time.

our interpretation of our perceptions makes all the difference on how we 'experience' them.

how can we be sure then, that was we experience is real? that what exists of an alleged material world truly exists, when each being experiences a different picture of what this reality is?

moreover, though all our abstractions are founded on a material, external reality (that we assume, our perceptions are truthful regarding), that we can transcend our mere perceptions to attach, and even create concepts (those these may not depict a true rendition of an external reality) implies something further. a system cannot be said to operate outside its own system, as a computer cannot be said to operate functions which have not been pre-programmed into it. if this is so, then how is it possible that humans can (and do), create 'demon worlds' in their imaginations which may often defy all external perceptions, and introduce elements unpresent in a material reality.

take deities for example. as far as we know, the concept of a God doesn't manifest in objective reality as i know it. how can primitive humans have come up with the concepts of spirits?

on the definition of 'exist', i disagree with you that abstract concepts do not exist. i don't want to get into an argument regarding semantics here, but to 'exist' implies that something 'happens', possesses a sense of 'being'. abstract concepts do exist in that sense: that they can happen; not exactly perhaps in an external, material reality (nor may they truly mirror the material), but in our minds. if they did not exist, they could not happen, and would be incapable of entering our thoughts.

where was i again? oh yeah, kant... nope haven't read him. i don't have any ideas what his philosophy entails... though i think i may have a vague, fuzzy idea. as i said before, i'm only new to this philo-kinda-jig. i'm currently reading my first philo book now, however: a reader on nietzsche.

on “expatiating” each and every: to be true to itself, even if science were to account for 100 out of 100 tricky problems listed, it must still assume that questions no. 101 to infinity remain unanswered - just that nobody’s asked them yet…

…and even then scientists are still obliged to ask a final question: “does anyone have a better answer?”

okie.

“neural axes”: hey, that makes sense! esp. with regards to memory, it’d be more efficient to map key coordinates on Anna Kournikova’s face and body (“impressions”) and reassemble them on a generic sprite model labeled “goddess” should the need arise. might be worth exploring how that’s related to the subjectivity question.

heh... it can also explain why we cannot even begin to picture minkowski-space-time. the 'neural-axes' that our brain has only corresponds to three axes on a mapping grid... oh well...

what’s an immaterial aspect? and wouldn’t manifesting into or becoming something else be a form of interacting with that something else?

maybe i typed this a bit wrong: instead, our minds apply interpretations to external things. in this sense (though they originate from the mind) we percieve them to manifest on the object under discussion. we can see the stars at night to represent manifold things: whether romantic, spiritual, scientific, or annoying. and these interpretations that we impose on the perception under study often has nothing material to do with them.

on your definition of the mind:i think that your information that brain damage can also be taken to strengthen the belief that causing damage to the body also injures the mind. it can be construed to actually solidify the belief that the mind and body of different constituents are actually intertwined, and interact with each other.

on the converse of brain damage comes mental illness. as i'm informed, mental illness doesn't specifically manifest due to damage to the brain. and yet, mental illness produces habits of mind and character that ultimately induce harm to the body of that individual.

even more perplexing is the phenomenon of multiple personalities: how can more than one mind, occupy only one body? one might say that its because that we only use but a fraction of our total brain. yet, there was once a book i saw about the true story of a single (meaning, only one brain) person possessing approximately 16 distinct personalities! even if its said that we use only 1/7 or 1/8 or our brains, the numbers appear too overwhelming.

moochie: i have a sort of feel for your 5th proposition, but it still remains indistinct for me. could you please elaborate?

[gekokujo]

cool: thanks for the reply, i'll be studying it first.

Ischaramoochie: ignore my objections, sir, do continue the following

the fifth proposition is:

5. Each of the four previous propositions is true only to a certain extent.

...a penrose rectangle:

[coolmantaho]

it be off for a few days. so take your time.

btw: the penrose rectangle seems like a series of paper foldings just put on top of each other's corners...

[Ischaramoochie]

Originally Posted by coolmantaho

...moochie: i have a sort of feel for your 5th proposition, but it still remains indistinct for me. could you please elaborate?

the 5th proposition, as with the picture of the Penrose Rectangle (square?) simply means that each of the four propositions, though valid, are not absolute, but merely hold true only to a certain extent. that is, if we want to preserve them all. each of the four corners of the rectangle can be manifested in reality, just as each of the four propositions are justifiable by themselves. in the same manner, all of the propositions or rectangle corners taken together would conflict and cancel each other out. the fifth proposition (the fuzzy solution) assigns different and variable truth values to each one, such that the law of excluded middle is not violated (two things can be and not be, at the same time, and in the same respect - as long as they are not absolute).

the second picture of the Penrose Rectangle (taken from a different angle) justifies this fifth proposition: we would be able to "create" an impossible object if we slightly change the way we view things. in this case, the angle measurements used to construct the rectangle take into account how our perception works and are adjusted accordingly. we are able to "see" a Penrose Rectangle, even though what we "perceive" is not (yes, seeing and perceiving are different). thus, the impossible object exists in our mind, but has no correspondence to any physical reality.

what gekokujo has done is simply to adust the truth-value of the proposition #2 to the extreme minimum in order to preserve the maximum truth-value for the other three. this is not to say that he is wrong or right in doing so, but simply that his is simply one way of solving the problem, not the only way.

