The Mind and the brain.

[Fairy]

There is only One Mind, and It works by allowing all human beings, individually and collectively, to keep being able to learn and create new/er things.

The human brain, however, works completely differently. It works, exactly, like a computer does. That is; the human brain can only 'put out' what has been 'put into' it.

Which was obviously contrary to the popular belief, when this was being written. But, this is how these things here actually work.

The words “ Mind & Brain “ are concepts known to the ONE aware of the words.

The human being has been doctrinated into labeling the mind & brain with a simple word.

Language has various words to describe a simple word: “Mind” thus causes a stronger, better understanding of what “Mind” is.

In other words, no thing can define words, or everything defines them. In other words: The ONE awareness is not aware it is aware, not until the word “Aware” has been doctrinated into labelling it as the word “Aware”


The One mind, or the One awareness. Can only exist within its own conception of itself within the conceptual dream of separation aka duality.

One cannot know it exists one already is existence. No proof necessary, it’s already self evident.

[Iwannaplato]

But, as for the brain itself, each one can only 'put out' what has been 'fed into' it.

And again this must be metaphorically intended.

Just like how computers work.

Well, you can't feed a computer, not yet anyway.

For example, a human body cannot start speaking "japanese" if only "english" has been 'fed into' it. The brain can only store 'in thought' what information/knowledge has been 'fed into' it, through the senses. So, the 'output' of the brain can only be in correlation with the 'input'. Again, exactly, like how a computer works.

Except the human brain, for example, is getting vast amounts of information via the senses and in general computers do not. Human brains are in dynamic interaction with the endocrine system, for example, which computers are not. The human brain is affected by every movement or any posture, facial expression the body has or is in or makes. It is in dynamic interaction with the entire body, to the extent that the word 'brain' is really just a concept, since what we call the brain is involved with the entire organism at all times in ways that a computer is not, nor does the computer have the equivalent body or functions/actions. Nor is the whole thing social, in the sense that what is experienced from others isn't merely data.

And you still can't put things in brains without harming them. This must be metaphorical.

But, again, without having 'an ability' to keep learning, creating, and achieving 'new/er things', then human beings would not be able to, obviously, continue to keep learning, creating, and achieving new things, all of the time. This ability is in and comes from 'being open', which is what the Mind, Itself, always Truly IS. And, it is only from 'being able' to be fully and Truly open, the human brain is able to 'put together' two of previously gained 'thoughts' so that some thing 'new' could arise.

New things arose in nature when things were combined in new ways long before humans or even animals.

[Age]

I read what you had to say about common English and I generally agree. I hope you'll respond to my request above, given I explained what I meant.

What are the range of processes (if there is a range) that puts things into brains?

What do you mean by 'range of processes'?

If you provide any examples at all, then I can much better answer your question here for you.

Is it just through experiencing: the senses - hearing, seeing, reading, conversing, etc ? Is there something other than experiencing that leads to what brains do?

What brains do is 'grasp' what the body experiences, and stores that 'knowledge/information' as 'thoughts/thinking', which then can be expressed, and shared, with other bodies/brains. One brain could be envisioned as a cog, in One universal or whole system, if one likes.

Brains also 'instruct' 'the body', instinctively, 'to do' what is needed in order to keep 'the body' alive, and living.

Did you have anything else in 'thought', in regards to what 'brains do', which 'you' would like to share with 'us' here??

I can only think of one process, at the moment, but this might change if, and when, you provide some examples of what you are meaning and referring to here and/or explain further what you mean, exactly.

What was the process you thought of, if it wasn't in the response to my previous question.

What and which 'previous question'?

To me, what 'puts' things, information, or knowledge into brains are senses, and the process/es involved in and with those five senses.

(I think you are using a metaphorical meaning for 'put in' and 'put out', rather than a literal one, but please let me know in your explanation, also, if this is correct)

So, you think things are literally put in brains. What things are literally put in brains?

you seem to be replying, directly, to "yourself" here.

But, anyway, to me, 'things', that is; 'information, and/or/ knowledge' is, directly, 'put, or fed, into' 'the brain' from what 'the body' experiences, through any or all of the five senses of the body.

It seems like you are asserting that only the One Mind allows all human beings, individually and collectively, to keep being able to learn and create new/er things.

Just so you become fully aware I am, 'actually', asserting this, and not just 'seemingly' to, along with the other processes which are obviously needed to actually create new/er things, of course. But, the Mind is the fundamental part of the whole process. As will be shown, and 'seen'.

