From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:24:51 EDT
Subject: Embrained Embranglements



--part1_10c.232c24a8.2bdebde3_boundary
Content-Language: en

Jud:

Platonic dualism is as difficult to remove from one=E2=80=99s indoctrinated=20and
coerced encephalon as it is to scrape shit from a suede shoe, and the
following few paragraphs are probably the most difficult I have ever tried to
write and I find it a struggle =E2=80=A6but here goes. It is basically a rejection of
the Platonic dualism of "mind" as with the rejection of "psyche" or "soul" or
"spirit=E2=80=9D in relation to the embrained body - embodied brain, and a claim that
the continued use of the term: "mind" as a convenient shortcut for the
thinking process of an imagined" "immaterial part of a person=E2=80=9D can be seen by
others as a lazy acceptance of dualism by the "sin" of explanatory omission
or seeming acquiescence.



The old-fashioned and pass=C3=A9 description of the process of thinking and
language as: =E2=80=9CThe Mind=E2=80=9D using a definite article followed by a noun suggests
that the action of encephalitic processing is a thing or disembodiment that
exists. But actions don=E2=80=99t exist, only entities exist, and actions and the
corporeal shape shiftings that result from those actions and events are the
way an embodied brain - embrained body exists. The embrained body-embodied
brain that is carrying out the autogenous self-processing is the material of
the systema nervosum centrale together with its outlying colonies and
provinces of sense detecting cells in the far reaches of its corporeal
empire, not the =E2=80=9Cmind=E2=80=9D for the =E2=80=9Cmind=E2=80=9D is not a thing =E2=80=93 it is what
folk-psychologists refer to when they mean a separate compendium of memory -
the ever-updating results of the =E2=80=9Cworkings=E2=80=9D of the brain.  In this way, as I
see it, that which we call =E2=80=9Cmind=E2=80=9D or "consciousness" or "memory"  - not to
be confused with 'being conscious or 'remembering'' - should really be called
=E2=80=9Cbrain=E2=80=9D or "brainwork," or "brainworking," for the ever-updating results of
brain-working IS the brain and is "stored" in the brain in the sense that the
material of the embodied brain has changed its nature - the brain meat has
changed its existentiality and its actuality - the complex of chemical and
electronic attributes that determines the characteristic autogenic actions
and reactions of its fleshy material.

A calculator does the calculating and we therefore refer to it as a
=E2=80=9Ccalculator=E2=80=9D - we do not say: =E2=80=9CLend me your calculating please."


I am not saying that the meat within the skull undergoes a process
instituted, programmed or moderated by something called the =E2=80=9Cmind=E2=80=9D, and
produces something, which is experienced by and acquired by some secondary =20-
higher - neural level or recollected compendium of prior experiences and
remembrances which is also called the =E2=80=9Cmind.=E2=80=9D or the "memory."

"To undergo" is a verb which describes the experiencing of a mental or
physical state or states, I am saying that the grey matter 'processes
itself,' and the stimulation for such transformations comes from within
itself and of itself, and, like the twinkling lights on a Christmas Tree, is
itself momentarily transformed for an instant, during bursts of networked
connectivity. Nothing is "produced" - the organism simply changes its
existential modality from one nano-second to the next as the sparks bridge
the networked connections. The embrained body-embodied brain transforms
itself ontogenetically - metamorphosing its substance organically; in a
purely biological unfolding of active and reactive organic events, gradually
transubstantiating its meaty fabric chemically and electronically from a
simple to a more complex existential state, reconstituting itself and
mediating with itself self-referentially in relation to itself and the
phenomena of its spatio-temporal environment and the entities and phenomena
with which it shares the world. It is with this description of   this unique
conscious and unconscious self-referential biologic metamorphosising
biochemical mechanism that I describe what I conceive of as THE PROCESS OF
THINKING and its ancillary and complimentary electro-biochemical mechanism of
language.

Take a simple calculator - the kind they give away in some banks. There lies
the tiny calculator in your hand - you key in 2 x 2 and press total. In the
window you see the number 4. The calculator hasn't produced anything at all=20-
it still exists, but in a different mode from the way that it existed when it
had the "0" in its window  - and then the numbers: 2 x 2 - with perhaps a
slight change in its temperature from the heat of your hand.
"But what about the result," you interject, "surely the number 4 is a product
of the calculative process?" Sure it is - but only as far as the human
participant and observer making the calculation is concerned, as for the
calculator  "IT" hasn't produced anything at all - it has just modified its
existential modality - it exists in a different way to the way it existed
before the calculation was made and so did you the minute you looked at the
number 4 and cognised its significance. You too exist in a different way when
you cognise the number 4 than the way you did when you cognised the numbers=202
x 2.  