[gekokujo]

Originally Posted by coolmantaho

our interpretation of our perceptions makes all the difference on how we 'experience' them.

of course. ergo, “subjectivity”.

how can we be sure then, that was we experience is real? that what exists of an alleged material world truly exists, when each being experiences a different picture of what this reality is?

we can't ever be "sure", but we can justify our interpretation by testing it. for example, you offered the following

Originally Posted by coolmantaho

the physical phenomena of falling bodies can be construed in a near infinite methods: could it be a). that it implies a universal force acting on the object to pull it down b). that 'that phenomenon' is simply how the world works... that its resistance to falling is the actual force working, c). that 'divinities' are making them fall.

the modern view of the phenomenon of falling bodies is not just a scrap of paper gathering dust in a museum nor a concept relegated to being a subject of occasional philosophical jousts; rather, it has been applied countless times to real-world problems in fields as diverse as aerodynamics, space travel, construction, and warfare.

the briefest glance at c), otoh, immediately eliminates it as an example of a mere “observation”, in that it posits the existence of entities (“divinities”) considerably more complex yet less evident than a mere force acting on objects; therefore if a proponent of c) were to “test” his favored thesis, first thing he needs to do is determine if such entities exist – or, failing that, at the very least he is obliged to justify how his belief in such entities arose: i don’t think falling rocks cuts the mustard.

a system cannot be said to operate outside its own system, as a computer cannot be said to operate functions which have not been pre-programmed into it.

this is the same point of contention bet. yours truly and HBB; like the latter, you have succumbed to the assumption if not misconception of arbitrarily defining what is a function of the brain and what is not: you claim that “creating” objects which do not exist outside the mind is an example of the brain operating, akin to a computer, “outside of its own system”, that it is an example of a function which has “not been pre-programmed into it”.

a neurologist who claims that all the brain’s functions have been mapped is a charlatan, one who claims that imagination cannot be counted among those functions is being naïve; it is the insistence on belittling the brain’s abilities which exposes the non-materialist as the true absolutist, since he cannot defend his position without insisting on an absolute limit regarding what the brain can and can’t do; otoh, it is the materialist’s calling to merely identify those functions as they are observed, not dictate what they ought (or ought not) to be.

besides, the space between our ears does not contain a vacuum: if abstract concepts are indeed floating around in there, they’re floating in soft tissue filled with fibrous connections and traversed hundreds of times per second by electrical signals; as said earlier, a memory, a dream or a fantasy has no less an objective existence than the external world or the medium which contains it.

how can primitive humans have come up with the concepts of spirits?

I had a rather protracted discussion about this a short time ago. suffice to say that primitive man did not conceive of spirits, rather he believed there were powerful beings hidden in inaccessible places like mountaintops, above the clouds, underground, etc. it was only when man’s store of knowledge increased to dispel the possibility that the top of Mt. Olympus is inhabited by horny deities did people start contemplating spirits beyond human perception, though still not above possessing comfortably-familiar human qualities.

it can also explain why we cannot even begin to picture minkowski-space-time. the 'neural-axes' that our brain has only corresponds to three axes on a mapping grid...

nevertheless, Minkowski did “picture” the latter…and so did his pupil…

maybe i typed this a bit wrong: instead, our minds apply interpretations to external things. in this sense (though they originate from the mind) we percieve them to manifest on the object under discussion. we can see the stars at night to represent manifold things: whether romantic, spiritual, scientific, or annoying. and these interpretations that we impose on the perception under study often has nothing material to do with them.

of course. like i said, the use of an objective reference does not imply that the concept implied from it would possess an objective or non-subjective identity; you should talk to a judge I know…

on your definition of the mind:i think that your information that brain damage can also be taken to strengthen the belief that causing damage to the body also injures the mind. it can be construed to actually solidify the belief that the mind and body of different constituents are actually intertwined, and interact with each other.

the materialist position acknowledges only the constituent of which we have ample evidence, that is, the material; dualists, otoh, posit an additional constituent: again, it is their obligation to justify how their belief in that constituent arose, rather than piggyback on observations which are readily accounted for by un-complex explanations.

on the converse of brain damage comes mental illness. as i'm informed, mental illness doesn't specifically manifest due to damage to the brain. and yet, mental illness produces habits of mind and character that ultimately induce harm to the body of that individual.

