What ways have we tried to divide the mind? And can they operate separately from one another? — TiredThinker

Ancient philosophers like Plotinus saw the mind as a spiritual, i.e., non-material reality.

Reality or existence itself was seen as comprising three basic levels of intelligence: the indescribable "One", the Cosmic Mind (Nous) and the Cosmic Soul (Psyche).

If we compare intelligence with light, then these levels would be as follows:

1. Pure, changeless light in itself = the One

2. The Sun = Cosmic Mind or Universal Intelligence (Nous)

3. The Moon (whose light is a reflection of the light of the Sun) = Cosmic Soul (Psyche).

The human soul (psyche) itself has three basic levels:

1. Intellectual aspect responsible for thought processes.
2. Emotional aspect responsible for feelings and emotions.
3. Sensual aspect responsible for sense perception, imagination and bodily desires.

The core of the human soul, which we may term "spirit", is essentially identical with the Cosmic Mind (Nous) from which it emanates. Essentially, it is self-consciousness or mind that is aware of itself, i.e., mind that has itself as itself as object of experience, whereas the lower aspects of the soul are mind that is aware, and operates at the level, of thoughts, emotions or sense perceptions, respectively.

Although it is described as having different "parts", the soul is one. Its aspects may, to some extent, operate separately from one another but they are largely interdependent and form part of the same one mind.

For example, the sensual aspect registers discrete sensory perceptions and combines them into a mental image. The image is taken up and analyzed by the intellectual aspect, given a name and assessed in terms of its relevance to the self. The emotional part then reacts emotionally to the image and a decision is formed as to the course of action (if any) to be taken. All these mental functions or operations exist within, and are illumined by, the light of spirit or nous.

As (in this perspective) mind or soul is a metaphysical reality, there is no reason why it couldn't exist separately from the physical body.

Interesting. Would you say the awake mind and the asleep mind would be separate from a mind that is separate from the body? Being awake or asleep of course are simply bodily necessities.

Interesting. Would you say the awake mind and the asleep mind would be separate from a mind that is separate from the body? Being awake or asleep of course are simply bodily necessities. — TiredThinker

It depends on how you look at it. I wouldn't call being awake an absolute "bodily necessity". Humans can live in a state of sleep or coma for a very long time.

Presumably, disembodied souls can also experience a state of sleep, or various forms of it such as dream state or deep sleep. After all, we also need mental rest, not only physical rest. But a disembodied soul would certainly be awake at least for some time, just like an embodied one.

And is it unreasonable to consider a mind that exists when the body and brain dies that makes us away or possible past lives and a world beyond this one? A mind that is too quiet in the presents of brain minds? — TiredThinker

It's quite unlikely I think, there's no good reason to believe mind goes on absent certain configurations of matter, like brains.

As for mental distinctions, it's an open question. The distinction we make on the world may or may not "cut up" nature in the proper manner. I think there is good reason to believe that when a physicist postulates an atom, he is correct in also postulating electrons and protons, that is it's a successful separation of nature.

But as for making a natural distinction between mind and matter, that does not seem justified. As for mind itself there's many aspects to it. Intentionality goes from the subject to the world, perception comes from the world to the subject. Both are mind-involving acts, but I don't think postulating intentionality on one side and perception on the other is a real cut in nature, as atoms and electrons are.

Memory involves mind, but need not be necessary in some instances. So that may be a good distinction. On the other hand having no memory at all, not even one that lasts, for example .5 seconds, might make experience impossible.

It is self evident that the mind cannot be divided. One cannot, for instance, attribute half a mind to someone.

Thus, the mind has no parts (for if it had parts it could be divided).

As all material things can be divided, this demonstrates that the mind is not a material thing.

Minds are objects. They have properties. One of them is consciousness. Conscious states are states of mind, just as a shape is a state of a material object.

This is why I am the same person no matter what mental state I am in. It is why I am the same person either side of an interruption in my conscious states.