Does this mean you think brains cannot come up with new things?

Yes. In that brains cannot come up with new/er things by themselves, only.

If so, how do you know this?

Because I put it to the test.

Will you describe this test in your next post to me here in this thread?

Yes, think of absolutely any thing, which could have just come-to-light, by just 'the brain', itself, alone.

If absolutely any one, when doing 'this test' can think of absolutely any thing that could have just 'arisen' all by itself, from 'the brain' by itself, alone. Then please inform 'us' of this/them.

Until then, it does not matter how much of a so-called and so-labeled 'genius' any human being is 'classed as', absolutely any new idea that has come 'from them', was done in the process of 'putting two or more 'thoughts' together', which absolutely every one of those 'previous thoughts' had come from a previous 'bodily experience', also, and by the way, and it was through and from 'combining already stored 'thoughts', which again is just previously gained, obtained, and/or stored 'knowledge/information'. There is no brain that by itself, alone, just comes up with 'new ideas'.

Once 'thoughts', themselves, are 'looked into' and 'studied', then what is 'seen' and becomes 'obvious', is that 'thoughts', themselves, is what is actually 'controlling' or 'driving' 'you', human beings, far, far more than the brain, itself, and alone, does.

And, because of how cause and effect works.

Will you describe how cause and effect works

Yes. Every 'thing' created, or caused, is due to the Fact that two previous things interacted. And, whenever two things interact, then some thing is caused, and/or created.

and how this shows the brain cannot create new thing in your next post to me here in this thread?

Yes. The brain is one thing, and one thing, only. It, by itself, cannot just create, nor cause, new thoughts, which is just what 'new ideas' are, which is what is needed to create 'new creations' and/or achieve 'new things'.

It is the combining of past 'stored thoughts' which causes, or creates, 'new thoughts' and/or 'new ideas'.

Could you explain how you see computers working and than using that description, show that the human brain works the same way?

Yes. A computer, essentially, or fundamentally, works by just combining what is 'fed into' it, to produce an 'output'. A computer cannot just provide an 'output' all on its lonesome, if no actual 'input' has been 'put, nor fed, into it'

The brain works very similar to this, if not in the exact same way.

The brain, all on its lonesome, cannot just 'imagine', 'dream up', nor have 'an idea' about flying a ship to the moon, for example, and/nor 'any ideas' about how this could actually be created and achieved.

it is only through the combining of two previous obtained and gained 'thoughts', (information or knowledge), from what the body has previously experienced, through any or all of the five senses, then this is when a, relatively, 'new idea', or 'new thought', can arise, or come-to-light,

Another example, a 'new thought' or 'new idea' about how to make and create, what you people, back when this being written, named and called, 'time travel' happen.

It was only from and through 'previously already obtained and gained thoughts and thinking', that what you would refer to as 'time travel' was then possible to happen, and occur.

There is no brain, all by itself, that could have made 'time travel' possible, nor absolutely anything else that you human beings have created and made possible.

There has always been a 'time' when what is actually happening and occurring once seemed absolutely impossible, as well as was not even 'in thought nor thinking' to begin with.

Only through and from 'the ability to be' Truly OPEN, (to any and every thing), and from an organism, namely; the brain, that is 'able to' gather or grasp 'knowledge/information' from 'bodily experiences and senses', and store that 'information/knowledge', (as 'thought/thinking') , which can then 'be combined' or 'come-together' has all of the things that you human beings have 'dreamed up', 'created', and 'achieved' could have possibly happened.

There is absolutely no other animal nor creature in the whole 'known' Universe that is even close to doing what you human beings are able to do, with the Truly, (always open), Mind, and the ability to 'grasp and store gathered information/knowledge'.

Yes.

And will you do this in the next post to me in this thread?

[/quote]

Hopefully, I have already started doing somewhat for you here?

Also, I think you might have edited this post of yours here, so looking back what I am replying to 'now' might not be in your 'newer version'.

You started this above, but it's not clear to me what your sense of how computers work is?

Okay, and totally understandable.

So, what is your sense of how computers work?

They can only 'put out' what has been 'put into' them.

How does the human brain, which is more complex than any computer and more versatile (has a wider range of functions), is neuroplastic to a degree and in ways so far not paralleled in computers, resulting in greater ability to integrate context in wide variety of ways and other things that computers cannot manage (yet at least), work exactly like a computer?