if you are observing that people who suffer damage to the brain don’t automatically go insane, it is my view that mental illness is a failure to adjust or adapt to certain trying circumstances, which may be facilitated by a hidden factor present at birth, say, a missing gene, a relatively undeveloped feature in the frontal lobe, etc.: I do not call this hidden factor a “defect”, since it’s effects if any may not manifest at all if one is not exposed to a specific set of conditions, of course substance abuse may alter this by widening the scope or lowering the degree of “trying” circumstance necessary to trigger an adverse reaction.

even more perplexing is the phenomenon of multiple personalities: how can more than one mind, occupy only one body? one might say that its because that we only use but a fraction of our total brain. yet, there was once a book i saw about the true story of a single (meaning, only one brain) person possessing approximately 16 distinct personalities! even if its said that we use only 1/7 or 1/8 or our brains, the numbers appear too overwhelming.

Dissociative Identity Disorder is but one of an entire family of effects whose common pattern is the loss or impairment of the brain’s ability to form or recall relationships between objects, or integrate these relationships into a coherent picture; contrary to popular belief, knowledge on the subject is so voluminous and so numbingly routine in its retelling that I can’t get myself hyped-up to recount it here, so just check the link if my reply didn’t put you to sleep.

[HBB]

Ive read your post, gekokujo. Will post a reply soon, inshallah. Busy. A nice day, everyone have. (Opening na ng Star Wars, anaknantokwa. Ahehehe.)

[coolmantaho]

koku:

i was lucky to be able to access pex today... but i still can't reply for a few days. thanks for the reply. i feel honored you made such a long reply for me. maybe i can answer you in 3 days. me vacationig

chara:

like koku, thanks for the reply. let me off a few days before i can reply.

[amelia]

I have a major suspicion most posters in this thread are male. Your logical arguments are outstanding. I appreciate this thread, though.

Just a female perspective, from someone who studied theology but not philosophy--

Imho, in the physical dimension, Spirit is Matter, and Matter is Spirit.

(This means also that in the dimension of the formless and the spiritual, there is no such thing as Matter, because there's no time, space or form. But I want to distinguish that for our current thread.)

Many human problems arise when we separate the two and negate or elevate one over the other. But there is actually no distinction. This means, Matter must be respected because of the very presence of Spirit, and Spirit can be understood only due to its presence in Matter.

That is why when doing Zen, one can feel a stone breathing.

That is why when a person dies, its corpse lightens up very very very slightly -- according to actual scientific studies.

That is why, when growing spiritually, one must also take care of the body.

As for Mind, it's simply the active principle of the Spirit, and it resides in the heart, not in the mind.

But all of my words are useless, as I find myself trying to explain something that is best experienced :-)

So, I don't see a problem between the mind and the body. While the Mind activates the Body, the Body functions best when it is honored as a tool of the Mind.

We are therefore both spiritual AND material.

[Jaywalker]

something impossible to conceive, such as the event of an insurmountable force encountering an immovable rock only serves to strengthen the argument for the immateriality of the mind. since mind is capable of recognizing such things as infinity, insurmountability, and immovability in spite of these properties being only logical negations of observable physical properties, then it means that the mind is not constrained by physical limits. this demonstrates the mind's ability to transcend physical cognitive limitations and arrive at ideas all its own without reference to the senses.

While one may understand what it means when you say “infinite” it’s only comprehensible through its definition. The human brain can’t form a full mental picture of the totality of such concepts. (Can you imagine the entirety of an object with infinite dimensions) –as you said the concept is just a negation of concepts that are already understood by the brain.
How would you imagine a fourth spatial dimension or a tenth for that matter?
We may be able to come up with such concepts through mathematics or by playing around with definitions of concepts we already understand but to try to fit them within our understanding of reality is impossible…
…impossible because they are in contradiction with how we view the world through our senses. We can’t view the entirety of an infinite object because our vision (and therefore the visual aspect of our imagination) is limited by our field of view and our sense of perspective.
We can’t form a mental picture of what a fourth spatial dimension would be like because our senses perceive the world in three dimensions. A two dimensional version of us wouldn’t have any idea what up or down is (or left and right) because it would only see things in two dimensions
What is conceivable is always limited to how we perceive the world through our senses. If we try to imagine how a dolphin forms a representation of a three dimensional object in its head through sonar, we’d probably substitute our own understanding of three dimensional imaging coupled with our own ideas on perspective and put the image inside the dolphin’s head or project it to its field of vision. But that is a very anthropocentric approach What if the image weren’t actually visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile in nature how would you imagine that?

the notion that the brain and the mind are two separate entities that merely interact with each other implies a separate creation for both entities. Since the mind wasn’t and isn’t being produced by the brain then it must’ve been produced through another process the brain merely supports its continuity. Since the assumption is that the materiality of the brain cannot give rise to the abstract nature of consciousness then the process that created consciousness in the first place should also be non material in nature…
pardon the expression but I think this explanation begs to be trimmed by occam’s razor