What ways have we tried to divide the mind? — TiredThinker

Alice had half a mind to tell Bob what she really thought of him. Bob is in two minds about whether to go to the party. As well as being mindful, one can also act mindlessly. One can change their mind and occasionally lose their mind.

This use, as well as being the ordinary idiomatic use, is also found in Aristotle and stands in contrast to the Cartesian use.

Talk of the mind is concerned with the distinctive rational powers of human beings and their exercise.

Once this is clear, it becomes evident that the domain of the idiom of ‘mind’ coincides roughly not with that of the Cartesian mind – the domain of consciousness, but with that of the Aristotelian rational psuche. The Aristotelian psuche is not a kind of entity, and the question of whether the organism and its mind are one thing or two is, according to Aristotle, as absurd as the question of whether the wax and the impression on it are one thing or two. The possessor of a mind is an animal of a certain kind, namely a human being. To have a mind is not to be in possession of a kind of entity. It is rather to possess a distinctive range of powers. — Human Beings – The Mind and the Body: Wittgensteinian-Aristotelian Reflections - Peter M.S. Hacker, 2007

yep.

The Aristotelian psuche is not a kind of entity, and the question of whether the organism and its mind are one thing or two is, according to Aristotle, as absurd as the question of whether the wax and the impression on it are one thing or two. — Human Beings – The Mind and the Body: Wittgensteinian-Aristotelian Reflections - Peter M.S. Hacker, 2007

God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects. — Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching - Terry Eagleton

(First time I've worked out how to include a hyperlink in a quote!)

God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.
— Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching - Terry Eagleton — Wayfarer

That's the spirit!

We all have a self. But A mind?
What is an undivided mind?
Or in what sense a mind is an integrated one?
Is a mind of a supposition because TOM.

What ways have we tried to divide the mind? And can they operate separately from one another? — TiredThinker

It is a human characteristic that we like to divide things. That's analysis. It's what we do. We just can't help ourselves.

Probably the most famous way of dividing the mind comes from Freud - id, ego, superego. His approach is looked down on these days,

Personally, I divide my mind into two parts. 1) Those things I am aware of and 2) those things I am not aware of. I am constantly aware of the results of things that happen in my mind without my attention. Most of the work of our minds is handled without our awareness.

Sartre said there are different versions of yourself out there, each one being the way people see you. I think that you are what others see

I thought ego, superego, and id are referring to one's consciousness and subconsciousness. All of them are parts of ones self. If they were independent minds, one do not have A mind in the beginning.

Whether we aware brain activities or not, the brain is always active spontaneously. If any such activities trigger neural network in the language center, it would appear as stream of consciousness per William James. If not, one behaves as if he or she is an automaton.

Different versions oneself play different roles, But is this a manifestation of more than one mind?

I thought ego, superego, and id are referring to one's consciousness and subconsciousness. All of them are parts of ones self. If they were independent minds, one do not have A mind in the beginning. — ltlee1

I was responding to this:

What ways have we tried to divide the mind? — TiredThinker

Freud's psychoanalytic approach is one such way. I wasn't expressing an opinion on his ideas one way or the other.

If any such activities trigger neural network in the language center, it would appear as stream of consciousness per William James. If not, one behaves as if he or she is an automaton. — ltlee1

This is not my understanding of how it works. This probably is not the place to get into another discussion of consciousness. Those discussions generally don't go anywhere productive.

If the One is the divine nature and Nous his personhood, then our collective spirit is our social life. At least that is idealism and Plotinus. But we are also bodies. So there might be a paradox about ourselves in that we think we are purely individual but as much a part of society as owned by ourselves

Let me say this, the oneness of the self is the result of continuous reconciliation. That is, one compares the sensory inputs of last moment t with sensory inputs of the current moment t+x. The sameness of sensory inputs maintain the oneness of the self.

If one paints a red dot on the forehead of different species of animals, some species would notice the red dot as something new. Some don't.

For human baby, he or she would also to find an explanation to reconcile the different between the current self and the last self. Of course, the simplest way to reconcile is to rub it off. She is the old self again. If the dot persists over time, and if other humans also have the similar red dot. Then she will incorporate the red dot into her self. This is, of course, another kind of reconciliation.