What makes you even begin to presume and/or believe that the human brain is even 'complex', let alone 'more complex' than other things?

So, you don't think the brain is more complex that other things?

To me, the brain is nothing more than, for a lack of better wording, just a jumble of matter. Just like every other visible thing is, like human bodies, computers, space rockets, and fish are, for example.

you human beings have a tendency to say and call 'things' 'complex' when you do not yet understand and know how they work. But, as soon as you also come-to-know and understand how 'things' work, then, all of a sudden, that 'thing' is not called and labeled 'complex' anymore.

Do you consider anything complex and if so, what?

No. Because I, already, understand and know how they work.

See, once one discovers, or learns, and understands, thus 'knows', how the Universe, Itself, works, then absolutely every visibly seen thing, within the Universe, works in the exact same way.

Discovering, or learning, and understanding, and thus 'knowing' what the Universe, Itself, is fundamentally made up of helped and helps in learning, understanding, and 'knowing' how It works also.

Also, you human beings have been 'trying to' study 'the brain', itself, when all along you would have been much better of studying something else, instead. That is; the 'thoughts', themselves, within 'those human bodies'. But, why this is so will become continually much clearer as 'we' move and progress along here.

Some humans study brains. Some humans study thoughts. Well, perhaps nearly everyone studies thoughts, in a wide variety of ways, most pretty sloppy, some with more focus and care.

Okay.

Oh, when I say Could you do something, I mean not simply are you capable, but please explain it now, if you can.

So, as I have pointed out to you previously, then why not just replace the 'could' word, with the 'will' word?

If I write 'will you do X', the answer can be 'yes' also, your answer is correct if you do this whenever and wherever, perhaps in ten years in another forum.

This is very True, but if you never write 'will you ...', then you 'will' never find out when I 'will', actually, do 'it'.

Also, do you think it really wise to keep making assumptions, especially like the one you are making here?

Considering how these assumptions of your are affecting the way you 'look', 'see', and speak and write, it might a consideration in thinking about getting clarification before you make assumptions.

In fact, if one is taking the question in the same contextless way it seems 'could' was taken, the answer would be merely 'yes' in most situations. Yes, I will do this. (And then unsaid: But you will not necessarily be the target audience for the explanation/answer). For example. This is why more context is brought into these situations by many people. They understand that the person is asking for this in the next post. Especially when this is specifically pointed out, even if you think they should have done it in some more concise way One could write something approaching a contract to try to make it clear exactly what is being asked for or some of the basic human implicit contracts could simply be politely upheld and often are.

Or, if you want to 'know' if someone 'could' do some thing, or, if they 'will' do some thing, then two different words were created for this very reason.

Is this really such a 'big issue', for you, as you are making out here?

This habit of yours was one of the reasons I started finding your posts non-collaborative, stretching out what might be the easiest parts of an interaction into more posts. Here instead of responding to the request that becomes utterly clear at the end of the post - since your response to me about using 'will' shows you understand what I was requesting, you tell me about what I should have done and about common english. I can certainly understand if at this point in our various discussions you wish to not reply to requests that you understand are requests, but 1) you did this before our discussion took the turns it later did and 2) there's no need for the pretense that 'will' somehow avoids what ends up being your obtuseness in practical terms. It wouldn't.

Talk about a prime example of 'stretching out' here.

If you did, then;

1. you would not have had to write a whole extra and unnecessary sentence like you just have here.

2. you would be speaking a 'more truth', in regards to what it is that you Truly wanted and desired here, from the outset.



And, what was always so-called 'common' "english", at any particular time, evolves and changes.

So, what might be so-called "common english" when you were speaking and writing this, in the days when this is being written, is certainly not necessarily "common english" at all, when this will be read, obviously.

But, as a self-proclaimed "english teacher" you would already know that language, itself, is always continually evolving, right?

If yes, then you must also already know that what is, so-called, 'common', in regards to language, 'one day' is not necessarily 'common' the 'next day', correct? Otherwise, you would, still, be 'gay' some days, correct?

Also, and obviously, if you just used the 'will' word, instead of the 'could' word, from the beginning, then this would have removed any and all confusion from the start anyway, and without the completely unnecessary words that you have added on here.

Or, you could have just said and written something like; 'If you could explain ..., then will you?' And/or, 'Could you explain ...? If yes, then will you?