The interactions between the brain’s functions may not seem tangible on the surface but empirical proof is almost entirely on the position that the underlying processes that produce them are.
Empirical evidence strongly suggest that the mind is grounded in the materiality of the brain. If the brain gets damaged so does the mind. if the brain ceases to function the mind ceases to exist as well, if certain chemicals are introduced into the brain they can alter “nontangible” aspects of consciousness such as mood. MRI imaging show consistent patterns in brain activity depending on the task being performed. It’s pretty obvious that the mind can’t exist on its own

If the mind is indeed being produced through physical processes then that would make the argument that nonmaterial interactions occur within the brain, like between emotion and imagination for example, largely baseless since if the mind were produced through physical processes then the brain is the physical representation of consciousness and abstract concepts like the ones given above also have physical representations within the brain. –referring to Ischaramoochie’s example in post#3, material stimuli don’t spontaneously, immaterially give rise to the “spiritual” thing called fear rather, the biochemical web of interactions that collectively form a representation of the material object being perceived by the senses physically cause the biochemical interactions between material elements that collectively give the illusion of fear

I don’t see the validity of the argument that assumes because thoughts are not bound by physical laws/limits, they are non-physical in nature or origin
Thoughts can violate physical laws yes but so can the 3d mug. It can interact with other computer generated 3d objects, be subject to physical laws that are different and independent from those of the real world and be in a space that is illusorily larger than the physical confines of the material entity that produces it. Regarding the limits of conception, I think the fallacy here is comparing the entirety of the brain’s functions with our current technology. A computer program cannot go beyond what it was programmed to do because it obviously cannot modify its own programming. –obviously not the case with the brain

Individually brain cells don’t exhibit even partial signs of consciousness but through organization, a group of elements can transcend the mere sum of their qualities and produce properties that are alien to each of them
Wetness isn’t a “material” entity. It is a property that arises from the aggregation of material elements that may not be wet individually but are wet collectively. (would anyone say) that wetness is not grounded in the material world (spritual) because individually the molecules that constitute it don’t exhibit the same properties?

My preferred theory falls under physicalism. Interactions between material entities may not always be directly tangible but I don’t think there’s any reason to assume that they shouldn’t be explainable by physical laws
One common argument against the materialist’s/physicalist’s position is the continuity of the self) despite changes in the material composition of the brain.
There’s a condition called anasognosia which can make the sufferer’s sense of self fragmentate. They would not recognize their arm or leg as part of their selves. Even more strange is they’d think that those parts were of another person.
It is believed that the condition is caused by a dysfunction in the agency of the brain that processes all the different information it has to work with into a coherent “story”
So it may just be that the concept of a continuous self is an illusion created by the internal story your brain builds up based on experiential memories and memories implanted through other means. So even if nobody has actual memories of being a two year old, we’d recognize our pictures of us when we were at such an age because someone told us that that picture was of us; Even if we lose a couple of hours worth of memory after a beer drinking session we have actual memories of being ourselves before the session; Even if we were to make an exact copy of our consciousness the copy wouldn’t notice any change in perspective -as far as he’s concerned he’s still seeing things from the same first person perspective because he has memories of seeing his past self from the same perspective.

lastly, how are we to account for the apparently physical space where dreams take place? if we assume the first person in the dream to be our conscious selves, then where are our "selves?" should we say that the character which we believe to be us in our dreams is simply an illusion?

If the faculties that give rise to (or interact with) consciousness during waking are the same faculties that give rise to dreams during sleep, what would be the basis of saying that the self we have when we are asleep is different from the self when we are awake?

If the character we play in a dream is different from the character we are when we are awake then that’s just a difference in personality. Are we saying that a change in personality entails a change in the self? besides when we wake up we remember seeing that dream from a first person perspective

Originally Posted by gekokujo

for physicalists, mind does not arise from brain – in fact, mind does not exist at all, since everything a person does is but a deterministic response to what is sensed in the environment; therefore, for physicalists, it is not mind but rather behavior that arises from the brain, the organ of control.

Sorry I don’t understand this how does physicalism or determinism rule out the existence of the mind

[gekokujo]

was trying to describe the behaviorist's pov, J. hope i didn't take too many shortcuts.

hi Amelia.

[coolmantaho]

urgh...

made such a lo-o-o-ong reply (to geko and mooch), and then computer hung as i was uploading...

damn.

damn.

damn......

give me a few more days, or longer... i don't think i'll have much free time after that unsuccessful attempt. (school's starting in a while, have to finish my summer projects before it begin), though i'll try again sometime.

urgh...

[Ischaramoochie]

bumping up...

any more takers?

[Shinobi No Kami]

I think every thought is the product of a chemical reaction or a biological process in the brain. Therefore, the human "mind" is based on the physical human brain and cannot exist on its own. The concept of a "mind" is merely a representaion of the capabilities of the human brain.