Babies also notice the difference between her point of view and other people's point of view. And they would undergo similar process of reconciliation. When successful, they would incorporate other viewpoints. And from this kind of experience, the theory of mind.

In this sense, I agree with no solipsism. At least, being a successful member of the society requires one to constantly reconcile the difference with other people.
.

Marven Minsky's Society of Minds is decades old.
The new idea is "A Thousand Brains" by Jeff Hawkins. The book is based on Mountcastle's work on cerebral columns Are these kind of works relevant to what is on your mind?

What ways have we tried to divide the mind? And can they operate separately from one another? — TiredThinker

Yes, in my amateur experience you can separate the mind by the stages of brain evolution. So, the reptilian mind that concentrates on safety and resources, the mammalian mind that has more emotional and empathetic functions and then the human mind that acts as an office manager and creates the illusion of a single mind during real time experiences. So, two minds and an executive function that can act in the moment. It translates the needs of the others into a human level of complex planning and attention. But lacks a separate history in the event of separation.

To answer your second question, I don't know that personality could survive death, but if there is a collective mind of the universe; then perhaps you join it in a passive role.

I think that we can think about dividing the mind into parts, such as done by Freud and Jung, but it is important to remember the they are only ways of looking at it. They are conceptual categories and nothing more.

I think that a book title which fits your thread is "The Divided Self, ' by R D Laing which looks at the way people experience splits in their experience on account of the mixed messages in socialisation, especially in the family. The splits can result in breakdowns, so it is likely that we don't want the mind divided up too much on an experiential level, because it is a way towards fragmentation of the self.

There is also the modular theory of mind, that functions can be lateralized to certain areas of the brain. If we cut the bridge of our hemispheres, we may be dealing with two minds. V.S. Ramachandran has a funny story about a split-brain patient whose hemispheres responded oppositionally when asked whether they believed in God. The left hemisphere was atheist and the right was theist, if I remember correctly. In a person with a sustained corpus callosum, the same opposition might be quenched by functional inhibition of one side.

Seems if we push the metaphysics that denies the self, the boundary layer of "our mind" might be as problematic as the boundary layer of a self. A mind requires the totality of what a mind requires, which includes the world external to the mind that comes to fruition through mind.

Yes, in my amateur experience you can separate the mind by the stages of brain evolution. So, the reptilian mind that concentrates on safety and resources, the mammalian mind that has more emotional and empathetic functions and then the human mind that acts as an office manager and creates the illusion of a single mind during real time experiences. So, two minds and an executive function that can act in the moment. It translates the needs of the others into a human level of complex planning and attention. But lacks a separate history in the event of separation. — Cheshire

I think this understanding is outdated. I've been reading, very slowly, "How Emotions Are Made" by Barret. According to her studies, the entire mind takes part in all aspects of mental life. @Possibility is more familiar with her work than I am. Maybe she can add something.

the entire mind takes part in all aspects of mental life. — T Clark

In a healthy adult I think that is certainly the case. When an individual is traumatized though some of the "bridges" become difficult to access and create the experience of being separated. I agree though with your comment.

And is it unreasonable to consider a mind that exists when the body and brain dies — TiredThinker

the body and brain are in the mind.

I had one teacher of martial arts who put it this way:

"We have many ways to compare our different experiences. Methods of learning a new skill don't mean an adequate explanation can be given for it. I try to make those explanations as well as I can. We all do. But accepting that one is a warehouse of many minds without being able to catalog everything lets you concentrate on particular relationships until you are aware of it and respond appropriately. The connection is still there when attention is focused elsewhere. I would like to know how this is possible. But for our present purposes, it is more important to take advantage of the quality."

Mind is continuous as spiraling waves throughout the body.

This idea that the brain is the center of activity is so antiquated. Even biologists, recognize the "enteric mind" in the gut. It's unbelievable that such a notion of a single brain still exists.