"Creative writers" find ways to write things, without having to keep 'having to explain' "themselves", later on, like you have 'had to' here, just 'now'.

A creative writer such as myself understands that the creative way one can easily avoid the intended request where there is 'could' can be easily matched when someone uses 'will'.

So, to you, you are an "engish teacher" as well as a "creative writer", right?

[phyllo]

As this alone is all that is really necessary I will respond to this one, while responding/answering some of "iwannaplato's" requests/questions at the same time.

Thank you for taking the time and effort to respond.

[Age]

But, as for the brain itself, each one can only 'put out' what has been 'fed into' it.

And again this must be metaphorically intended.

LOL Even when the writer tells you it is not 'metaphorically intended' you will not accept nor believe this.

you 'believe' that it 'must be' 'metaphorically intended' so this is all and only what you can 'see' here.

Just like how computers work.

Well, you can't feed a computer, not yet anyway.

If you say and 'believe' so, then this 'must' also be so, to you, right?

For example, a human body cannot start speaking "japanese" if only "english" has been 'fed into' it. The brain can only store 'in thought' what information/knowledge has been 'fed into' it, through the senses. So, the 'output' of the brain can only be in correlation with the 'input'. Again, exactly, like how a computer works.

Except the human brain, for example, is getting vast amounts of information via the senses and in general computers do not.

So what?

This has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I am talking about in regards to how the brain, itself, works.

The amount of information that is 'getting in' or not has absolutely no bearing at all on what I am talking about and saying here.

Human brains are in dynamic interaction with the endocrine system, for example, which computers are not.

This also does not matter at all. I am talking about how the brain works.

The human brain is affected by every movement or any posture, facial expression the body has or is in or makes.

I 'know'. And, I have already said this above here.

It is in dynamic interaction with the entire body, to the extent that the word 'brain' is really just a concept, since what we call the brain is involved with the entire organism at all times in ways that a computer is not, nor does the computer have the equivalent body or functions/actions.

Once again you appear to have completely and utterly missed, misinterpreted, and misunderstood what I have been saying and writing here.

Nor is the whole thing social, in the sense that what is experienced from others isn't merely data.

And you still can't put things in brains without harming them. This must be metaphorical.

I do not even have a clue as to what you are even talking about and referring to here.

And, I also do not care. As what you are saying and writing here has absolutely nothing to do with what I have been talking about and writing here.

But, again, without having 'an ability' to keep learning, creating, and achieving 'new/er things', then human beings would not be able to, obviously, continue to keep learning, creating, and achieving new things, all of the time. This ability is in and comes from 'being open', which is what the Mind, Itself, always Truly IS. And, it is only from 'being able' to be fully and Truly open, the human brain is able to 'put together' two of previously gained 'thoughts' so that some thing 'new' could arise.

New things arose in nature when things were combined in new ways long before humans or even animals.

Obviously.

Which, by the way, 'fits in', perfectly, with what I have been saying, and writing, here.

[Atla]

But, as for the brain itself, each one can only 'put out' what has been 'fed into' it.

And again this must be metaphorically intended.

I don't think Age can use metaphors just like she can't understand implications and context, it's all literal. Brains are just machines with inputs and outputs. Visibility (by the naked human eye) is a fundamental dividing line. And there is only one mind. All in all a pretty childish metaphysical attempt (err I mean, it's the absolute truth).

[Fairy]

But, as for the brain itself, each one can only 'put out' what has been 'fed into' it.

And again this must be metaphorically intended.

I don't think Age can use metaphors just like she can't understand implications and context, it's all literal. Brains are just machines with inputs and outputs. Visibility (by the naked human eye) is a fundamental dividing line. And there is only one mind. All in all a pretty childish metaphysical attempt.

You “Atla” cannot make that judgment call of what you only think and believe what Age knows, or does not know.

As the many of the One, one can only see through the lens of their own perception. And metaphysics states that all perceptions are appearances of the one absolutely. Ultimately no perception is either right or wrong, except within the dream of separation which is unreality.

[Atla]

And again this must be metaphorically intended.

I don't think Age can use metaphors just like she can't understand implications and context, it's all literal. Brains are just machines with inputs and outputs. Visibility (by the naked human eye) is a fundamental dividing line. And there is only one mind. All in all a pretty childish metaphysical attempt.

You “Atla” cannot make that judgment call of what you only think and believe what Age knows, or does not know.