P.S.
What exactly does "mind" mean in the first place?

[Jonga]

i have concluded to myself that mind and spirit are different, and a lot of people have mistaken the spirit from the soul

we can say that the soul is the ethereal aspect of a human like how a human thinks or how a human feels.

all living things have soul as well as a body, and i agree that both interacts with each other to attain a goal which is to live and grow.

i wanted to discuss about the spirit, but i believe that i would go OT so to give an idea how i think spirits are, i will take Winston as something with spirit, it is said that it is the spirit of the USA. its not a joke, its like saying the campus spirit or the Ginebra spirit. We can also say that Rizal's spirit rest in his books.

[SamLowry]

Originally Posted by Shinobi No Kami

I think every thought is the product of a chemical reaction or a biological process in the brain. Therefore, the human "mind" is based on the physical human brain and cannot exist on its own. The concept of a "mind" is merely an representaion of the capabilities of the human brain.

P.S.
What exactly does "mind" mean in the first place?

word. I think the evidence (neuroscience) is stacked in favor of materialism.

[Ischaramoochie]

^ or physicalism, more specifically.

[SamLowry]

Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie

^ or physicalism, more specifically.

yeah, physicalism nga pala... Dr. Ramachandran is my new scientific hero and is a lot of fun to watch on youtube.

There goes my plan to experiment with mind altering drugs As a materialist/physicalist, I won't do anything that could damage or alter my brain in any way knowing that all of who I am is the lump of jello between my ears. I want to be as sober as possible tho I would've like to adhere to the "you only live once so try it all" way of thinking.

[Ischaramoochie]

^ not necessarily. if all that who we are is "the lump of jello" between our ears, then replacement of its material would replace the self therein. it may be true that neurons can sometimes last for an entire lifetime, but these neurons themselves have their own parts replaced every now and then. if we were to pin down the mind into raw matter, then we ought to be dead many times over during our lifetime.

i would rather like to think that the mind may arise from the interaction of neurons with each other, based from stimuli coming from sensory input. this would mean that sucessful reproduction of the function of these neurons, albeit by different materials, should also replicate the initial mental process involved.

[Shinobi No Kami]

Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie

^ not necessarily. if all that who we are is "the lump of jello" between our ears, then replacement of its material would replace the self therein. it may be true that neurons can sometimes last for an entire lifetime, but these neurons themselves have their own parts replaced every now and then. if we were to pin down the mind into raw matter, then we ought to be dead many times over during our lifetime.

Every cell in our brain is a replacement of a cell that was previously there and therefore the brain of an adult has no cell in common with his brain several years before. Hence, if the mind is based entirely on the physical brain, our consciousness could not have survived the several gradual transitions in our lifetime. Is that, more or less, what you are saying?

First of all, I'm not really especially knowledgeable about this neuron replacement you are talking about. I am going to assume that you are correct.

A neuron dies and another replaces it. I think the replacement neuron is supposed to be exactly the same as the previous neuron. It will be in the same place and perform the same function. The key point here is: when a neuron dies, does the part associated with the mind/consciousness disappear irrecoverably with it? I think not. One way for this to happen is if every neuron has a backup. When a neuron dies, the previously dormant backup takes over while the new neuron is in the process of growing. The second possibility is if the neuron's neighbors can take over the dying neurons functions while the replacement process is in progress. Personally, I like this second possibility better than the first. An organ as essential and complex as the brain has to be overbuilt. That is, it is far more powerful than it strictly has to be.

Analogy: Google is always online despite the constant removal, addition and replacement of server/router hardware. Despite the replacement of neurons, our consciousness stays "online".

If your brain magically reconfigures in an instant to be exactly like mine, your mind will be gone and replaced with a mind that is identical to mine. However, my mind would be unaffected and there will be no mystical link between my mind and identical mind residing in your brain.

i would rather like to think that the mind may arise from the interaction of neurons with each other, based from stimuli coming from sensory input. this would mean that sucessful reproduction of the function of these neurons, albeit by different materials, should also replicate the initial mental process involved.

The mere physical replication of the brain will not produce an identical mind. The entire history of that brain's interaction with its environment, through its senses, should also be induced into the replica brain in order to produce an identical mind. Is that what you're saying?

I disagree. I think the interaction of the brain with its environment physically (chemical/biologically whatever) alters it. Let's say a clone brain, a perfect copy atom-to-atom, is somehow created. Would it be the same mind as the mind of the original brain? In other words, would it answer an IQ test exactly the same way, have the same memories and take the same amount of time to perform the same mental task? I think so. If there was a difference, I don't think there is any logical explanation to account for it except the mystical.