Now do the sum in your head - this time you are the calculator AND the
calculation - you become conscious of the number 4 - keep repeating it - your
brain is in the existential repeat mode, and your neurons are firing in a
reprise networking sequence - this sequencing is a process, an action
performed by the neurons via the synapsal on/off switching of millions of
networking connections - your brain is networking - but, like the
fairy-lights, it is not a separate "network" that is flickering - it is the
fleshy mush of  your brain with its billions of specialised cells like the
filaments of the bulbs and  the wires of the Christmas lights. The lights
don't "have" a "network" and they don=E2=80=99t' "have" a "separate" twinkling
effect, [in spite of what the salesman says] when the lights are plugged in
and the current switched on - they ARE the twinkling effect - the lights are
existing in the same way that you are neuronally twinkling. That is why the
print on the box proclaims: "TWINKLING FAIRY LIGHTS."

When you think, you exist in the same way that you are thinking. When you are
filling in a crossword puzzle, you exist in the same way that you are filling
in a crossword puzzle.  There is no: "filling in a cross-word puzzle" way of
existing" that can be separated or determined as being any different from the
"filling in a cross-word puzzle=E2=80=9D way of existing that you are existing in
when you are filling in a cross-word puzzle." There is no "twinkling effect"
which can be separated from the wires and bulbs. As each combination of
coloured bulbs is energised the lights exist in that way, when the next
sequence replaces it - the lights exist in a new way. The "product" - the
twinkling effect is only perceived as a product by the human observer and
when he sees it he feels satisfied, for he has paid good bucks for the
effect.



And so I hold that whilst we may be said to be conscious, we do not "have" a
"consciousness" - we may dance, but we do not "have" a dancing, the
calculator may calculate but it doesn't "have" a calculating, the lights may
twinkle but they do not "have" a twinkling, we may be said to think, but we
do not have a =E2=80=9Cthinking=E2=80=9D or a =E2=80=9Cmind.=E2=80=9D Due to our Platonic brainwashing
there is a constant pressure upon us to separate embodied brain - embrained
body and action.

And so our meat thinks and changes its existential format at so many twinkles
per second =E2=80=93 and the outcome...? 





The so-called workings of the =E2=80=9Cmind=E2=80=9D can be seen with x-rays as the
electrical and blood activity of the brain which confirms it as an
=E2=80=9Cactivity=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cprocess=E2=80=9D and not as a =E2=80=9Cthing=E2=80=9D [per Webster=E2=80=99s Dictionary]
which can=E2=80=99t be seen or detected.  I can accept that no two brains have the
same topographical physicality. I read somewhere that brains develop
differently and respond physically in response to what they think - to the
work that the embodied brain imposes upon itself =E2=80=93 what the embodied brain
thinks =E2=80=9Cwith=E2=80=9D itself. [No dualism intended here] and that overworked
sections extend the networks to compensate for the added load. 
Neurophysicians also tell us that damaged parts grow new cells to replace
injured ones.  In this way I would expect infant brains to be somewhat
similar and grow more and more dissimilar as the person gets older.  However
there is probably a large genetical input which influences brain shape and
layout too don=E2=80=99t=E2=80=99 you think?



I am not simply playing with words and pontificating about the significance
of the name  =E2=80=9Cmind=E2=80=9D and being some sort of nit-picking nominalist quibbling
in an old fashioned way about the abstract noun =E2=80=9Cmind=E2=80=9D being employed to
describe what is plainly a process of the brain rather than constituting a
part of the brain.  My point is that =E2=80=9Cmind=E2=80=9D is not some thing as the
noun-word =E2=80=9Cmind=E2=80=9D suggests but a =E2=80=9Cworking-process=E2=80=9D that the transformational
self-processing brain "operates" by dynamically adjusting and accommodating
its original neuronal nature from one moment to the next.