As the many of the One, one can only see through the lens of their own perception. And metaphysics states that all perceptions are appearances of the one absolutely. Ultimately no perception is either right or wrong, except within the dream of separation which is unreality.

You two are not even talking about the same kind of One.

[Iwannaplato]

But, as for the brain itself, each one can only 'put out' what has been 'fed into' it.

And again this must be metaphorically intended.

I don't think Age can use metaphors just like she can't understand implications and context, it's all literal. Brains are just machines with inputs and outputs. Visibility (by the naked human eye) is a fundamental dividing line. And there is only one mind. All in all a pretty childish metaphysical attempt (err I mean, it's the absolute truth).

Well, we all use metaphors, Age included. Age once chided me for using metaphors in a philosophy forum so when Age started talking about putting things in brains and wasn't talking about neurosurgery or weapons or Musk chips, I just thought I'd remind Age of what I'd3 said to him then about language, dead metaphors and the great use in tropic language (which cannot be avoided). I do think at root Age has a problem with tropic language that Age recognizes is tropic. Not so much with what he doesn't recognize is tropic. And I mean 'has a problem' in both the sense of 'doesn't know how to navigate them' and 'doesn't like them.' Of course, a lot of people don't realize that much of what they take as literal is actually (dead) metaphor - and includes a model of reality based on an analogy (with all the attendant pluses and minuses these things have). But that's what we do. Heck the motor cortex has had to take on language use and then apply it to new realms. Or we with it, I suppose.

Anyway, there seems to be a pragmatic language challenge and difficulties with theory of mind on his part. The latter, given that metaphors and idioms often rely on shared knowledge and the ability to infer meaning from context, underlies some of what Age sees as correct and incorrect use of language and other people just find annoying or worse about Age.

[Iwannaplato]

I see that you are still a child wearing a crown.
Once again you appear to have completely and utterly missed, misinterpreted, and misunderstood what I wrote. I would like to say 'willfully', which is the charitable interpretation, but since you claim not to get angry or have beliefs, I am only left with the less flattering conclusion about why this happens.

But, 'we' do really understand 'you' human beings, already. Although obviously 'you' do not really understand human beings, 'yet', when this is being written.

This kind of attitude and implicit way of relating to others is not new. So, it cannot be product of The Mind.

[Fairy]

You two are not even talking about the same kind of One.

LOL

There is only one talking to itself. One, not two. The many of the One. Many different authors appear, but there is only One reading what no one ever writ.

[Fairy]

I see that you are still a child wearing a crown.

“The Thingking”.

Once again you appear to have completely and utterly missed, misinterpreted, and misunderstood what I wrote.

The presumed division of perception is the projection of a presumed division of oneself as separate.




Always be yourself, the real fairy tale character.

[Iwannaplato]

Once again you appear to have completely and utterly missed, misinterpreted, and misunderstood what I wrote.

The presumed division of perception is the projection of a presumed division of oneself as separate.

I was quoting "age", mirroring some of 'his' 'behavior', so hopefully 'he'll' read 'your' judgment of that sentence.

And this thread, wow, so dualistic, Mind & Brain. Wait, sorry. "The Mind and brain". Dualistic and hierarchical.

[Fairy]

And this thread, wow, so dualistic, Mind & Brain. Wait, sorry. "The Mind and brain". Dualistic and hierarchical.

Don't be sorry. No need, language is dualistic. You should know that already being a known character within the artificial conceptual separation.

You are Non-dual, and there's no such thing as non-dual, because Non-dual is not a thing.

Things are thoughts. Things are the ThingKing!
Fundamentally, the illusion is “I’m here”, that of there being a separate self, a knower, which knows there is, a brain and mind reality, brain and mind things, in the relative, or, relative world.

[Iwannaplato]

And this thread, wow, so dualistic, Mind & Brain. Wait, sorry. "The Mind and brain". Dualistic and hierarchical.

Don't be sorry. No need, language is dualistic. You should know that already being a known character within the artificial conceptual separation.

You are Non-dual, and there's no such thing as non-dual, because Non-dual is not a thing.

Things are thoughts. Things are the ThingKing!
Fundamentally, the illusion is “I’m here”, that of there being a separate self, a knower, which knows there is, a brain and mind reality, brain and mind things, in the relative, or, relative world.

Sorry was wry, but sorry wry or not is just another virtual particle appearing out of the quantum foam only to disappear again perfectly.