[SamLowry]

Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie

^ not necessarily. if all that who we are is "the lump of jello" between our ears, then replacement of its material would replace the self therein. it may be true that neurons can sometimes last for an entire lifetime, but these neurons themselves have their own parts replaced every now and then. if we were to pin down the mind into raw matter, then we ought to be dead many times over during our lifetime.

i would rather like to think that the mind may arise from the interaction of neurons with each other, based from stimuli coming from sensory input. this would mean that sucessful reproduction of the function of these neurons, albeit by different materials, should also replicate the initial mental process involved.

I guess I should revise my statement: All that I am is the lump of jello between my ears and the sum of my experiences. atoms in my brain may get replaced but as Shinobi have said, there could be a "placeholder" or back up for the information a replaced neuron is supposed to hold.

There's a little factoid (little supporting info on the net but Richard Dawkins believes it, might have some truth to it... quoting Steve Grand) that all the atoms in our bodies are eventually replaced and we may remember things in our childhood but physically, none of the atoms in "that" child is in us.

This fact doesn't seem to affect my position tho. A deforming scar is still there decades after even if it is already atomically "brand new". I think it's a good analogy for brain/information content. Not sure if it's a fitting analogy cause I made it up.

The analogy used by Dawkins/Steve Grand is that we are waves or whirlpools instead of simply water itself..... and applying it to our topic: replacing a small portion of at a time doesn't change the direction, velocity and shape of the wave that much....

It is a fact (and I can say this with more confidence) that brain injuries/damage can directly affect one's personality. They can now point to a location in the brain where language is located, where self control resides, and where artistic talent is located, etc... and that manipulating these parts can directly affect aspects of one's mind. A brain operation where they had to "split" the brain hemispheres revealed that one side of the brain is atheist and the other religious... interesting stuff, tho forgive me for injecting a religion/atheism tidbit.... can't help it (beyond belief 06/07, Ramachandran talks).

[Aquaman]

Sunday night I had a mind body problem.

I just came from dinner and while on the way home I felt I had to Evac. But I still have a long way to go till I get home--a few blocks.

What I did is I used my mind to control my butt in order to shut down my butthole so I would not have an accident on the street. I really did put it in my mind that I will reach the toilet in time before an evac accident. I dont want to soil by pants. My concentrated efforts paid off. I was able to reach the toilet in time.

[Shinobi No Kami]

^^ *pity laughter*

[hotchillipepper]

Great topic!




Its an optimal illusion, its seems like one side is going in and one side si going out, so which one is true. It’s a p-e-r-c-e-p-t-i-o-n depending on the position of the observer.

==

take note, that organism are conscious, in my understanding, the mind/soul and body are non-dual. But there's more into it.

Bruce Lipton - Biology, Belief and Consciousness (May 14, 2005)

Scientist and lecturer, Dr. Bruce Lipton shared his groundbreaking research in cellular biology and the mechanisms that control life. "We've given genes intelligence," Lipton explained, but genes are merely blueprints and do not determine the fate of an organism. Instead, he suggested genes are potentials that are "continuously reading the environment and adjusting the biology to conform to the perception of that environment."

As proof Lipton cited his own research, which showed a strong link between environment and the development of stem cells. Further, Lipton theorizes that skin cells act as an interface between the organism and its environment. By reading both the outside and inside worlds of an organism, the skin is able to adjust the biology to meet the needs of the environment, he said.

Lipton also discussed cellular consciousness, identity, and how perceptions control our biology -- something called epigenetic control. Lipton believes every cell is a "programmable chip" and that the genes within our cells can be rewritten to restore health and well-being. This means we have the power to heal ourselves by changing the way think about our biology, Lipton concluded.

my emphasis is on this one:

"continuously reading the environment and adjusting the biology to conform to the perception of that environment."


I agree with the software and hardware analogy, one canno't exist without the other. take note that the software didn't started as a software as we know of that it can be separated from the hardware, it evolved from the energy/matter, the evolution of the binary byproduct of 0 and 1. Just like the calculator, the software was built into it, that's how the computer started.

I think, we opt to forget that relationship of mind and body are not the only factor of our existence, its also the interaction within the environment or outside energy/matter. I can understand that how the law of thermodynamics applies with the relationship/interaction in the outermost as a whole, . The best explanations for me about consciouness and body/mind etc is from Dr. Lipton. It all makes sense to me.

[Frank_Macky]

It might help to try to frame this in terms of a very well-understood analog - software and hardware:

1. Computer hardware is material.
2. Software is abstract and non-material.
3. Software and Hardware do interact.

How does this happen? Via electricity. Abstract, language-based software is represented by and ultimately mediates patterns of electricity that flow through and affect the behaviour of hardware.

Why shouldn't something similar apply to the human brain vis-a-vis human thought?

[hotchillipepper]

Sorry, I didn’t address my reply to Hbb’s dualistic approach of hardware/software analogy.

my previous post was address to this.