Evidence that folk-psychology apprehends =E2=80=9Cmind=E2=80=9D as a thing rather than a
process of the brain is manifold in language; though there are some telling
give-aways, which show that inherent logic, intrudes [perhaps unconsciously]
into natural language and =E2=80=9Cgives the existential game away=E2=80=9D=20- some examples:



=E2=80=9CI have a mind to tell him what I think.=E2=80=9D {Compare: =E2=80=9CI have a brain to tell
him what I think.=E2=80=9D

=E2=80=9CShe is always on my mind.=E2=80=9D [Compare: =E2=80=9CUpon my soul!=E2=80=9D]

=E2=80=9CI=E2=80=99ll bear that in mind.=E2=80=9D

=E2=80=9CI hope she bears that in mind.=E2=80=9D

=E2=80=9CShe=E2=80=99s got a brain in her head hasn=E2=80=99t she?=E2=80=9D=20[Not: =E2=80=9CShe=E2=80=99s got a mind in her
head hasn=E2=80=99t she?=E2=80=9D

=E2=80=9CShe=E2=80=99s got a mind of her own.=E2=80=9D Not: She=E2=80=99s got a brain of her own.=E2=80=9D

=E2=80=9CShe=E2=80=99s out of her mind.=E2=80=9D Not: She=E2=80=99s out of her brain.=E2=80=9D

=E2=80=9CHe=E2=80=99s got a lesion on the brain and his mind is affected.=E2=80=9D



As you know, the word =E2=80=9Cmind=E2=80=9D means =E2=80=9Cmemory=E2=80=9D=20[O.E. gemynd. Latin. =E2=80=98ment-em=E2=80=99]



=E2=80=9CThat part of man which thinks, feels and wills as contrasted with body=E2=80=9D.

Webster=E2=80=99s Universal Dictionary pp 884.



Apparently the mind is understood as another part or realm when contrasted
with the body.



This is the reason that I resist the temptation to =E2=80=9Cleave well alone,=E2=80=9D and
accept that though we agree that =E2=80=9Cmind=E2=80=9D is physical, saying=20that the "mind"
does not exist does not advance our understanding of the process of thought,
for in abrogating mind I attempt to provide an explanation of the
ontogenetical generation of thought and language.

The myth of  "mind" contained in Webster=E2=80=99s Universal Dictionary's version of
the neurophysiological duality corresponds, reinforces and defines the
folk-psychology's version of =E2=80=9Cmind," and if I skipped over it as the hoi
polloi=E2=80=99s version of the more scientific version [which it certainly=20is not]
then I would feel guilty of participating in the perpetuation of a
neurophysiological chimera.=E2=80=9D



The argument that says that the use of the word =E2=80=9Cmind=E2=80=9D is simply a
convenient term that simple folk-psychologists use in place of the same
process - the process that we philosophers of mind refer to with our much
more technical and sophisticated descriptions, which may be more appealing to
those having worldly knowledge and refinement, and neurophysiological savoir
faire is basically wrong =E2=80=93 for the descriptions, and what is described or
intended, are totally and diametrically opposed.



Traditionally  =E2=80=9Cmind=E2=80=9D is conceived of as a =E2=80=9Cthing,=E2=80=9D and the processes of
the brain are conceived as memorialised transcendental appendages of the
brain, rather than as existential modalities or states of the brain
manifesting the ways that it exists as a material embodied brain- embrained
body.  I am about to embark on a serious study of the neuroscience of the
brain.  I just felt it important to dispose of the concept of =E2=80=9Cmind=E2=80=9D before
I do so, for I believe the concept of some sort of higher domain of =E2=80=9Cmind=E2=80=9D
or =E2=80=9Cmemory=E2=80=9D being cognised as being in some way distinct from the actual
brain material =E2=80=93 separate from it as a =E2=80=9Cproduct=E2=80=9D of=20the meaty machinations
is wrongful and is an obstacle in our understanding of the brain-body, and
that the conscious brain-body, the embodied brain or the embrained body is in
fact the =E2=80=9CI=E2=80=9D and the =E2=80=9Cego,=E2=80=9D and the =E2=80=9Cme,=E2=80=9D and the =E2=80=9Canima,=E2=80=9D and the
=E2=80=9Csoul,=E2=80=9D and the rest of those fleeting and intangible neurophysiological
wraiths that mankind has reached out for throughout the millennia.



Cheers,



Jud.



<A HREF="http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ ">http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/</A>
Jud Evans - ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY.
<A HREF="http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com">http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com</A>

--part1_10c.232c24a8.2bdebde3_boundary

HTML VERSION: