My remark was directed at the paragraph about the Robocop analogy, where it seemed to be suggesting that the brain usurps the role of an actual agent. — Wayfarer

Well, what i intended to express there was that the deeper the exogenous stimulation of the brain is, the more integrated and unified the effect felt by the subject. Between the sensory (input) and motor (output) regions lie the neural structures responsible for decision-making, where sensory-motor coordination occurs. This central region of the brain's input/process/output system is where stimulation and manipulation become indistinguishable from self-generated decisions.

Fair enough. I deep subject I agree.

In The Mystery of the Mind (1975), Penfield wrote:

“The mind seems to act independently of the brain in a way that we do not yet understand. ... It is not possible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain" (ref}. — Wayfarer

I'm curious if that is at all related to the brain/gut interactions we are discovering now.

The field of cognitive science, neurobiology and philosophy is complex and vast. I'm never going to catch up on all the reading. My interests at the moment are enactivism (per The Embodied Mind, Varela, Thompson and Rosch) and phenomenology of biology (Thompson and Jonas). Also some of the system science readings. They explore ideas such as that intentionality in a rudimentary sense, and the 'principle of unity' , both characterise organic life, and that there is some correspondence with elements of Aristotelian philosophy (although shouldn't be over-stated.)

Fair enough. I deep subject I agree. — Wayfarer

It most certainly is. :smile:

Interesting. I will admit to not being deeply read on philosophy these days, but is that related to gestalt consciousness?

'Gestalt' would be a term generally associated with these schools - not that it's incompatible, but belongs to a different context.

One of the key books is this one The Embodied Mind

Yes, but my point is that an idea or a thought cannot exist without a material substrate to support and contain it, such as the brain. — punos

I agree that the brain is required for thinking. What I am saying is that thinking cannot be done solely by the brain.

What I am saying is that thinking cannot be done solely by the brain. — MoK

That's interesting, but can you tell me specifically what else is needed apart from the brain in order to think or have thoughts?

First things first, I have to say that thinking is a process in which we work with old ideas and create new ones. Ideas are mental events that are experienced and created by the mind. Ideas are not reducible to something else. When I say "cup", I am referring to an idea we both understand and we can talk about. A meaningful sentence also refers to an idea as well. When it comes to understanding a long writing, we at least need two minds, namely the conscious and subconscious minds. That is true since the conscious mind has very limited memory, so it can only understand a short sentence or a part of a long sentence if we only use our conscious mind. In the same manner, both the conscious and subconscious mind are involved when it comes to writing about complex ideas that are normally long.

I have to say that thinking is a process in which we work with old ideas and create new ones. Ideas are mental events that are experienced and created by the mind. Ideas are not reducible to something else. — MoK

Right, i agree that thinking is a process. If the process stops, thinking stops; if the process starts, thinking starts. Excellent.

Now, would you agree with this line of reasoning? If something can be created, then that same thing can be broken down into the parts that were used to create it, although the thing itself ceases to exist once it has been reduced or decomposed. Furthermore, if you take those same parts and reconstruct the original arrangement and relationships would that not result in the original irreducible thing once again?

To put it another way a car stops being a car when reduced to its parts, and becomes a car again when the parts are put together again. Would you agree?

both the conscious and subconscious mind are involved when it comes to writing about complex ideas that are normally long. — MoK

So, are you saying that the missing requirements for thinking, apart from the brain, are consciousness and subconsciousness?

That's interesting, but can you tell me specifically what else is needed apart from the brain in order to think or have thoughts? — punos

Well, to have a normal modern human's capacity for thinking thoughts, a lot of brains over the course of history have been needed.

Right, i agree that thinking is a process. If the process stops, thinking stops; if the process starts, thinking starts. Excellent.

Now, would you agree with this line of reasoning? If something can be created, then that same thing can be broken down into the parts that were used to create it, although the thing itself ceases to exist once it has been reduced or decomposed. Furthermore, if you take those same parts and reconstruct the original arrangement and relationships would that not result in the original irreducible thing once again?

To put it another way a car stops being a car when reduced to its parts, and becomes a car again when the parts are put together again. Would you agree? — punos

I would like to make a distinction between building and creating. For example, when we build a car, we put the parts together in a way that the whole, car, has specific function. If you put the part the other way, the whole loses its function. The same applies to a meaningful sentence. When we build a meaningful sentence, we arrange the parts such that the sentence has a meaning. A meaningful sentence refers to an idea, though. The conscious mind creates the idea once the last word in the sentence is read. Although you can break a sentence into its parts, you cannot break an idea since it does not have any parts. Once a new idea is created, we have have a common understanding of it, so we can talk about it, give a name to it and build new sentences using it that refer to other new ideas.

So, are you saying that the missing requirements for thinking, apart from the brain, are consciousness and subconsciousness? — punos

The missing parts are the conscious and subconscious minds.

For example, when we build a car, we put the parts together in a way that the whole, car, has specific function. If you put the part the other way, the whole loses its function. The same applies to a meaningful sentence. When we build a meaningful sentence, we arrange the parts such that the sentence has a meaning. A meaningful sentence refers to an idea, though. The conscious mind creates the idea once the last word in the sentence is read. Although you can break a sentence into its parts, you cannot break an idea since it does not have any parts. — MoK

You’re right that when we hear a meaningful sentence, an idea is “created”. For most of us, ideas feel complete and indivisible. Continuing with the same example, if i say “a car”, the idea that forms in your mind is a single, unified concept. You don’t consciously think about the engine, wheels, or chassis as separate components. The mind creates a cohesive, emergent form from the assembled sentence. However, the apparent unity of an idea doesn’t mean it lacks parts. The complexity and quality of an idea is directly proportional to the number of parts and their relationships to each other that an individual recognizes.

An idea may appear indivisible to your conscious mind, yet its underlying parts typically reside beneath the surface in the subconscious. These hidden components, however, can rise into conscious awareness when examined or reflected upon.

Consider the difference between a car mechanic and someone who simply drives a car. An average driver’s idea of a car is a unified whole, composed of only a few high-level parts: the steering wheel, the pedals, and the body. A mechanic’s idea of a car, however, is far more detailed and complex. Their knowledge and experience allow them to break down the “unified idea” into a multitude of additional components and their relationships to each other: the fuel injection system, the differential, the transmission, the sensors, and the control units. The mechanic’s mind has taken the same unified concept and, through a process of deconstruction, revealed its hidden assembly. Because of this his or her idea of a car is imbued with different affordances than the average person's idea of a car, and thus can do more with it than the average person can. This is where the value of an idea comes from. The more parts of an idea one is aware of, the more capacity for creativity one is afforded with that idea.

Questions:
What do you think is responsible for the differences between different ideas? Why isn't every idea the same idea? Do you think an idea can exist on its own without some form of physical representation or scaffolding that holds it together?

The missing parts are the conscious and subconscious minds. — MoK

More questions:
Okay, but are the conscious and subconscious minds separate from the brain, coming from outside the brain to interact with it, or do you think they are generated by the activity of a living brain? Also, what do you think accounts for the difference between the conscious and subconscious minds?

You’re right that when we hear a meaningful sentence, an idea is “created”. For most of us, ideas feel complete and indivisible. — punos

Ideas are irreducible yet distinguishable. Only the mind can experience them since they are mental events.

The mind creates a cohesive, emergent form from the assembled sentence. However, the apparent unity of an idea doesn’t mean it lacks parts. The complexity and quality of an idea is directly proportional to the number of parts and their relationships to each other that an individual recognizes. — punos

I think you are talking about thoughts here rather than ideas. Ideas are simple. Thoughts are complex. A fruitful chain of thought leads to a new idea that explains the thoughts, though.

What do you think is responsible for the differences between different ideas? — punos

Ideas are irreducible, yet they can affect us differently. Ideas are mental events, and they are a subset of a larger set of mental events. All mental events affect us somehow.

Why isn't every idea the same idea? — punos

No.

Do you think an idea can exist on its own without some form of physical representation or scaffolding that holds it together? — punos

To me, experience is the result of the mind perceiving the object. So, minimally, we are dealing with substance dualism. We need at least three sorts of substances; the last substance is matter, in the case of humans. I think there are at least two minds in a human being, too.

Okay, but are the conscious and subconscious minds separate from the brain, coming from outside the brain to interact with it, or do you think they are generated by the activity of a living brain? — punos

The conscious and subconscious minds belong to the category of the mind. They are the same in the sense that they are minds. They do different things, though.