I always fall back on the hardware-software analogy when thinking about how Mind and Body interact. To function properly, a machine needs both. True, the software can exist independent of the hardware and vice versa, but they would both be useless. The point of interaction that we can see is indeed localized in the hardware (the body), since we are looking for a point of interaction, that is, a 'somewhere' where mind and body interact--a physical location. Software doesnt really exist anywhere. I could destroy the media the software is written on but the software itself isnt destroyed. It doesnt really exist anywhere. The point of interaction between mind and body could actually be someplace else, but we can only detect it in the physical plane.
I dont think the body has an effect on the mind at all. The mind exists independently of the body, but without the body, it is 'nothing.' The software exists independently of the hardware, but without the hardware, it won't run.

it is true that the software that we knew today also evolved/developed, it can be separated from the hardware. But, it was built in to the computer to start with. Even though that it can be separated from the main hardware and its dormant, it must be wired to a phsical plane (disk, memory stick etc.) to function. So, the dualistic approach is not quite acceptable in my opinion.

Or, damaging the body damages the means of interaction between body and mind (which we havent found yet). If the Mind is non-material, then it can't be affected by any damage to the material body.

one physicist wrote a book that soul/spirit can be separated from the body, he does it regularly and some people that he knew, they can actually meet out there. He believes that the soul is also evolving, anyone can have a out of body expercience if they are skillful. In my understanding based on his testimonial, not everyone can separated their soul from their body, only those who are capable of doing so by training their spirit/soul. He sound sincere, but there is no way to test non-materials, so who knows?

[SamLowry]

Originally Posted by hotchillipepper

one physicist wrote a book that soul/spirit can be separated from the body, he does it regularly and some people that he knew, they can actually meet out there. He believes that the soul is also evolving, anyone can have a out of body expercience if they are skillful. In my understanding based on his testimonial, not everyone can separated their soul from their body, only those who are capable of doing so by training their spirit/soul. He sound sincere, but there is no way to test non-materials, so who knows?

Hey Hcp, we may need citation for this... and are his/her papers on this subject peer reviewed? thanks.

[Shinobi No Kami]

The human brain comes up with its own ideas while the algorithms implemented on a computer is generated outside the hardware. It's the software engineers, not the computer hardware that comes up with the algorithms.

Also, there is no interaction between the conceptual algorithm and hardware running the algorithm. When the algorithm is implemented on a computer, the hardware physically changes. The bits on its memory is changed. When the program is run, it simply accesses the series of commands written in its memory.

Going back to the hardware-software analogy, I think the better analogy for the mind is the programs installed on a computer. For example, let's say an addition program and a subtraction program is installed on computer1 while an addition and multiplication program is installed in computer2. The algorithm itself is not the mind equivalent. If that was the case, several people would be sharing one mind just like both computers have the same addition capability. The capabilities of the computer hardware is also not the equivalent of the mind. Even if both computers have the same hardware, the difference in software involved would result in different behavior and capabilities.

The idea of the brain as a conduit between the real world and some sort of astral plane where the "mind" resides is absurd to me. First, I don't think this model is scientific. It is not testable. Second, if neuroscience can explain some brain processes based on electrical activity on the brain, why is there a need to posit the existence of an "astral plane". Occam's razor favors the more straightforward neurological explanation. Lastly, extreme mental abilities (ex. genius) have been directly linked to a brain structure that is different from normal. Physical (surgery or accidents) or chemical (drugs or infection) alteration of the brain results in altered mental behaviour capabilities.

[Frank_Macky]

Software is composed of patterns and concepts. Software by definition is non-material and may be be represented solely in the abstract (e.g. in the mind). They can, however, be manifested (reified if you will) through the electrical configuration of a computer, and in doing so the patterns can end up interacting with physical reality.

Think of how numbers are shadow ideas which nevertheless have some sort of mapping onto physical reality.

The idea of the brain as a conduit between the real world and some sort of astral plane where the "mind" resides is absurd to me. First, I don't think this model is scientific.

The problem is here is because the terms used have inaccurate connotations. It could be an accident or misuse of language that is feeding us misleading ideas.

A "plane" implies location whereas the so-called "astral" plane might be more accurately thought of as a "repository" of archetypes and patterns that get played out over and over again in our material world. Think more of I Ching hexagrams or Tarot card layouts describing situations, patterns and archetypes as opposed to some "otherwordly plane" of existence.

The patterns and archetypes do have their mode of interaction much as is the case with software and these interactions are manifested as changes within "physical reality".

[Shinobi No Kami]

Originally Posted by Frank_Macky

Software is composed of patterns and concepts. Software by definition is non-material and may be be represented solely in the abstract (e.g. in the mind). They can, however, be manifested (reified if you will) through the electrical configuration of a computer, and in doing so the patterns can end up interacting with physical reality.

I do agree that software is non-material. I have a problem with this idea of "interaction" between the abstract and the real. When an abstract concept is implemented by a real object, the very structure of that object is designed to reflect the concept. The object becomes the physical manifestaion of the concept and will require no interaction with the abstract concept.

I'll make an example to illustrate my point. An abacus is an implementation of the principles of arithmetic. Suppose you, along with an abacus, are teleported to an alternate isolated universe where arithmetic is different but the laws of physics are the same. Since the laws of physics are the same, the beads of the abacus would slide in the same manner, the abacus will function exactly the same way as it did on Earth. However, most calculations using this abacus would render the wrong results. The abacus still exists and is perfectly fine but any interaction with "the usual arithmetic of our Universe" is severed because you are in an alternate Universe isolated from ours.

Think of how numbers are shadow ideas which nevertheless have some sort of mapping onto physical reality.

Is this mapping one to one? one to many? etc. How would the idea of an invisible blue ball map into the real world?

Abstract ideas are represented in the mind. However, the mind itself is not an idea. It is a manifestation of the ability to process abstract ideas.

The problem is here is because the terms used have inaccurate connotations. It could be an accident or misuse of language that is feeding us misleading ideas.

A "plane" implies location whereas the so-called "astral" plane might be more accurately thought of as a "repository" of archetypes and patterns that get played out over and over again in our material world. Think more of I Ching hexagrams or Tarot card layouts describing situations, patterns and archetypes as opposed to some "otherwordly plane" of existence.

In other words, all the possible configurations of the universe. In this universe, I am wearing a blue shirt. In another, everything is exactly the same except that I am wearing a red shirt and so on.

The patterns and archetypes do have their mode of interaction much as is the case with software and these interactions is manifested as changes within "physical reality" as well.

Let me posit an alternative interpretation. Let's say I am walking on a street. Upon reaching an intersection, I could turn left or right. Right before I make the turn, I have the potential to turn left or right. The idea of turning left on that street at that period of time (say 1pm) exists. However, if I turn right, the idea of me turning left at that street at 1pm on that day would no longer have a mapping to the real world. Further, let's say that some sort of supreme being makes it so that the idea of me turning left on that street at 1pm on that day cannot occur to any concious being including the supreme being itself. If anyone who saw me make the turn that day is asked what I did when I reached that intersection, all his brain (or any brain for that matter) could muster is "he didn't turn left". The fact that I turned right will still remain even if the concept of turning right no longer exists.

[Frank_Macky]

Originally Posted by Shinobi No Kami

I do agree that software is non-material. I have a problem with this idea of "interaction" between the abstract and the real.

Indeed. "Interaction" is clearly not an appropriate word for what is going on. In fact, I find it hard to come up with the proper word. A "mapping between abstract and concrete" is the best description I can come up with so far, which of course begs the question of how/why such a mapping "works".

If you think about it, there really is no difference between "science" and "magic". It is all about manipulating symbols (or otherwise symbolic manifestations such as bodily movements or things that are supposed to substitutes for other things) that correspond to some aspect of "reality" and through manipulation of those symbols give the power to cause a specific corresponding change in "reality".

When it comes to software, science and "magic" (I'm assuming here that Aleister Crowley and his ilk were not deluding themselves), such "symbolic mapping" represents a particular form of understanding 'abstracted' from the reality-in-itself (whatever that means... mmhmm...) and such understanding comes not in the form of solitary non-interacting "facts" but rather a given structure or set of rules which can now be "operated on" independently of "reality" but still maintain some form of correspondence to that which it was abstracted from (which is precisely what math is....!)

4+4=8 in decimal arithmetic and we find that if interpreted in a particular way, say we take "four" balls and "four" more balls and count the total, then the decimal arithmetic holds and we do get "eight" balls every time.

4+9=1 in modulo 12 arithmetic and we find that if we interpreted in terms of "four" balls added to "nine" balls that modulo 12 arithmetic fails the correspondence test, but that if we were to apply it the hour display on an analog clock the correspondence holds.

It really is as mundane as that, at least to our modern minds... but it is quite likely that primitive man might hold such understanding in mystical awe.

Now, let's see how we can apply this insight of mapping from abstract to concrete to the so-called mind-body dichotomy.... hmm....

[Jonga]

funny how a computer virus that is a software can actually destroy your disk.

[ninoy_2008]

namaste,

kumplikado nga yan mga dudes kung titignan natin sa psysical aspect or sa human nature natin. try nyo kunin sa meditation at sure ko makukuha nyo ang SAGOT.

sakin sagot ko jan. lahat yan connected tulad ng nasabi ng dakilang guro na si Hermes Trimegistus na " AS ABOVE SO BELOW" na nasabi na rin to ni rickym sa umpisa.

sa tingin natin kumplikado pero ang totoo HINDI kasi bawat tao ay may AURA at ang aura na yun ay iba-iba at may bwat level sa bawat level ay meron tayong nag coconect na prang SINULID na nag-coconect sa bawat level of conciousness. malalaman nyo yan kung kayo ay 1 meditator or nag memeditate kayo.

pax profundis,